Personal Identify and Self

Personal Identify and Self In the novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Leo Tolstoy explores the experiences of a person who has to re-evaluate his entire life and his relations with other people.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Personal Identify and Self-Reflection in The Death of Ivan Ilyich specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The protagonist is confronted the fact of his inevitable death, and this awareness prompts him to reflect on his identity as well his value for others. To a great extent, the narrative helps the author to portray the self-discovery of the main character. In particular, Ivan Ilyich cherishes an illusion that he is a successful person who has achieved happiness; however, his terminal illness makes him see his shallowness and lack of empathy which is critical for the happiness of a human being. These are the main questions that should be examined in greater detail. They can be viewed as the central themes examined by Tolstoy in this literary work. It should be noted that at the beginning of the novella, Leo Tolstoy describes people’s reaction to the death of the protagonist. For instance, Ivan Ilyich’s colleagues, who purport to be his friends, think only about their promotion, especially the opportunity to occupy the post held by the protagonist (Tolstoy unpaged). They have no concern for the wellbeing of his relatives. Furthermore, his wife feels relief because she was too tired of Ivan Ilyich’s screams. This is one of the details can attract the attention of the reader.Advertising Looking for essay on literature languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More By examining the behavior of various characters, the author demonstrates that other people were not emotionally attached to the protagonist. This is one of the main arguments that can be made. Later, the author looks directly at the experiences of the main character . He perceives himself as an â€Å"intelligent polished, lively and agreeable man† (Tolstoy unpaged). On the whole, he believes that his life has been quite successful. It seems to him that he has fulfilled his talents. According to the social standards of the nineteenth century, Ivan Ilyich could even be perceived as a role model for others. This is one of the main issues that can be identified. On the whole, Tolstoy shows that up to a certain moment, the main character remains fully satisfied with his himself. Nevertheless, his terminal illness forces him to reassess his worldview. To a great extent, the narrative shows that the protagonist led a very shallow life; in particular, he only â€Å"amused himself pleasantly and decorously† (Tolstoy unpaged). Moreover, the protagonist understands that he never paid attention to the inner qualities of other people. For example, his wife proves to be an ill-tempered person who does not care about the needs of other people. T he main character is astounded by her callousness at the time when he urgently needs her compassion. Similarly, his so-called friends pay little attention to his misfortunes. Overall, these details show how Ivan Ilyich looks at his past behavior as well as values which turn out to be false. This is one of the main details that should be considered.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Personal Identify and Self-Reflection in The Death of Ivan Ilyich specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Moreover, in the course of the story, Ivan Ilyich comes to the conclusion that his life has been artificial because it lacked such an element as empathy for other people. In the past, he did not feel the need for empathy and this is why he underestimated its value. However, he can better appreciate this quality when he notices that people, who surround him, lack this ability to put themselves in the position of others. There are only two excep tions; in particular, one should speak about his servant Gerasim and his son who try to help Ivan Ilyich. In contrast, other people perceive his suffering as an inconvenience. This is one of the details produces an indelible impression on the main character who is firmly convinced that his wellbeing is vital for other people. Leo Tolstoy shows how a single event can prompt a person to look more closely at one’s self-identity. Ivan Ilyich perceives himself as a successful individual who has achieved every possible goal. Nevertheless, he eventually discovers that he has been a shallow person who failed to bring any value into the lives of others. Moreover, many of his beliefs prove to be erroneous, especially the conviction that he was a successful person. This is one of the reasons why he is so afraid of his mortality. So, Ivan Ilyich’s self-reflection makes him look at many things from a different perspective. Overall, the narrative of this novella is a powerful tool f or describing the inner world of the protagonist and his subsequent transformation. The non-linear plot of the story helps Tolstoy to depict the way in which people respond to the death of Ivan Ilyich.Advertising Looking for essay on literature languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Moreover, this approach is important for describing the way in which the main character looks at his self-identity, his achievements, and values. The protagonist is forced to change his worldviews and values because he is put in a situation when his principles do not work. He discovers that compassion is vital for the wellbeing of a person, and this is one of the things that he lacks. Tolstoy, Leo. The Death of Ivan Ilyich. n. d. Web.

The Creation of Britain’s Welfare State

The Creation of Britain’s Welfare State Before World War 2, Britains welfare - such as payments to support the sick - was overwhelmingly provided by private, volunteer institutions. But a change in outlook during the war allowed Britain to construct a Welfare State after the war: a country where the government provided a comprehensive welfare system to support everyone in their time of need. It remains largely in place today. Welfare Before the Twentieth Century In the twentieth century, Britain put into effect the modern Welfare State. However, the history of social welfare in Britain did not begin in this era, as people had spent centuries reforming how to deal with the sick, the poor, the unemployed and other people struggling with poverty. Churches and parishes had emerged from the medieval period with the leading role in caring for the disadvantaged, and Elizabethan poor laws clarified and reinforced the role of the parish. As the industrial revolution transformed Britain - as populations grew, gathered in expanding urban areas, and took up new jobs in ever increasing numbers - so the system to support people also evolved, sometimes with government laws once again clarifying efforts, setting contribution levels and providing care, but frequently thanks to charities and independently run bodies. Despite reformers trying to explain the reality of the situation, easy and mistaken judgments of the disadvantaged continued to be widespread, with poverty often being attributed to idleness or poor behavior rather than socio-economic factors, and there was no over-riding belief that the state should run its own system of universal welfare. People who wanted to help, or needed help, thus had to turn to the volunteer sector. These created a vast voluntary network, with mutual societies and friendly societies providing insurance and support. This has been called a mixed welfare economy, as it was a mixture of state and private initiatives. Some parts of this system included the workhouses, places where people would find work and shelter, but at a level so basic they would be encouraged to seek outside work to better themselves. On the other end of the modern compassion scale, you had bodies set up by professions such as miners, into which they paid insurance and which protected them from accident or illness. 20th Century Welfare Before Beveridge The origins of the modern Welfare State in Britain are often dated to 1906, when Herbert Asquith and the Liberal party gained a landslide victory and entered government. They would go on to introduce welfare reforms, but they did not campaign on a platform of doing so; in fact, they avoided the issue. But soon their politicians were making changes to Britain because there was pressure building to act. Britain was a rich, world leading nation, but if you looked you could easily find people who were not just poor, but actually living below the poverty line. The pressure to act and unify Britain into one mass of secure people and counter the feared division of Britain into two opposed halves (some people felt this had already happened), was summed up by Will Crooks, a Labour MP who said in 1908 Here in a country rich beyond description there are people poor beyond description. The early twentieth century reforms included a means-tested pension, non-contributory, pension for people over seventy (the Old Age Pensions Act), as well as the National Insurance Act of 1911 which provided health insurance. Under this system, the friendly societies and other bodies continued to run the healthcare institutions, but the government organized the payments in and out. Insurance was the key idea behind this, as there was reluctance among the Liberals over raising income taxes to pay for the system. (Its worth noting that German Chancellor Bismarck took a similar insurance over direct tax route in Germany.) The Liberals faced opposition, but Lloyd George managed to persuade the nation. Other reforms followed in the inter-war period, such as the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1925. But these were making changes to the old system, tacking on new parts, and as unemployment and then depression strained the welfare apparatus, people began to look for other, far larger scale, measures, which would ditch the idea of the deserving and undeserving poor completely. The Beveridge Report In 1941, with World War 2 raging and no victory in sight, Churchill still felt able to order a commission to investigate how to rebuild the nation after the war. This included a committee which would span multiple government departments and would investigate the nations welfare systems and recommend improvements. Economist, Liberal politician and employment expert William Beveridge was made the chairman of this commission. Beveridge was an ambitious man, and he came back on December 1st, 1942 with The Beveridge Report (or Social Insurance and Allied Services as it was officially known). His involvement had been so great his fellows had decided to sign it with just his signature. In terms of Britains social fabric, this is arguably the most important document of the twentieth century. Published just after the first major Allied victories, and tapping into this hope, Beveridge made a raft of recommendations for transforming British society and ending want. He wanted cradle to the grave security (while he did not invent this term, it was perfect), and although the ideas were rarely new, more a synthesis, they were published and accepted so widely by an interested British public as to make them an intrinsic part of what the British were fighting for: win the war, reform the nation. Beveridges Welfare State was the first officially proposed, fully integrated system of welfare (although the name was by then a decade old). This reform was to be targeted. Beveridge identified five giants on the road to reconstruction that would have to be beaten: poverty, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. He argued these could be solved with a state-run insurance system, and in contrast to the schemes of previous centuries, a minimum level of life would be established that was not extreme or punishing the sick for not being able to work. The solution was a welfare state with social security, a national health service, free education for all children, council-built and run housing, and full employment. The key idea was that everyone who worked would pay a sum to the government for as long as they worked, and in return would have access to government aid for the unemployed, ill, retired or widowed, and extra payments to aid those pushed to the limit by children. The use of universal insurance removed the means test from the welfare system, a disliked - some may prefer hated - pre-war way of determining who should receive relief. In fact, Beveridge didnt expect government expenditure to rise, because of the insurance payments coming in, and he expected people to still save money and do the best for themselves, very much in the thinking of the British liberal tradition. The individual remained, but the State provided the returns on your insurance. Beveridge envisaged this in a capitalist system: this was not communism. The Modern Welfare State In the dying days of World War 2, Britain voted for a new government, and the campaigning of the Labour government brought them into power (Beveridge wasnt elected.) All the main parties were in favor of the reforms, as Labour had campaigned for them and promoted them as a just reward for the war effort, they commenced, and a series of acts and laws were passed. These included the National Insurance Act in 1945, creating compulsory contributions from employees and relief for unemployment, death, sickness, and retirement; the Family Allowances Act providing payments for large families; the Industrial Injuries Act of 1946 providing a boost for people harmed at work; Aneurin Bevans 1948 National Health Act, which created a universal, free for all social healthcare system; the 1948 National Assistance Act to help all in need. The 1944 Education act covered the teaching of children, more acts provided Council Housing, and reconstruction began to eat into unemployment. The vast network of volunteer welfare services merged into the new government system. As the acts of 1948 are seen as key, this year is often called the start of Britains modern Welfare State. Evolution The Welfare State was not forced; in fact, it was widely welcomed by a nation which had largely demanded it after the war. Once the Welfare State was created it continued to evolve over time, partly due to the changing economic circumstances in Britain, but partly due to the political ideology of the parties which moved in and out of power. The general consensus of the forties, fifties, and sixties began to change in the late seventies, when Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives began a series of reforms regarding the size of the government. They wanted fewer taxes, less spending, and so a change in welfare, but equally were faced with a welfare system that was starting to become unsustainable and top heavy. There were thus cuts and changes and private initiatives began to grow in importance, starting a debate over the role of the state in welfare which continued through to the election of the Tories under David Cameron in 2010, when a Big Society with a return to a mixed welfare e conomy was touted.