Leaving home Essay Example for Free

Leaving home Essay Note: I think u should define the authors definition of obligation and loyalty in the introduction or ur understanding of their definitions in terms of ur thesis cuz sometimes its hard to understand the difference b/w the two..and that shouldnt really happen cuz that is the focus of ur essay Red: corrections (make sure u read the sentence wit read stuff cuz the whole sentence had to change sometimes) Blue: comments Yellow highlight: erase those things (not needed) Leaving home is a difficult choice for any individual to make. A decision of this caliber contains conditions of no obligation, enforced obligation, and obligation in conflict with loyalty. Under these circumstances, a citizens loyalty to his/her country ceases to make sense, which is supported by Shklars article, Obligation, loyalty, exile. Judith Shklar, in her essay has evidently analyzed the argument of obligation, loyalty and exile, in regards to emigration. Though there are many unconditional matters to be questioned, the focus of this essay will be on the in my interest to structure (structure of wat, exile?) and define the chosen reasons for exile argued in Shklars article. In ordinary talk the two words loyalty and obligation are generally used interchangeably as if they were identical, but it is Shklars argument that it is important not only to keep them apart but to go on to make clear the distinctions between obligation, commitment, loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity. (Shklar, 182) This essay will support her argument and show how both obligation and loyalty are both principle elements that force a person to exile. Obligation is defined as rule governed conducts and political obligation specifically refers to laws and law-like demands, made by public agencies. (Shklar, 183) When thinking of obligation, one may connect it with loyalty. Many individuals come to the conclusion that obligation exists where there is loyalty, but another view argued by Shklar argues is that it is more rational to keep them separate. Through her extreme examples of exiles such as limiting case, Shklars arguments are adequate and evident. (I dont think u need this sentence, if u want it there, it needs to be reworded-try to maintain one tense-usually present tense) It is an individual right to feel protected by his or her own country, a right for a sense of belonging, and, most importantly, mainly a the right to be protected. With regards to obligation and exile, it is common practice to one would question the importance of justice. Injustice not only cancels obligations and undermines loyalties, however resilient the latter may seem; it also engenders the conflict between obligation and the effective ties that bind us. (Shklar, 197) Hence, if this statement is true,(dont say this ur trying to prove ur thesis, by saying if, ur argument weakens-ur arguments have to be strong) it is reasonable to conclude that justice arises with the presence of both obligation and loyalty. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain justice due to the rise in swindle, cheating, and lying in government strategy. Betrayal to state and irrational obligation has become another reason why an individual would exile from his or her country. (this sentence doesnt really flow with the essay at this point, but maybe if u reword it, itl work-but seems like its another agrument in itself) Enforcement of law, where forced obligation becomes unbearable, may also lead an individual to exile. The author portrayed this reason of exile through an example of a French army man, Traifis. Traifis was accused of passing secrets to Germans and was convicted and charged accordingly. Through all of this, he still became loyal to obey (wrong word-wat r u trying to say?-protect?) his country, though in reality he was betrayed by his own state. The author finds it difficult to understanding how one could still be loyal to a country without feeling obligated. (this needs to be explained more-the definitions of the 2 cuz its hard to understand the difference at this point, or how they do/dont relate to eachother) His obligation ceased, and he signed up with the army again; this shows that his loyalty is greater than the feeling of obligation. This is a case which Shklar would describe as crazy. (dont need this sentence) It is important to note how Shklar stresses that obligation is a reasoned answer. If one cannot come up with a reasoned answer as to why he or she should obey, then there is no place for obligation to exist. (this is good to put in ur intro to describe the meaning of obligation in the eyes of the authorif not, put it in the beginning of this argument, itll help the reader understand ur argument better) An important point to note is that those who leave home do not necessarily disobey the state, but rather the state has disobeyed them. As ones right to feel safe is taken away, the insecurity drives the citizen away from his or her own land. Shklar uses more specific and extreme cases to strengthen her argument that it is the degree of injustice and cruelty that many ordinary people have been through in the past, and unfortunately many more are victims of same examples today. (u need a more strong concluding sentence and I think u should only uses this lsat point if u give an actual example from the article-if its just a point within her essay, dont say its a specific extreme case-maybe say that she is strong to point out that..) Government conduct is only one of the driving factors of exile, for emotional attachment plays a large part in an individuals actions as well. (this is to tie in the two arguments together, as for the beginning of the sentence, thats wat I understood of the first argument, if its wrong, then change it.jus wanted to give u a idea for a concluding sentence) The emotional attachment to loyalty varies that from obligation. Sklar points out that [t]he emotional character of loyalty also sets it apart from obligation. If obligation is rule driven, loyalty is motivated by the entire personality of an agent. Political loyalty is evoked by nations, ethnic groups, churches, parties, and by doctraines, causes, ideologies, or faiths that form and identify associations. (Shklar, 184). Thus, loyalty is deeply affective and not primarily rational. (Shklar, 184) These are all characters that enhance a persons beliefs and values, and are very essential to ones personality, and, most importantly, affect the persons judgment regarding loyalty. The above mentioned characteristics also give the individual a sense of identity (if this is a quote from the article, it needs to be referenced). As the author argues, political loyalty may survive, but not obligation to obey the law. That is why I assumed that exiles have no obligation to the country that expels them illegally and unconstitutionally, demonstrating how loyalty exceeds obligation. (Shklar, 190) If the state refuses to oblige to citizens responsibility, then in return the citizen is not obligated'(dont use quotes-maybe italisize or bold for affect-only try to use quotes for direct ones, otherwise it gets confusing) to obey its state. The tension of loyalty arises as the terms nationalism, betrayal, fear of its own state, and most importantly exile, are questioned. The physical and emotional abuse of state being the push factor of your exile, makes ones belonging to his/her own country meaningless, and makes the other side (wat is the other side?) seem more prominent. If one is loyal to a country, one may choose to stay, though on the other hand, obligation would not last as long as loyalty. Though it may seem easier to exile (maybe u should use flee the country or something, exile doesnt seem to fit) without feeling obligated to his or her state, but the choice is still difficult to make. When loyalty is questioned, one becomes very pessimistic of his or her own conclusions, as loyalty is a feeling that is not reasoned, but is not irrational. Leaving home is not an easy choice for any individual to make, this point has been now stated several times in this essay and has a stronger meaning than one may think. (I dont think u need this sentence to start of this paragraph) Leaving home can be described by the word exile, which can be defined as: someone who involuntarily leaves the country of which he or she is a citizen. (Shklar, 187). Exile can be caused by poverty, fear, war, betrayal of politics and/or injustice. All these elements in ones mind can be judged by the religion of obligation and loyalty. Suffering the threat of exile can sometimes be worse than a soldier taking off to fight in war. My parents also faced a great obstacle which lead them to face the fear of exile. The life story of my parents that has taken place from country to country, Pakistan to Norway, and Norway to Canada. At a young age, my parents moved from Pakistan to Norway in hope for a bright future. Though they were both loyal to their home country, they felt no obligation to stay and change its unstable political state. My mother joined my father after he had established a business and home, and as years passed they both became good citizens of Norway, and my mother joined the government working for the immigration department. Aside from their own professions, they were both journalists working for their own small community in the city of Oslo. As they worked closer with the state, the feeling of belonging became more uncomfortable. This was a kind of state which did not appreciate your religion and/or culture. Hence, Norway can be described as a very nationalist country. At the age of seven, I was sent to live with my aunt in Pakistan to start school there. It was not the knowledge of math or science that was better, but the knowledge of my religion and culture that was very important to my family. Living in a Caucasian (another word for white) society, my parents were scared that I would not be able to interact with the people that surrounded me due to the difference in our religious and cultural beliefs. As the separation (separation from wat?) was starting to become difficult, my parents were forced to search for another solution. As a child, I cannot recall finding it very difficult to fit it (use another word for fit in-its too casual), but as years passed, I realized the ugly truth of being an outcast, and started noticing little incidents where I was treated different then the rest of the group. My parents had always known this reality, but chose to stay silent, thinking it may be ignored. It became more visible when my teacher started behaving different. I was a good student, and when my participation was greater than the rest of the group, I was simply asked to leave the class. As I left, I left with great pain and humiliation. My parents were well settled with a prosperous business and a good life within our home, though the outside reality of life was very constrained. Though they were fortunate in wealth, they were less fortunate in freedom of expressing their own identity. The struggle to seeking an ethnological society led to a search for a better land, where freedom to be oneself was considered as an important right. This is how I ended up in POL81A at the University of Toronto. My parents packed up everything they had worked hard for over the last twenty-four years and migrated to Canada. Being able to attend Friday prayers at mosque or celebrate Eid with joy or simple things like being able to say I am Muslim, were characteristics that mattered the most for my family. Being able to live in an environment of tolerance, acceptance and multiculturalism is like living in peace after war. It is important to note that my parents always obeyed the state, but they lost their loyalty as they lost their identity. The restricted conditions which forced my family to hide their identity, forced us to exile into a strange country, but in hope for a promised land. Politics has formed its behavior into a universal religion, where its faith depends on loyalty and obligation. Comments: ur last argument was very well written.and made up very well might I add 🙂 neways, I hope my comments help, cuz sometimes I really didnt no how to change some if without really knowing wat the article was about. Good luck!