Discussions: 'Literature teaches us that human nature is characterised by hypocrisy.'
Hi everyone! With the engagement on the other discussions in this past week, I thought it would be great to add another one! I also thought I would explain why I'm making these, and why I recommend you do them even if they're not phrased in the same way as your exam board's essays.
How these discussions can help you
With the exams coming up so soon, I think it's important that we talk about why you should be engaging with discussions like this! Here are some of the reasons:
- Revision strategies that are passive like rereading the book and reading AO5 are good and all, but they're not very efficient. When it comes to trying to remember something for an exam, the best thing you can do is use the information. That will help it stick in your head better. These discussions are designed to help you use the information in the texts you study.
- One of the most underappreciated ways to revise is to do essay questions in a style and format you're not used to. For example, doing questions written by a different exam board expands your horizons of the types of questions you could be asked. The past papers are in the past; they're not going to come up again. But the papers of other exam boards? Something similar could come up in yours! Plus, they force you to think about your texts in different ways, which expands your understanding and improves your AO1.
- I make these questions up from scratch, so most of them have never been done before. That means there's much more of a likelihood that they could come up again!
- The discussions I post are phrased like A* AO1 thesis statements. So by you telling me if you agree or disagree with them and why, you're basically setting yourself up to improve your AO1
- You might have noticed that I've been around replying to people's responses to these questions. So you're getting real-time support and advice from a teacher on how you can improve your essays even before you write them! I like to include bits of AO5 here and there as well, so it will help you with that, too!
For me, it also helps me to achieve my goals. I really want to make Shani's Tutoring the best place to get revision from, so the more you engage, the better I can make the experience!
The Prompt
Now, let's get back on to the prompt. For this week, it's:
Literature teaches us that human nature is characterised by hypocrisy.
Questions
Here are some questions to help you analyse this better!
-
Who is hypocritical? Is it everyone? Or are certain groups of people more hypocritical than others?
-
What does it mean for a human nature to be 'characterised' by something?
- That you can't be human if you don't do it?
- That pretty much all humans do it?
- That we should expect humans to do it?
- That it's the thing that separates humans from animals?
-
What do we mean by human nature? Do we mean the way people act, or what Freud would call the 'Id' – the more base, 'primitive' aspects of a person?
-
Hypocrisy in what spheres? Do we see it in the law? In gender dynamics? Racial dynamics? Religion? And do they all suggest the same thing about hypocrisy?
I think The Great Gatsby and Richard II suggest that hypocrisy is widespread in human nature, but I’m not sure they go as far as saying it fully characterises or defines it.
In Gatsby, hypocrisy seems almost inseparable from wealth and social status. E.g. Tom presents himself as authoritative while acting in completely contradictory ways, and Daisy presents herself as innocent while ultimately retreating into the protection of her wealth. Perhaps Fitzgerald is suggesting that in a society built on appearances, hypocrisy becomes normalised and is almost expected. Even Nick, who claims that he reserves all judgements, can’t fully live up to that ideal. So in this sense, the novel does support the idea that human nature is characterised by hypocrisy because everyone participates in it to some degree.
However, I think Gatsby’s character complicates this slightly as he constructs a false identity, but his feelings for Daisy seem consistent and genuine. That feels less like hypocrisy (a knowing contraction), and more like an illusion. So maybe Fitzgerald is suggesting that it is the tension between reality and the versions of ourselves we want to believe in that defines human nature, not so much hypocrisy.
This is similar in Richard II, but in a more political sense. Richard insists on the Divine Right of Kings, but behaves in ways that undermine that authority (e.g. seizing Gaunt’s lands, banishing Mowbray/Bolingbroke), which could definitely be seen as hypocritical. Bolingbroke presents his rebellion as justified and lawful, even though he is ultimately usurping the throne from a divinely appointed king.
But again, I don’t think Shakespeare presents this as the whole of human nature. Richard’s later speeches, especially in prison, feel genuinely introspective rather than performative, which suggests that people are capable of self-awareness as well as hypocrisy.
Overall, I’d say that both texts show that hypocrisy is extremely common, especially in systems of power where appearances matter. But they also suggest that it isn’t a defining part of being human, and it’s instead something that stems from social pressure and ambition, which makes it feel inevitable but not necessarily universal
Ruby F. This is such a good plan for an essay! The thesis statement is definitely nuanced enough and you've pulled apart the question enough to get some really interesting ideas in there!
If I were the examiner, I would tell you to expand to other characters, too! Right now, you're not proving necessarily that hypocrisy is widespread in humans in the text; you're more so proving its widespread in the titular characters! I'd love to see how you could incorporate Nick and also the minor characters in both texts! And if they don't show hypocrisy, you've got some interesting ideas about who is hypocritical and who isn't!
The best answers draw patterns from across the texts for the more obscure characters and moments as well as the big obvious ones!