If you like short quotes, this is not the paragraph for you. Your fingers will be short-circuiting almost to the point of falling off entirely.
Surrender can also offer a way of mocking your enemies, of turning their power against them, as it did for Brecht. Milan Kundera's novel The Joke, based on the author's experiences in a penal camp in Czechoslovakia, tells the story of how the prison guards organized a relay race, guards against prisoners. For the guards this was a chance to show off their physical superiority. The prisoners knew they were expected to lose, so they went out of their way to oblige miming exaggerated exertion while barely moving, running a few yards and collapsing, limping, jogging ever so slowly while the guards raced ahead at full speed. Both by joining the race and by losing it, they had obliged the guards obediently; but their "overobedience" had mocked the event to the point of ruining it. Overobedience surrender was here a way to demonstrate superiority in a reverse manner. Resistance would have engaged the prisoners in the cycle of violence, lowering them to the guards' level. Overobeying the guards, however, made them ridiculous, yet they could not rightly punish the prisoners, who had only done what they asked.
"We're going back in time to the first thanksgiving to get turkeys off the menu, that's right. We're going back in time to the first thanksgiving to get turkeys off the menu,"
Jak, Free Birds (2013)
People in all modern societies use drugs, but today's youth are expertimenting with both legal and illegal drugs, and at an increasingly early age. Some sociologists claim that parents and other members of society often set a bad example. Discuss the causes and some effects of widespread drug use by young people in modern day society. Make any recommendations you feel are necessary to help fight youth drug abuse.
Model Answer:
Youth drug abuse is a serious problem nowadays in many cultures. Not only is illegal drug use on the rise, but children as young as 10 years old are experimenting with alcohol and tobacco. The reasons for this behaviour are unclear, but certain sociologists blame the examples set by their elders.
Parents who drink and smoke to excess are, in effect, telling their children that it is acceptable to abuse their bodies with drugs. Consequently, children may have a similar view towards illegal drugs, even if their parents are against their use. In addition, drug use shown on television and in films can only confuse children who are also taught at school that drug abuse is wrong.
The pressure on young people to perform well at school in order to compete for jobs is a possible cause of the problem. Many believe they cannot live up to their parents' expectations, and feel a sense of hopelessness. Also, the widespread availability of drugs means teenagers are faced with the temptation to experiment. Drugs are used as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the pressures they face in society.
The effects of drug abuse are well known. Many young people's talents are wasted, and addiction to hard drugs can cost a user his or her life. Furthermore, those who drink and drive may be involved in fatal road accidents. The cost to society is great, and enormous amounts of money are spent on convicting drug dealers and on education programmes.
To conclude, I recommend that the only sensible way to solve this problem is to educate young people about the dangers of drug use, and to take steps to reduce the pressure of competition placed upon them.
Some people think that it is important to use leisure time for activities that improve the mind, such as reading and doing word puzzles. Other people feel that it is important to rest the mind during leisure time. What’s your opinion about it?
Model Answer:
It is generally accepted that we all need leisure time to recover from the stresses of work and everyday life.
Personally, I prefer to be active during this time, as I think this suits me better. However, what we do with our leisure time is up to us and no one can say that any particular activity is the best.
Some people relax by watching movies, reading or surfing the internet. People who have physically demanding jobs may choose these types of activities. If you are a nurse or builder, you may feel that you don't want to do a five-kilometre run after work, because you are already physically tired.
Other people do very sedentary jobs. Computer analysts, for example, may spend all day sitting in front of a computer screen. At the end of the working day, they may be keen to stretch their limbs and improve their health by swimming or going to the gym.
Another factor that influences our choice of leisure pursuit is where we work. People who work indoors often prefer outdoor hobbies, whereas for people who work outdoors, the reverse may be true. I am a student myself and this involves a lot of sitting in lectures, so I need to get out into the fresh air afterwards.
In any situation, the important thing is that people need to stay healthy by choosing what is best for them. The only wrong way to spend free time, in my view, is to have a sedentary job and then go home and watch television.
When foreign trade began to threaten. Japanese independence in the mid-nineteenth century, the Japanese debated how to defeat the foreigners. One minister, Hotta Masayoshi, wrote a memorandum in 1857 that influenced Japanese policy for years to come: "I am therefore convinced that our policy should be to conclude friendly alliances, to send ships to foreign countries everywhere and conduct trade, to copy the foreigners where they are at their best and so repair our own shortcomings, to foster our national strength and complete our armaments, and so gradually subject the foreigners to our influence until in the end all the countries of the world know the blessings of perfect tranquillity and our hegemony is acknowledged throughout the globe." This is a brilliant application of the Law: Use surrender to gain access to your enemy. Learn his ways, insinuate yourself with him slowly, outwardly conform to his customs, but inwardly maintain your own culture. Eventually you will emerge victorious, for while he considers you weak and inferior, and take no precautions against you, you are using the time to catch up and surpass him. This soft, permeable form of invasion is often the best, for the enemy has nothing to react against, prepare for, or resist. And had Japan resisted Western influence by force, it might well have suffered a devastating invasion that would have permanently altered its culture.
In 473 B.C., in ancient China, King Goujian of Yue suffered a horrible defeat from the ruler of Wu in the battle of Fujiao. Goujian wanted to flee, but he had an adviser who told him to surrender and to place himself in the service of the ruler of Wu, from which position he could study the man and plot his revenge. Deciding to follow this advice, Goujian gave the ruler all of his riches, and went to work in his conqueror's stables as the lowest servant. For three years he humbled himself before the ruler, who then, finally satisfied of his loyalty, allowed him to return home. Inwardly, however, Goujian had spent those three years gathering information and plotting revenge. When a terrible drought struck Wu, and the kingdom was weakened by inner turmoil, he raised an army, invaded, and won with ease. That is the power behind surrender: It gives you the time and the flexibility to plot a devastating counterblow. Had Goujian run away, he would have lost this chance.
We have seen that it can be better to surrender than to fight; faced with a more powerful opponent and a sure defeat, it is often also better to surrender than to run away. Running away may save you for the time being, but the aggressor will eventually catch up with you. If you surrender instead, you have an opportunity to coil around your enemy and strike with your fangs from close up.
This is the essence of the surrender tactic: Inwardly you stay firm, but outwardly you bend. Deprived of a reason to get angry, your opponents will often be bewildered instead. And they are unlikely to react with more violence, which would demand a reaction from you. Instead you are allowed the time and space to plot the countermoves that will bring them down. In the battle of the intelligent against the brutal and the aggressive, the surrender tactic is the supreme weapon. It does require self-control: Those who genuinely surrender give up their freedom, and may be crushed by the humiliation of their defeat. You have to remember that you only appear to surrender, like the animal that plays dead to save its hide.
I am more inclined to agree with Claire’s emphasis on studying for an advanced degree while continuing to work full-time because, in this way, one would be able to learn more skills and expand their knowledge scope without losing their sensitivity to the industry.
Compared to a full-time student, who might have to live a full academic life more, including reading loads of papers and conducting experiments throughout the day, a person who pursues a higher degree while continuing to work would pay more attention to knowledge and skills that are more applicable and is more competitive in the ever-evolving industry and job market, contributing to a better prospect after their graduation. For example, a person working in a marketing company can learn the most current and advanced marketing techniques. As he learns in school, he can immediately apply the skills to his job, helping him gain an advantage over his competitors. On the other hand, because of his real-world practice, he would learn knowledge more effectively because of his contextual learning. However, if a student does not get real-world experience, he might learn theories only without the opportunity to understand them in context.
Keys To Power
What gets us into trouble in the realm of power is often our own overreaction to the moves of our enemies and rivals. That overreaction creates problems we would have avoided had we been more reasonable. It also has an endless rebound effect, for the enemy then overreacts as well, much as the Athenians did to the Melians. It is always our first instinct to react, to meet aggression with some other kind of aggression. But the next time someone pushes you and you find yourself starting to react, try this: Do not resist or fight back, but yield, turn the other cheek, bend. You will find that this often neutralizes their behavior they expected, even wanted you to react with force and so they are caught off-guard and confounded by your lack of resistance. By yielding, you in fact control the situation, because your surrender is part of a larger plan to lull them into believing they have defeated you.
When the great lord passes, the wise peasant bows deeply and silently farts.
Ethiopian proverb
Keep in mind the following: People trying to make a show of their authority are easily deceived by the surrender tactic. Your outward sign of submission makes them feel important; satisfied that you respect them, they become easier targets for a later counterattack, or for the kind of indirect ridicule used by Brecht. Measuring your power over time, never sacrifice long-term maneuverability for the short-lived glories of martyrdom.
Interpretation
The Hollywood 19's confrontational approach won them a lot of sympathy, and years later they gained a kind of vindication in public opinion. But they were also blacklisted, and lost valuable years of profitable working time. Brecht, on the other hand, expressed his disgust at the committee more indirectly. It was not that he changed his beliefs or compromised his values; instead, during his short testimony, he kept the upper hand by appearing to yield while all the time running circles around the committee with ague responses, outright lies that went unchallenged because they were wrapped in enigmas, and word games. In the end he kept the freedom to continue his revolutionary writing (as opposed to suffering imprisonment or detainment in the United States), even while subtly mocking the committee and its authority with his pseudo-obedience.
After only an hour of questioning, the committee members had had enough. "Thank you very much," said the chairman, "You are a good example to the [other] witnesses." Not only did they free him, they offered to help him if he had any trouble with immigration officials who might detain him for their own reasons. The following day, Brecht left the United States, never to return.
Brecht's English was more than adequate, but he used an interpreter throughout his testimony, a tactic that allowed him to play subtle games with language. When committee members found Communist leanings in lines from English editions of his poems, he would repeat the lines in German for the interpreter, who would then retranslate them; and somehow they would come out innocuous. At one point a committee member read one of Brecht's revolutionary poems out loud in English, and asked him if he had written it. "No," he responded, "I wrote a German poem, which is very different from this." The author's elusive answers baffled the committee members, but his politeness and the way he yielded to their authority made it impossible for them to get angry with him.
Unlike the other witnesses, Brecht answered the question of whether he belonged to the Communist Party: He was not a member, he said, which happened to be the truth. One committee member asked him, "Is it true you have written a number of revolutionary plays?" Brecht had written many plays with overt Communist messages, but he responded, "I Hitler and, of course, they can be considered, therefore, as revolutionary because I, of course, was for the overthrow of that government." This statement went unchallenged.
The committee finally summoned Brecht on October 30. They expected him to do what others among the Hollywood 19 who had testified before him had done: Argue, refuse to answer questions, challenge the committee's right to hold its hearing, even yell and hurl insults. Much to their surprise, however, Brecht was the very picture of congeniality. He wore a suit (something he rarely did), smoked a cigar (he had heard that the committee chairman was a passionate cigar smoker), answered their questions politely, and generally deferred to their authority.
Brecht disagreed. What good was it, he asked, to play the martyr and gain a little public sympathy if in the process they lost the ability to stage their plays and sell their scripts for years to come? He felt certain they were all more intelligent than the members of the committee. Why lower themselves to the level of their opponents by arguing with them? Why not outfox the committee by appearing to surrender to it while subtly mocking it? The Hollywood 19 listened to Brecht politely, but decided to stick to their plan, leaving Brecht to go his own way.
Both Rrap’s cast bronze and welded Speechless (2017) and Dupain’s iconic silver gelatin print Sunbaker (1937) illustrate how context can shift perceptions of what it means to be Australian, revealing the evolving messages across generations. Seeking to capture the male physique through stark contrasts, Dupain uses an achromatic palette and resulting chiaroscuro; whereas Rrap utilises traditional materials in a contemporary manner to symbolise a contest between power and voice, creating a dialogue around agency through the lectern and it’s interactive nature for the audience. Through a low-angle perspective in Sunbaker, the figure's body mass and vitality are accentuated against an almost abstract, sun-soaked background, which unintentionally became iconic in the 70s as a symbol of Australian identity and the nation’s association with leisure. Rrap’s work conversely encourages interactivity, allowing viewers to either lie down and be 'speechless' or take a stand at the lectern to discuss pressing political issues. Unveiling the dynamics of communication this choice contrasts with Dupain’s more static representation of the human form. Contrasting in their methods of engagement, with Dupain presenting a more observational and representational approach and Rrap fostering a participatory experience where her artwork is far more conscious. Together in the presentation context of the ‘Under the Sun’ NSW exhibition, both artists challenge the viewer to consider their relationship with Australian identity and the power of expression.
