[1]The stories in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book are full of symbolism. You can think of just about anything in our modern society and find something in The Jungle Book that could somehow symbolize an idea. As Kipling spent some time in India, it is easy to see that much of the symbolism in The Jungle Book can be applied to the social structure within India (with the caste system, The Untouchables, etc.) and also the international relationships between countries, such as India and England. To interrupt myself here, it is funny and interesting to compare the notion of the Untouchables in two different cultures. I think about the definition of the Untouchables in India and then think about the definition of the Untouchables in the U.S. In India. The lowest of the lowest social classes is the Untouchables and they are called that because anyone who is anyone would not dare to even touch them (as Sophie pionted out in class).
[2]Sometimes, in the United States the Untouchables refers to a group of law enforcement officials who are so "great" and "courageous" that they can't be touched or prosecuted by corruption laws or certain kinds of juries. They are protected by those who are so strong and powerful that no enemies can get close enough to touch them. The below video is an example how this occurs even on the local level. Just when you thought things were getting better. . . .
How many Aggies does it take to subdue a 155lb man?
[3]
Here's how some police "handle business". The officer was not convicted of anything in this case. . . Now that's justice!
[3]
Here's how some police "handle business". The officer was not convicted of anything in this case. . . Now that's justice!
I was surprised at some of the inconsistencies within the various stories of The Jungle Book. For example, in the first three stories that center around Mowgli and in The White Seal the race of men is usually something the animal race regards as inferior, destructive, dangerous and negative. However, in Rikki-Tikki-Tavi the mongoose Rikki shows his concern for the humans by protecting them from the snakes. I was also surprised by the inconinuities regarding the caste system throughout the stories of Mowgli. In Kaa's Hunting all the jungle animals view the the Bandar-log as an inferior and horrible society. We can see a similar connection to Kim in the chapter of Kaa's Hunting, 'They are outcastes.' [4]Even Mowgli eventually views the monkeys as being shameless and lawless and as the lowest of the low in the animal world. In Tiger! Tiger! it is a different situation. Kipling writes, "And Mowgli had not the faintest idea of the difference that caste makes between man and man." [5] In this story, Mowgli does view Shere Khan as being inferior and detestable and eventually takes his revenge on him. I was very puzzled about reading all of this. Why does Mowgli see social classes in the animal kingdom, but not in man?
Maybe it's that Mowgli, although he's a man, grew up in an animal society and therefore is biased and impressionable. Mowgli was just recently thrust into the world of humans. Could it be just a matter of time before he also becomes judgmental and prejudiced in the world of man? Is he too corruptible? Is he noble enough to be an Untouchable when it comes to the Untouchables? Maybe Mowgli hadn't the faintest idea of the caste system because the IDEA hasn't been taught to him yet. Perhaps Kipling meant to be so inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps he was making social, governmental, political, moral, religious commentaries. Perhaps he was not so much judging, though. Maybe by writing a 'harmless' children's story with anthropomorphic characters he was finding a way to vent and express himself while subtly pointing out hypocricies in government, society and his opinion about religion. I think Kipling saw the world as an imperfect place. So rather than overtly chastising it, he found a way to portray the imperfections in his poetry and writing.
The contradictions of Mowgli's views on social classes could be viewed as a commentary on the inconsistencies between the Hindu religion and the Indian caste system. To "most" Hindu's (at least back then) there is not really animal caste system or, at least, not like the humans'. Sure, they think highly of cows. But animals should be treated with respect and humanity. It is bizarre how they treated humans. "Humanity" is a funny word to use, it seems. Hindus show humanity to all animals, yet not necessarily to all humans. Other than cows, one animal group does not trump another. But as far as humans there is the caste system. There are the Untouchables. In Kaa's Hunting, Mowgl shows respecd for the law when he takes responsibility for breaking the law and accepts the consequences. But in Tiger! Tiger! Mowgli shows disregard for the laws of the society and the priest. In Tiger! Tiger! there are scenes that seem to have a parallel within certain practices. When Mowgli returns to the human's village after using their cow and buffalo herds to help kill Shere Khan, the village shows their disapproval of Mowgli by their trying to stone him in order to cast him out--making him an "outcast". Kipling conveys this well: 'It is in my head that, if bullet mean anything, they would cast thee out.'[6]When his biological and adoptive mother Messua tries to stand up for Mowgli for his bravery in revenging himself on the tiger, the mob of villagers, including the priest, assert their views and their power: 'Come back, Messua!' shouted the crowd. 'Come back, or we will stone thee.' [7] Perhaps this is Kipling taking an opportunity to show the views and treatment of women in India. Could this be a commentary on the controversial sometimes practice of women getting stoned or of the practice of suttee... where a widow is thrown or throws herself onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband? Or perhaps Kipling couldn't have helped but be inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps Kipling himself was unsure and confused of what was right in a fast-paced and ever-changing world. In a world of globalism, this seems to be a period in history of great paradox and contradictions...
In a Victorian England of being prim and proper while half a world away they were showing might and force to 'tame' (or exploit) the wilds of the jungle. As Kipling's world shifted from India to England, and to the United States of America, maybe his mental world had trouble shifting as well. Mowgli felt like he didn't belong anywhere with neither the animals nor humans, because both groups casted him out. Perhaps Kipling felt like somewhat of an outcast in his life because he felt that he couldn't fit who he really was into the constrainsts of the societies he traveled to. Even within one story of The Jungle Book there is a strange inconsistency. In the beginning of the Kaa's Hunting, Bagheera is against Baloo's practice of using corporal punishment on Mowgli as a teaching aid. Baloo argues his case, 'Better he should be bruised from head to foot by me who love him than that he should come to harm through ignorance.' [8] But by the end of the story Bagheera shows he is in favor of corporal punishment after all. As is prescribed by the Law of the Jungle Mowgli has 'done mischief, and blows must be dealt now.' [9] Baloo seems to have shifted his earlier views: 'Baloo did not wish to bring Mowgli into any more trouble, but he could not tamper with the Law, so he mumbled: 'Sorrow never stays punishment.' [10] Maybe Bagheera's change of heart can be explained by the context of Mowgli's beatings. When Baloo beat Mowgli it was as a 'teaching aid.' But when Bagheera beat Mowgli, it is seen as punishment for causing mischief and therefore breaking the law. It seems that both animals were trying to teach Mowgli a lesson, but in a completely different way. But who is more effective and morally superior, if anyone? Baloo?
[11]
Baloo initially beats Mowgli to help him learn and memorize, but then realizes his error and feels guilty and responsible for pushing Mowgli into the arms of the monkeys. I also think to myself it could be Bagheera. Bagheera who holds out on beatings until it seems absolutely neccessary for punishment and learning. Maybe Bagheera decides to beat Mowgli because Mowgli was bad and naughty and he made him angry and he wants him to pay. Or is Bagheera just simply trying to follow the Law because that is what he ought to do and to show that he is not like the lawless monkeys? Kipling finishes off this topic by writing, 'One of the beauties of Jungle Law is that punishment settles all scores. There is no nagging afterward.' [12] This seems as if to say that once the punishment is given and the lesson is learned, they move on and they get along once more and hold no hard feelings and assumes they'll learn a lesson. There are always lessons to be learned. They're just not always learned the way others intent to "teach" others lesson--about "the jungle".
Maybe it's that Mowgli, although he's a man, grew up in an animal society and therefore is biased and impressionable. Mowgli was just recently thrust into the world of humans. Could it be just a matter of time before he also becomes judgmental and prejudiced in the world of man? Is he too corruptible? Is he noble enough to be an Untouchable when it comes to the Untouchables? Maybe Mowgli hadn't the faintest idea of the caste system because the IDEA hasn't been taught to him yet. Perhaps Kipling meant to be so inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps he was making social, governmental, political, moral, religious commentaries. Perhaps he was not so much judging, though. Maybe by writing a 'harmless' children's story with anthropomorphic characters he was finding a way to vent and express himself while subtly pointing out hypocricies in government, society and his opinion about religion. I think Kipling saw the world as an imperfect place. So rather than overtly chastising it, he found a way to portray the imperfections in his poetry and writing.
The contradictions of Mowgli's views on social classes could be viewed as a commentary on the inconsistencies between the Hindu religion and the Indian caste system. To "most" Hindu's (at least back then) there is not really animal caste system or, at least, not like the humans'. Sure, they think highly of cows. But animals should be treated with respect and humanity. It is bizarre how they treated humans. "Humanity" is a funny word to use, it seems. Hindus show humanity to all animals, yet not necessarily to all humans. Other than cows, one animal group does not trump another. But as far as humans there is the caste system. There are the Untouchables. In Kaa's Hunting, Mowgl shows respecd for the law when he takes responsibility for breaking the law and accepts the consequences. But in Tiger! Tiger! Mowgli shows disregard for the laws of the society and the priest. In Tiger! Tiger! there are scenes that seem to have a parallel within certain practices. When Mowgli returns to the human's village after using their cow and buffalo herds to help kill Shere Khan, the village shows their disapproval of Mowgli by their trying to stone him in order to cast him out--making him an "outcast". Kipling conveys this well: 'It is in my head that, if bullet mean anything, they would cast thee out.'[6]When his biological and adoptive mother Messua tries to stand up for Mowgli for his bravery in revenging himself on the tiger, the mob of villagers, including the priest, assert their views and their power: 'Come back, Messua!' shouted the crowd. 'Come back, or we will stone thee.' [7] Perhaps this is Kipling taking an opportunity to show the views and treatment of women in India. Could this be a commentary on the controversial sometimes practice of women getting stoned or of the practice of suttee... where a widow is thrown or throws herself onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband? Or perhaps Kipling couldn't have helped but be inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps Kipling himself was unsure and confused of what was right in a fast-paced and ever-changing world. In a world of globalism, this seems to be a period in history of great paradox and contradictions...
In a Victorian England of being prim and proper while half a world away they were showing might and force to 'tame' (or exploit) the wilds of the jungle. As Kipling's world shifted from India to England, and to the United States of America, maybe his mental world had trouble shifting as well. Mowgli felt like he didn't belong anywhere with neither the animals nor humans, because both groups casted him out. Perhaps Kipling felt like somewhat of an outcast in his life because he felt that he couldn't fit who he really was into the constrainsts of the societies he traveled to. Even within one story of The Jungle Book there is a strange inconsistency. In the beginning of the Kaa's Hunting, Bagheera is against Baloo's practice of using corporal punishment on Mowgli as a teaching aid. Baloo argues his case, 'Better he should be bruised from head to foot by me who love him than that he should come to harm through ignorance.' [8] But by the end of the story Bagheera shows he is in favor of corporal punishment after all. As is prescribed by the Law of the Jungle Mowgli has 'done mischief, and blows must be dealt now.' [9] Baloo seems to have shifted his earlier views: 'Baloo did not wish to bring Mowgli into any more trouble, but he could not tamper with the Law, so he mumbled: 'Sorrow never stays punishment.' [10] Maybe Bagheera's change of heart can be explained by the context of Mowgli's beatings. When Baloo beat Mowgli it was as a 'teaching aid.' But when Bagheera beat Mowgli, it is seen as punishment for causing mischief and therefore breaking the law. It seems that both animals were trying to teach Mowgli a lesson, but in a completely different way. But who is more effective and morally superior, if anyone? Baloo?
[11]Baloo initially beats Mowgli to help him learn and memorize, but then realizes his error and feels guilty and responsible for pushing Mowgli into the arms of the monkeys. I also think to myself it could be Bagheera. Bagheera who holds out on beatings until it seems absolutely neccessary for punishment and learning. Maybe Bagheera decides to beat Mowgli because Mowgli was bad and naughty and he made him angry and he wants him to pay. Or is Bagheera just simply trying to follow the Law because that is what he ought to do and to show that he is not like the lawless monkeys? Kipling finishes off this topic by writing, 'One of the beauties of Jungle Law is that punishment settles all scores. There is no nagging afterward.' [12] This seems as if to say that once the punishment is given and the lesson is learned, they move on and they get along once more and hold no hard feelings and assumes they'll learn a lesson. There are always lessons to be learned. They're just not always learned the way others intent to "teach" others lesson--about "the jungle".
[1]http://www.comicsintheclassroom.ca/images/mijungle.jpg
[2] http://www.ncdhr.org.in/%20Images/castoutcaste.bmp
[3]40 Kipling Rudyard, The Jungle Book (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Ed. LTD), 40
[4]70 The Jungle Book, 70
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQDuDoksZJU
[6]84 The Jungle Book, 84
[7]85 The Jungle Book, 85
[8]37 The Jungle Book 37
[9]61 The Jungle Book 61
[10]]61 The Jungle Book 61
[11]http://www.dacbsa.org/virtual-patches/gr-Cubs/BALOO.jpg
[12]62 The Jungle Book 62
No comments:
Post a Comment