Conflicting Perspective Essay

The notion of conflicting perspective explores distinctive interpretations of various personalities

presented through events and situations. Such notion is conveyed by various composers through the
representation of objective reality and subjective opinions of various individuals in order to provoke
varying interpretation of an event or personality. Shakespearean tragic play Julius Caesar conveys
conflicting political and societal perspectives within Roman society. In contrast Paul Keatings Redfern
park speech is aimed to achieve reconciliation between Aborigines and white Australians conflicting
interpersonal perspective and cultural realities. Whereas Gideon Boas and Pascal Chifleys Chifflets
feature article The order of execution was illegal calls for conflicting moral obligation for Osamas
assassination. Even after having different objectives these texts are linked through their myriad
representation of conflicting perspective in the realm of societal, political, personal and interpersonal
conflicts.
Shakespearean Julius Caesar explores myriad conflicting representation of various personalities through
subjective opinions of characters which promote varied interpretations of various individuals in the
audience. Such is evident with Brutus representation. The dialogue between Brutus and Cassius
establishes his virtuous and honourable through Cassius symbolic reference, Many of the best
respects in Rome had wished.noble Brutus had his eyes. However this virtuous hero is represented
to be intellectually impractical and gullible underscored through his personal and political conflict
expressed by his interior monologue. Brutus for his love for Caesar affirms I know no personal cause to
spurn at him but for societal good agrees, It must by his deathIt is the bright day that brings forth
the adder using melodramatic metaphoric expressions. By communicating contrasting representation
of Brutus by Shakespeare successfully leads audience to personal conflict in order to scrutinise true
character of the Brutus The continuous use of melodramatic dramatic expressions and metaphorical
language engages audience with various conflicting perspective conveyed.
Paul Keatings Redfern park speech similarly portrays varied representation of personalities with use of
rhetoric devices in order to reconcile contrasting aboriginal and white Australian personalities. Keating
represents rich Aboriginal culture with use of positive connotations, the oldest culture in the world to
create personal conflict in the white Australian audience who had marked it as, worthless. Further
Keating uses reference to Aborigines contribution, They are there in the sport in order to
disenfranchise white Australians lack of confidence in Aborigines. Gideon Boas and Pascal Chifleys
Chifflets feature article The order of execution was illegal also represents various personality in order
to convey the moral message regarding his assassination. Rhetorical question is asked, If bin Laden
could have been captured, should he not have been tried in a properly constituted court of law? to
identify the possible legally and morally right pathway towards Osamas killing. The importance of such
legal act has been reinforced through presenting conflicting difference between Osama and the
believers in justice, But is that not precisely what separates ''us'' from ''them''?. Both Keatings
speech and the article represent contrasting personal identities to invoke subjective response within
audience in order to convey notion of conflicting perspective evocatively.

In Julius Caesar various situations such as Caesars funeral oration portray conflicting perceptions on
events and personalities in order to promote conflicting views in characters and audience. Brutus uses
hyperbole, Would you rather Caesar living or die all slaves and emotive language, Not that I loved
Caesar less but I loved Rome more to express Caesars ambitious character which successfully renders
him mobs sympathy outlined through their unified shout, live! Brutus! live, live. Antony in contrast
questions Brutus view of Caesar through emotive tone, When poor hath cried, Caesar hath wept
along with use of evidence, I thrice presented him the kingly crown which he refused thrice. He
reiterates, Brutus is honourable man but ironically leads the mob against Brutus by posing rhetorical
questions regarding Caesar, Was this ambition?. He successfully creates societal conflict making
plebeians shout with melodramatic expressions, Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill slay!. This
shift in perception of plebeians clearly outlines how interpersonal conflict between Antony and Brutus
successfully promote societal conflict. Also Shakespeare also leads audience to scrutinise Brutus and
Antonys character. Shakespeare presents this whole incidence with extensive melodramatic language
and fragments speeches which creates sense of urgency and engages audience to the conflicting
perspective being conveyed.

Paul Keating represent contemporary Australian situation regarding lack of cultural and social
reconciliation between Aboriginal and White Australians. These conflicting cultural identities are
combined by Keating through the use of inclusive language, It is test our knowledge and free will
which asks to construct Australia as, a land of fair go and better chance. This reference to patriotic
values discards societal conflicting perspectives among Aborigines and white Australians. Further
Keating employs imperative and emotive language We cannot give Aboriginal Australians up without
giving many of our deeply held values to promote a link of empathy derived values among socially
distinctive identities. The feature article The order of execution was illegal represents the situation of
Osamas assassination as being illegally performed. The use of political reference, targeted killing of
Gaddafi is not envisaged or encapsulated in resolution 1973 presents politically conflicting situations.
The conflicting illegal aspect of the situation is shown dangerous by evoking fear through
foreshadowing, who might be the target of such extrajudicial killings if the balance of the world's
power lay with other emerging and powerful nations. Further emotive language along with visual
imagery, allow the world to watch the terrorist mastermind rant, rave and ultimately wilt before live
court cameras reinforcing the advantage of legal proceedings. Both Keatings speech and article
presents conflicting representation of the situation in order to influence audiences personal response
to these situations.

All three texts portrays myriad representation of personalities, situations and events in order to present
an objective reality along with subjective opinions to influence subjective interpretation of these
personalities, events and situations. Even after having different objective these are connected to their
presentation of myriad conflicts in the realm of societal, political, interpersonal and personal conflicts.

Comments:
-

Some bit too long sentences

Discussion of keating in reference to 1st theme is limited. You have not sufficiently
explored cp through various rhetorical devices employed by keating, rather simply
cited two example. Similarly you have only refered to one-two textual features of the
feature article.

Thematic concerns one and two intersect or correlate, so you must find a way to
adroitly differentiate between them

Thematic concern 2 seems limited, as you have only explore the funeral oration (you
must express or impart a holistic understanding of the text)

Thematic concern 2: instead stating political reference you can use political jargon
or legal jargon

Conclusion: objective reality, subjective opinions does not make sense. Reality is
objective, and opinions are inherently subjective. Thus it seems redundant.

Subjective interpretations: interpretations are varied differ from one individual to

another, so it is arduous to discern whether or not these interpretations are
subjective. You should predominantly comment on authors pressuring audiences to
concede with their perspectives which influences truth and opinions which enforces
truths as opinions.