In the second section of Frankenstein by Mary Shelly, Victor Frankenstein succumbs to an overwhelming darkness in his psyche after his brother William is killed by his creation. He is distraught not only because of his responsibility to creating the Monster, but the fact that he cannot clear the name of Justine Moritz, the girl who was a ward of the Frankenstein family and executed wrongly for the murder of William Frankenstein. Alphonse Frankenstein, Victor’s father, attempts to clear the minds of his family from their recent terrors and takes them to Belrive, Switzerland as a distraction. Victor experiences a bout of happiness surrounded by nature and free of trouble, taking a boat and traveling across Lake Geneva often to relax. One day on one of his expeditions, this time to the Summit of Montanvert, Victor runs into the Monster again. They argue for a while, with Victor threatening violence. Eventually he relents to the Monster’s requests and follows him into a cave where the Monster recounts his life.

The Monster explains to Victor the hardships of his short life, and how he taught himself to understand the world. The Monster talked about how he first encountered fire, the first time he viewed himself, and his encounters with humans. He quickly came to understand beauty, and fear when he encountered humans. He also learned language, and kindness from a poor family he watched from afar. Eventually he gathered the courage to speak to one of the residents of the poor household, De Lacey, who is blind and would not be able to view his horrific features. Unfortunately the other members of the household returned and drove him off with disgust, leaving the Monster alone without a familiar again. The Monster’s thirst for companionship drives him mad with rage against his creator who left him to ruin. The Monster talks about how he found the Frankenstein residence and killed William while blaming Justine for the murder.

After this recounting of events, the Monster requests that Victor creates a companion for him. Victor vehemently refuses, horrified at the thought of bringing another Monster into the world when the first one killed two people so close to him. The Monster is persuasive however, and makes promises to travel to an uninhabited place and live there with his companion for the rest of his life, never bothering Frankenstein again. Eventually realizing that he has no way of controlling the monster, Victor gives in to his demands and agrees to create a companion for the Monster.

A theme that has intrigued me in this story has been education and knowledge decreasing the quality of life of characters. Victor Frankenstein pursues the knowledge to create life from the dead, and manages his goal. Unfortunately for him, the knowledge does not improve his reputation or acclaim, but backfires and ruins his life and harming those he loves. The Monster, in the second section of the book, gathers knowledge of the world around him, and its people. But as he does this, he comes to realize how isolated he is as a freak of nature. The knowledge he gains depresses him, and eats away at his mind driving him to murder for revenge. This knowledge warps his mind and thoughts, instead of improving his life. The books he reads on human culture and nature do not draw him closer to companionship with humans, but rather pushes him farther away the more he learns.

When I went to the lecture by Steven Strogatz on synchronization in nature, I was not sure what to expect. What does he mean by synchronization in nature and the world by mathematics? Would I even be able to understand the topic and discussion? I did not have to worry because Strogatz was incredibly easy to understand and broke his studies down into easy to understand chunks. Synchronization in nature is natural and like Darwin’s theory of the balance of species in nature, every input has an output to maintain a balance.

Darwin and Strogatz both provided examples for their balance in nature. Darwin cited population control techniques so as to prevent certain species from growing past a certain limit. One example he gave was deer, and their rapid breeding if left unattended by predators. Once the deer have consumed all of their food supply because of their rapid population explosion, many will die. This leaves only a certain number of deer who are able to adapt and survive while trimming the population and bringing the ecosystem back into synchronization. Strogatz talked about fireflys and their ability to flash their “lights” in synchronization with no indicator. He spoke about a possible biological chemical or transmitter that controls their pattern of flashing lights. Strogatz also spoke about how women’s menstrual cycles were altered to fall in sync of the pheromones of a women that she had never met. This gave the scientists the hint that there is possibly a signal in our biology that controls synchronization of our bodies and other species bodies unconsciously. This again leads into the theory of natural order and control of nature.

The lecture was a great opportunity provided by the school to tie in lessons learned in the classroom to real world experiences and research. By going to this lecture I was able to advance my understanding of Darwin while enriching my college experience by learning form such an esteemed professor.    

I sat down with Professor Commins my Professor for my class Middle East Up to 1750, and discussed why he chose to become a professor, history major, and historian. He was quite happy to welcome me into his office and give an insight into why and how he got to where he is today.

Professor Commins discussed is process of becoming a history major, and why he decided to become one. Going into college he was skilled at english and history, which made it easy for him to zero in on a major. When a course that he wanted to take was restricted to history majors, he declared history as his major. Unfortunately he did not get the class even after declaring as a history major! But since he still enjoyed history, he kept on the course and graduated with a bachelors in history, and after moving onto grad school.

Professor Commins explored grad school twice, before finally completing his masters. Like many, he went to work for a few years after his first stint in grad school before then finally going back to school to complete his degree. He focused in Middle Eastern and Asian history because of the emphasis in his early years on US and European history, wishing for a change. His time in grad school set him on the course to being a historian, and through fate, he became a professor and historian at Dickinson College.

Certain classes are not only fun to teach, but also exciting as a professor. Professor Commins discussed his favorite classes to teach, which include discussion based classes where every student is talking and interacting. It doesn’t matter the class size, but rather the chemistry of the students and the professor, going from topic to topic with no defined course. Instead he prefers a natural style of learning which might not always be more straightforward, but it is ten times more impactful and will resonate with the students.

I enjoyed talking to professor Commins about his journey through school, and his teaching style. I learned to not worry about the my destination in college, but rather take the road most enjoyable for me.   

Max Burrows

Scope: I want to observe how nationalism is used to affect international relations between Russia and the United States post World War II. Nationalism is ingrained in every culture, regardless of location. It is the pride in people about their country, or culture created around it. Examining the way nationalism affects the foreign policies of countries such as the United States and Russia is one area of focus of this study. The other being the repercussions both the US and Russia face when creating an international policy based on nationalism. I will be examining a variety of books and journal articles an US, and Russian foreign policy in relation to each other and the struggle for power and “dominance” over the other. This will help solidify my topic while defining the important factors of my topic of study.

Value: Nationalism has existed since the formation of nations, with the United States and Russia being two of the major superpowers. Living in the age of information, it is vital to identify potential dangers of nationalism and ask questions. Can nationalism spark conflict between countries or cultures? How does nationalism affect the decisions of the countries leaders? Do governments utilize nationalism for independent gain? Observing nationalism through the lens of international relations grants a new perspective on why this issue is so interesting. 

Originality: Nationalism in the United States and Russia has been a power struggle since the end of World War II. The Journal article WHEN EMPIRE MEETS NATIONALISM. POWER POLITICS IN THE US AND RUSSIA describes the nationalist groups that shape the foreign policy of Russia and the United states. The article examines the differences between different nationalistic groups and their political objectives. Another journal article Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe, and the United States again illustrates the reluctance by both Russians and Americans to welcome immigrants into their countries. The scrutiny they experience as immigrants is interesting because it again highlights the defined cultures of the United States and Russia. This sense of identity and nationalism is important to examine when viewing Russian and American foreign policy. The Russians and Americans regard each other with a sense of distrust encouraged by their respective governments through different types of media.

Practicality: Nationalism and international relations between the United States and Russia are heavily researched. There is enough evidence for an argument to be constructed analyzing the affects of nationalism and how it will change the twenty first century. Many books and journals are published about nationalism and the effects it has on both countries and their populaces. Meanwhile, foreign policy has been a heavily discussed topic in the twenty first century and there is lots of information on the subject. I will use secondary sources mainly, and primary sources if the topic requires a first hand account to support the argument. There are many secondary sources in the library on nationalism in the US and Russia, and many more on their foreign policy post World War II. Dickinson’s databases also provide lots of information, which will expand the range of my research.

Bibliography

Greenfeld, Liah. “The Globalization of Nationalism and the Future of the Nation-State.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 24, no. 1-2 (06, 2011): 5-9.

Neier, Aryeh. “America’s New Nationalism.” Social Research 71, no. 4 (Winter, 2004):

Marten, Kimberly. “Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe, and the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 121, no. 4 (06, 2007): 706-707. http:// search.proquest.com/docview/208281762?accountid=10506.

Telò, Mario. Globalisation, Multilateralism, Europe: Towards a Better Global Governance? Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014.

Lussac, Samuel. “WHEN EMPIRE MEETS NATIONALISM. POWER POLITICS IN THE US AND RUSSIA.” Caucasian Review of International Affairs 4, no. 1 (Winter, 2010): 99-100. http://search.proquest.com/docview/210955266?accountid=10506.

Marx in Soho is a unique play that showcases Karl Marx’s life and ideas with a twenty first century application . Marx in Soho illustrates the flaws in capitalism that have continued into the twenty first century such as overproduction and the disparity in wealth between classes leading to massive social and economic problems in the future for society.
In modern day America, the overproduction of goods is a major problem, discussed by Marx. This materialistic idea hurts the proletariat because an increase in production reduces the wages of the workers in order to keep the capitalists (Bourgeoisie) gaining a profit. This has lead to a growing gap between the classes which some think as insurmountable. Capitalism is fair to the bourgeoisie who control the flow of capital, and refuse to share their wealth evenly for the benefit of society. Hoarding wealth causes poverty and a decline in education. These problems do not affect the rich capitalists who generate their profits from the poor proletariat.
The statistic that 49 percent of the United States wealth is controlled by 1 percent of the population is evidence Marx’s was right about capitalism. Capitalism has the bad habit of prioritizing profit over the well being of workers. When this profit is held by few, it creates problems for the rest of the country and economy. Much of this wealth is not cycled through the nation, and prevents the growth of: schools, businesses, and the economy. This creates a gap between the bourgeoisie and proletariat while shrinking the middle class down to almost nothing. When the middle class shrinks, the consumer base shrinks while the rich are unable to create the capital needed to sustain their business model. In the United States these problems are evident by the idea of falling into a depression or recession, because the rich 1 percent have few restrictions on their trade and business.
Marx in Soho’s main goal was to paint the picture of the twenty first century in terms of Marx ideas. He intended to create a dialogue of the current and past problems of capitalism.