Table of Contents Economic Policy Causes and Consequences of the Subprime Crisis Brendan Dowling 11

Caroline Howell

Despite popular views that gender is biologically innate, natural, and the same across all cultures, the field of anthropology has allowed us to see it as a cultural construct that is both local and changeable. Gender plays a role in our feelings about who we are, how we present ourselves, who we associate with, and how we associate with them. Conceptions of gender not only mediate our social interactions and internal thoughts, but also impact our life standing, privilege, and opportunities from the day we are born. An anthropological perspective shows us that our way of viewing gender is not the only way, and allows us to avoid ethnocentrism. All cultures make a distinction between the male and female body, but these distinctions do not all have the same implications in terms of what gender one belongs to, and what it means to belong to a certain gender. The ideas about how one’s body works in reproduction are cross-culturally variable, as well as about the relationship between sex, gender, sexuality, and sexual orientation. This calls into question the understanding that there is something “natural” about gender or the way it is constructed. Genly Ai, a fictional character from The Left Hand of Darkness, implicitly reveals his conceptions about gender as he explores a genderless world, while the Brazilian Travestis recount their experiences and share their opinions with Don Kulick, a Swedish ethnographer. By exploring how both Genly Ai and the Brazilian Travestis categorize gender, what femininity means to them, and what they see as the implications, roles, and status are of being a woman, one can better understand what they believe to be true about women and femininity.

Before understanding what Genly Ai and the Brazilians Travestis believe to be true about women and femininity, it is necessary to understand how they categorize gender within their own cultures. Both Ai and the Travestis have culturally constructed gender binaries, but the two categories on either side of the binary differ. Ai views gender in terms of sexual dimorphism. This means that gender constructs are separated into two categories- male and female. Ai assigns a gendered dualism to these categories, associating males with strength, dominance, and protection, and females therefore as weak, submissive, and protected. Brazilian culture, however, divides their binary into categories of male and non-male. The Travestis see themselves as part of the non-male category- not wanting to be a woman, but wanting to share a gender category with them. Travestis are also constructivist essentialists. Being essentialist means they see their sex as God-given, but also being constructivist means that the different morphologies of genitalia allow for different gendered possibilities to be explored and occupied. This differs from Ai, who follows a strictly essentialist notion of gender. This means that genders are reduced to certain essential, fixed qualities. In other words, if you have certain genitals, you will identify with that specific sex and gender, and that will consequently determine how you think, act, and behave. Gender is seen as inherent and biological, rather than cultural, a view that overlooks complexities and ambiguities.

In order to understand why the gender categories of Genly Ai and the Brazilian Travestis are constructed the way they are, it is helpful to think about the cultural context and where these gendered notions come from. The Travestis refer to God in terms of their essentialist notions. They believe that there is a religious explanation to how people are born, and that sex is therefore God-given. Although the Travestis assign certain essential qualities to either gender, there is also room for gender fluidity. The constructivist notion refers to the fact that gender is achieved. This is done through physical qualities and the act of penetration. It is the act of penetration, rather than the gender of the person being penetrated, that determines the gender roles in a sexual encounter. Therefore, the Travesti notion of gender is more complicated than Ai’s notion of simply biologically male or female. The male gender is performed through virility, while the female role through femininity. A world without gender is appalling to Ai, because it is a cultural construct so deeply engrained in him and central to a person’s identity. It is difficult for him to define these roles because they are so embedded in him as a natural assumption. With these cultural constructions, neither Ai nor the Travestis view people as strictly human. There are roles, identities, and cultural implications tied to each gender.

Genly Ai and the Travestis have certain beliefs about what it means to be a woman and what is true of femininity. Travestis see femininity and the female role as something to be performed and perfected. Although sex is God-given, gender is not. Travestis see what they do as improving upon the female body. This is what they refer to as the Travesti Project, and reveals what they see as the ideal female attributes. The Travesti Project begins with hormones, tweezing, shaving, dying their hair, dressing correctly, disguising their male anatomy, and then moves onto injecting industrial silicone into their bundas. They enhance their feminine aspects to be attractive to masculine, heterosexual men, and in an attempt to achieve the ideal Brazilian body. This involves being hairless, enlarging their bunda, and sometimes enlarging their breasts. Being penetrated also gives Travestis the female gender they desire. This is because they see the female role as that of the person being penetrated. Therefore, they need males to make them feel desired, dominated, attractive, and to do the penetrating. They believe that the man’s pleasure is primary, and that only the penetrator should orgasm. They need males to feel their gender, because they need to be penetrated and to be dominated to feel feminine. Travestis also have no interest in becoming parents. This is because reproduction and child rearing do not determine the female gender or play a role in femininity, at least the parts of it that they identify with or believe to be true. Travestis see the obligations of motherhood as associated with the pitfalls of womanhood, including the risk of being abandoned, being dependent, and having to be responsible. This is why they want to be like women, but do not want to be women, because this comes with the implications of being dependent, weak, and subordinate. Travestis also perform the female gender role of domesticity by cooking, cleaning, and taking care of their boyfriends. How feminine a Travesti feels depends on how masculine their boyfriend is. This is another example of how they need males to feel their gender. For these reasons, Travestis associate women with a loss of agency, as the property of men, and as an objectified body.

Genly Ai also views females as subordinate, and has his own conception of an ideal body. Ai sees males as strong and virile and, because of the gender binary, women as weak and expected to be sexually docile. He sees femininity and the female role as subordinate. This is because he views males as the dominant gender, and being dominated as something negative. This contrasts with the Travestis, who view being dominated positively because it gives them the gender they desire. Ai also has conceptions of a body ideal for females that differs from that of the Brazilian culture. He views women as shorter and less muscular than men, and even as having a different voice than men (Kulick 235).

Both Genly Ai and the Travestis view females in an overall negative light, but for different reasons, and demonstrate this view in different ways. The subordinate role that Ai assigns to females is revealed by the context in which he uses the female pronoun. While speaking to the Gathenians, Ai uses the masculine pronoun as his default. However, he refers to anything unpleasant using the female pronoun. For example, he refers to ignorance as feminine, and it displeases him because it is seen as a submissiveness to the given (Kulick 228). By doing this, he is assigning gendered qualities to irrelevant traits. The Travestis also reveal their feelings towards women through the use of language. The Portuguese language is itself a gendered language, and the word Travesti is masculine. While the Travestis will proudly wear the label of bicha, a female pronoun, they rarely use the word travesti to refer to one another (Kulick 216). They also describe one another as a viado, also a female pronoun. Travestis feel as though women who are biologically female do not have to work to be seen as a female or feminine because they have a buceta. However, Travestis believe that they perform femininity better than biological females do. They are also glad they do not have a buceta and do not desire going through a sex change operation because they believe this would deprive them of sexual pleasure. This reveals that having a buceta does not mean that a woman will be seen as feminine. Because the Brazilian conceptions of gender roles are heteronormative, male focused, and patriarchal, this ideology assumes that women’s bodies have to be regulated and controlled by a society that values maleness.

Both cultures have gender hierarchies that place certain genders, sexualities, and sexual orientations above others, and there are implications for people of lower status. In Gethen, Ai is othered for having a permanent gender, which they see as being in permanent kemmer. People in permanent kemmer, such as Ai, are seen as perverted. This compares to Ai’s own culture, where one is othered for being queer. Being queer has societal, economic, and political implications. Therefore, there is mutual ethnocentrism. Within the Brazilian culture, Travestis see themselves as superior to heterosexual females because they perform gender better. They also most likely see themselves as superior because they are males, even if they do not express that with their gender or sexuality. Homosexuals are a second-class gender in Brazil because they have sex with someone of the same gender, not because they have sex with someone of the same sex. Like other Brazilian males, Travestis disparage women. They call each other out for feeling like women, and do not want to be seen as lesbians. The male genital is ideal because it allows them to have it all- they can both penetrate and give.

As a result of their differing cultural constructions of gender, Genly Ai and the Travestis have different socio-sexual interactions, sexuality hierarchies, body politics, and gender norms. They have different views regarding femininity, and these differences reveal how there are various ways of constructing the female role. In both cultures, these subjectivities give people a sense of self and place them into categories that are meaningful from some objective statement. Whether we do so implicitly or not, a person’s gender gives them an identity and determines how we can treat them based on these subjective categorizations. Therefore, subjective distinctions that a culture creates play a role in determining objective characteristics about a person.

Revisiting Educational Inequality in the 21^st Century
Elaina Rollins

Over sixty years ago, civil rights activists rejoiced at the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated public schools. Black parents envisioned their children attending the integrated, well resourced, and academically rigorous schools they had dreamt of for so long. However, thanks to years of persistent white resistance, pervasive socioeconomic inequality, and weak political action, the percentage of students of color in white majority schools is lower today than it was in 1968.¹ Even with Brown, poor students of color in this country continue to attend racially and socioeconomically isolated public schools with inadequate funding and inexperienced teachers. The key difference between educational inequality during the civil rights movement and educational inequality today is that during the early twentieth century, segregated schools existed by law. Today, racially and economically isolated schools exist because of deep-seated racist and classic attitudes that have encouraged political policy and the general public to accept educational disparities as an inevitable reality rather than an urgent constitutional grievance. The greatest civil rights issue facing our generation today is educational inequality, because by denying poor students of color access to proper schools, this country fundamentally limits the intellectual, economic, and social opportunities for these children simply because of their race and class.

The United States likes to view public education as the “great equalizer” in society, yet statistical data reveals that American schools are anything but equal. Schools with high percentages of poor students of color fare significantly worse than affluent white schools by a variety of different measures, including academic achievement, intellectual opportunity, and resources. Based on a 2014 study of 97,000 American public schools, the United States Department of Education found that not only do students of color receive lower test scores than white students, black and Latino students are also at least two times as likely than white students to attend schools where 20% of all teachers fail to meet state teaching requirements. A quarter of all public schools with the highest percentages of students of color also fail to offer math courses beyond Algebra I.² Income inequality intertwines with racial disparities as well, since students of color are also likely come from low-income families. A 2015 study revealed that while 77% of adults in the top income quartile earned a bachelor’s degree after graduating from high school, only 9% of adults in the lowest income bracket achieved the same.³ Even with the a constitutional guarantee to legally integrated schools, the educational outcomes of poor students of color fall below the mark, while affluent white students continue to thrive.

Beyond these startling statistics, research on broader cultural phenomena within schools reveals that poor students of color also frequently struggle with low morale and distorted perceptions of their own intellectual worth, simply because of their race or class. Research shows that before minority students even step foot inside a school, many struggle to relate to their academic performance in a positive way. Therefore, black students’ underperformance in school may be due in large part to their parents’ past experiences with discrimination, because black adults who have struggled to advance economically in society due to their race may instill a sense of doubt within their children as to whether education leads to social mobility.⁴ Along with this general distrust of white authority, scores of educational research have shown that public schools often disproportionately place poor children and racial minorities into low-ability classrooms not because of academic ability, but because of negative stereotypes about perceived intellect. This placement process can discourage poor students of color from pursuing higher education or upper-level jobs, simply because teachers consistently relegated them into remedial courses.⁵ The current landscape of American education reveals that while “separate but equal” may be unconstitutional, the large majority of poor children of color attend fundamentally unequal schools compared to white students, in terms of both racial and economic composition and the academic environment offered to students.

Much of the current education reform agenda centers around “choice” schools, such as magnet schools and charter schools, and some activists have even tried to link educational inequality to the struggle for civil rights. However, while these reformers attempt to draw compelling similarities between the two battles, the rhetoric of “choice” oversimplifies both the civil rights movement and the struggle for educational inequality this country faces today. Choice schools allow children to attend schools out of their district, and supporters of this reform method have compared families fighting for access to charter schools to Rosa Parks fighting for her seat at the front of the segregated bus.⁶ This parallel not only oversimplifies Parks’ battle, which involved months of preparation alongside hundreds of fellow activists, but also overlooks the deep, structural inequalities involved with educational inequality today. Choice schools encourage students, who are often poor racial minorities, to leave their “failing” neighborhood school without addressing the structural inequalities that created those underperforming schools in the first place, such as white flight to the suburbs, redlining, and state laws that link public school funding to property taxes.⁷ The new civil rights movement, which must address race and class disparities within American public schools, should use tactics from the past civil rights movement without oversimplifying the battles activists fought to achieve the progress they made.

The struggle for educational equality today resembles the original civil rights movement because racial minorities and low income students are still fighting predominantly white, affluent, privileged people who possess a societal advantage they do not want to give up. During the era of Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs used psychological research to show that black students in segregated schools had lower self-esteem than students in integrated schools.⁸ However, even with a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, white Americans fought back vehemently to protect their daisy white schools. Many white parents felt threatened or insecure at the thought of unknown black children encroaching on their children’s classrooms, so much so that over one hundred Southern senators released their “Southern Manifesto” in 1956 insisting that segregation was “founded on elemental humanity and common sense, for parents should not be deprived by Government the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.”⁹ Today, white people use similar arguments to criticize issues such as affirmative action, claiming that by favoring historically disadvantaged minorities, college admissions “illegally discriminate.” The struggle for educational equality today encounters powerful whites who see racial and economic inequality as a threat to their own privilege in the same way that Brown supporters faced white supremacists who felt desegregation laws infringed upon their constitutional rights.

A new movement against educational inequality will also be different from the civil rights movement, because activists today must focus on de facto racial and socioeconomic segregation, while many of the activists during the civil rights movement fought outright discriminatory laws. During the 1950s and 1960s, people like John Lewis focused on specific discriminatory laws, such as segregation mandates for public places or voting requirements that withheld blacks from the polls, in order to bring about racial change. Lewis practiced nonviolent civil disobedience to protest unjust laws, even when white men and women spat in his face, calling him “the lowest form of humanity.”¹⁰ Civil rights activists broke overtly unjust and discriminatory segregation mandates until people took notice. Today, activists must challenge de facto racial and socioeconomic isolation in schools, or segregation that exists not because of outright discriminatory policy, but because of a larger set of circumstances and social patterns. Some education reformers have already begun to address this issue by filing lawsuits against politicians whose state school funding models inadvertently led to de facto racial and socioeconomic segregation within classrooms.¹¹ This distinction between overt and inadvertent discrimination will distinguish the current struggle for educational equality from the past struggle for civil rights, because education activists today must address series of laws that may not be explicitly racist or classist, but have discriminatory consequences when implemented.

Reformers fighting for educational equality today should model their protest strategies off of the nonviolent civil disobedience used during the civil rights movement, because this method allows concerned citizens to voice their opinions peacefully until the message becomes so visible that the general public must pay attention. In his “Letter to Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. argues that civil rights activists must employ “nonviolent direct action [because it] seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.”¹² Through the use of peaceful protests, activists like Dr. King forced white people to confront the demands of the black community, even if this tactic made white people feel uncomfortable. Nonviolent civil disobedience also ensures that activists retain a moral high ground by loving their enemy with a love that “accepts and embraces the hateful and the hurtful,” rather than fighting their oppressors with unkind language or violence.¹³ A movement for educational equality must incorporate these tactics in order to ensure that the protests are visible within communities while still remaining respectful and kind to the parents or politicians who resist their efforts.

Another one of the reasons the civil rights movement garnered so much support was because of black activists’ inclusion of concerned, white citizens, and any new movement for educational equality today should also embrace affluent white people who want to advance the cause. In the early 1960s, John Lewis and other members of SNCC traveled deep into the dangerous South to encourage black citizens to vote. However, group leaders like Bob Moses knew that SNCC needed white America’s “flesh-and-blood” involved in the campaign if they were going to be successful.¹⁴ Subsequently, hoards of Northern white college students boarded trains and buses down to Mississippi and Alabama, thus increasing the overall number of volunteers while also heightening white America’s concern for the activists down South. For any new educational equality movement, poor citizens of color should still retain control and influence over the involved organizations, since these people are the key victims of suffering and discrimination. However, if white affluent students or parents want to support racial and socioeconomic equality in schools, the movement should welcome their help, just as black civil rights activists accepted help from Northern white students during the campaign for voting rights.

While the use of nonviolent civil disobedience and inclusion of affluent white supporters could help advance educational equality, the new movement must also focus on structural elements of inequality that the civil rights movement did not fully address. Because civil rights activists had so much to battle during the 1950s and 1960s, such as outright segregation statues and uncontrolled white violence, their first priority was not the racial biases intricately built into government organizations and social networks. Before addressing issues such as residential segregation or unfair hiring practices, activists initially needed to make sure they had a seat at the local lunch counter. However, because racial and economic isolation in schools today does not exist because of one explicitly discriminatory law, the movement cannot be successful without addressing structural problems. In this sense, a new movement for educational equality may resemble some of the calls for change made by Black Nationalists during the 1970s. For example, in their 10 Point Program, the Black Panther Party stated, “We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society.”¹⁵ This type of request extends far beyond the progress made in Brown, as the Black Panthers were asking for fundamental changes within the traditionally white, European curriculum. In order to alleviate the current educational inequality in this country, activists must focus on the types of issues present within the Black Panther’s 10 Point Program while still remaining nonviolent and inclusive of all supporters.

The most pervasive and deeply engrained barrier to educational equality that members of the movement will address is the process of funding local schools based on property values. Public schools that are inextricably linked local home prices will always result in poor, overburdened schools in poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods. Even with charter schools and magnet schools that allow students to temporarily transfer out of their district, the unequal schools are still left behind. In this sense, education reformers must address this problem head on rather than avoiding the issue because income inequality is difficult to discuss in a capitalist society. Reformers can seek inspiration from voices like Stokely Carmichael, who spoke out against poverty in black communities, arguing that, “[White people] don’t want to face the real problem which is a man is poor for one reason and one reason only: ‘cause he does not have money – period. If you want to get rid of poverty, you give people money – period.”¹⁶ While any solution for educational inequality requires much more than simple dollars, this type of direct, unapologetic attitude is the type of outlook activists should adopt. Members of the movement for educational equality must peacefully protest unjust school funding practices outside state government buildings until politicians and the American people listen. Instead of the current school-funding system, activists must propose an alternative model, such as policy that requires states to pool education tax dollars and then redistribute funds depending on district need.

On an extremely local basis, teachers should take active efforts to incorporate multicultural forms of education into their own classrooms in the same way that the Council of Federated Organizations installed Freedom Schools in Mississippi during the summer of 1964 to teach black Americans about black history and social change. These Freedom Schools educated black Southerners about topics that truly mattered to them, such as the philosophy of the civil rights movement and remedial reading skills to combat discriminatory literacy tests.¹⁷ Today, rather than simply incorporating a “diversity” unit into the curriculum or celebrating Black History Month, teachers should seek to foster an ethnically diverse educational environment throughout the year, where all student viewpoints and backgrounds are consistently represented. When used in this manner, research shows that multicultural education can be a “change agent” to reduce racial prejudice in the classroom – a key step in opening the eyes of all students to what equal education can be like if students from different backgrounds truly engage with one another in academic settings.¹⁸ By banding together to promote active change, teachers can inspire intellectual growth on a local level alongside the nonviolent protests against large political policies that will take place outside the classroom.

The struggle for educational equality today will inherently address some of the issues civil rights activists grappled with during the mid-twentieth century, such as white privilege and the struggle for racial integration. However, the movement today will also intertwine class and more pervasive forms of structural inequality into the protests that civil rights activists could not fully address during their own time. The civil rights movement brought this country to its current point by tackling some of the most dangerous and pernicious forms of racism that hindered black Americans from living their lives as true citizens. Today, the movement for educational equality must build off of these successes, such as the Brown v. Board of Education decision, by respecting their accomplishments while also acknowledging what was left unfinished. In order to fundamentally tackle educational inequality between poor students of color and affluent white students, activists must address issues surrounding inadequate school funding and school resourcing by pointing out uncomfortable truths: many rich white citizens will seek to protect the status quo, in which their local schools significantly outperform poor inner-city schools, because academic achievement represents privilege and opportunity. Our movement must focus on grass-root efforts, such as multicultural education within the classroom, as well as nonviolent protests at the places of political power, such as state Capitol buildings or legislative offices. With this two-pronged approach and the determination, will, and tenacity exhibited by past civil rights activists, educational equality may exist in our future.

Bibliography

Aurigemma, J. "Sheff v. O'Neill: Memorandum of Decision." State of Connecticut Judicial

Branch. March 3, 1999. Accessed May 5, 2015. https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/sheff.htm.

Erickson, Ansley. "The Rhetoric of Choice: Segregation, Desegregation, and Charter Schools" in

King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. "Letter From Birmingham Jail." Historical Text Archive: Electronic

Korn, Meilssa. "Big Gap in College Graduation Rates for Rich and Poor, Study Finds." The Wall

Lewis, John, and Michael D’Orso. Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

McGann, Shaun. "The Effects of “Redlining” on the Hartford Metropolitan Region."

Orfield, Gary, and Erica Frankenberg. "Brown at 60: Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an

Uncertain Future." The UCLA Civil Rights Project (Proyecto Derechos Civiles). May 15, 2014. Accessed May 4, 2015. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-60-great-progress-a-long-retreat-and-an-uncertain-future/Brown-at-60-051814.pdf

Rich, Motoko. "School Data Finds Pattern of Inequality Along Racial Lines." The New York

racial-lines.html?_r=0.

The Black Panther Party. "Platform and Program." The Black Panther, July 5, 1969.

Thurmond, Strom. “The Southern Manifesto.” Washington, D.C., 1956.

Zirkel, Sabrina, and Nancy Cantor. "50 Years After Brown V. Board Of Education: The Promise

And Challenge Of Multicultural Education." Journal of Social Issues 60, no. 1 (2004): 1-15.

Crossing the Line: Barriers in War and Peace

Emily Turner

To what extent is the individual free? In the second epilogue to his novel War and Peace, Russian author Leo Tolstoy proposes an answer to this philosophical question:

If we consider a man alone, apart from his relation to everything around him, each action of his seems to us free. But if we see his relation to anything around him, if we see his connection with anything whatever…we see that each of these circumstances has an influence on him and controls at least some of his activity. (1066)

Although this idea, that an individual is only free until he comes into contact with an outside entity, is expressed most explicitly in this epilogue, Tolstoy progresses towards this answer throughout the entirety of War and Peace. One aspect of this progression can be identified in Tolstoy’s discussion of barriers, or “преграды.” Barriers, or the lack thereof, are a recurring motif throughout the novel. In the episodes in which Tolstoy employs the word “преграда,” he examines the concept of a barrier in relation to morality, human will, individualism, and group mentality. In War and Peace, Tolstoy demonstrates that group mentality and social pressures force individuals to cross moral barriers, and that in the context of a group, an individual is deprived of his or her personal morality.

Through the societally arranged relationship between Hélène and Pierre, Tolstoy explores the concept of a barrier as a manifestation of Pierre’s individual morality. When forced into the company of Hélène at Anna Pavlovna’s party, Pierre experiences a moral dilemma. Tolstoy describes Pierre’s situation: “She was terribly close to him. She already had power over him, and between them there was no longer any barrier except the barrier of his own will” (180). Despite Pierre’s malleable personality and Hélène’s “power over him” (180), Pierre does not submit to Hélène’s charms immediately. Rather, “the barrier of his own will,” (180) which exists only within his mind, protects him. This barrier is able to exist because Pierre, as an individual, wills it. Because he possesses such strong moral “conviction,” Pierre is “seized by terror” of being “bound” (181) to act in opposition to his beliefs. In his individual thoughts, Pierre recognizes marriage to Hélène as “unnatural”, “dishonorable”, and “something that was evidently wrong and that he ought not to do” (181). Pierre is terrified to cross the barrier that separates him from marriage to Hélène—that is, until he submits to outside influences and partakes in a group mentality.

Social pressure from the guests at Anna Pavlovna’s party forces Pierre to cross his internal moral barrier. Despite his obvious aversion to marriage with Hélène, he acquiesces to the memory of, “her former words and looks…the words and looks of those who had seen them together…Anna Pavlovna’s words and looks when she spoke to him about his house…thousands of such hints from Prince Vasili and others” (Tolstoy 181). Once Pierre embraces the opinion of the larger community—that he should in fact marry Hélène—he is able to appreciate Hélène’s “womanly beauty” (181). Although Pierre possesses an individual sense of morals, he is unable to maintain allegiance to these morals in the face of social pressure. He forgets that his union with Hélène is intimidating and even “unnatural”(181); in fact, he begins to desire her. Through the transformation of Pierre’s attitude, Tolstoy demonstrates the vital role of group mentality in the crossing of moral barriers. As evidenced by Pierre, once one succumbs to the will of the group, one sacrifices individuality and by extension, individual morality.

Whereas Tolstoy uses the pairing of Pierre and Hélène to illustrate how group mentality can lead an individual to cross his or her personal moral barrier, he uses an equally disastrous romance, that of Natasha and Anatole, to explore the conditions under which such a barrier cannot exist. Tolstoy describes Natasha’s emotional process during her first encounter with Anatole:

Natasha knew for certain that he was enraptured by her. This pleased her, yet his presence made her feel constrained and oppressed. When she was not looking at him she felt that he was looking at her shoulders, and she involuntarily caught his eyes so that he should look into hers rather than this. But looking into his eyes she was frightened, realizing that there was not that barrier of modesty she had always felt between herself and other men. (502)

In this situation Natasha cannot create a moral barrier; she can only recognize the lack thereof. Like Pierre, who feels that his union with Hélène is “unnatural” (181), Natasha experiences “horror” (503) and is “frightened” (502) by Anatole. However, Pierre’s is able to create a barrier against Hélène “from his own will” (180), whereas Natasha has no agency to build such a barrier. This lack of agency stems from Natasha’s condition when she first meets Anatole—she is already under the influence of Hélène’s society. When removed from society, Natasha ponders, “there in the presence of that Hélène it had all seemed clear and simple; but now, alone by herself, it was incomprehensible. ‘What is it? What was that terror I felt of him? What is this gnawing of conscience I am feeling now?’” (503) Alone, Natasha expresses moral qualms about engaging in a romance with Anatole. But, because she is part of a societal mentality when she meets Anatole, the young and impressionable Natasha forfeits her individual moral agency. Whereas Pierre merely crosses his mental barrier when faced with group pressure, Natasha is never granted the opportunity to create a barrier. Tolstoy uses Natasha’s inability to form a barrier while under the influence of society in order to reinforce the idea that moral boundaries are powerless beyond the scope of an individual mind.

To simultaneously contrast the weak barrier between Pierre and Hélène and the non-existent barrier between Natasha and Anatole, Tolstoy presents a moral barrier between Pierre and Natasha that remains untouched by destructive societal influences. Natasha observes the presence of this moral barrier between herself and Pierre; however, she misunderstands this barrier. She believes the barrier will prevent romance, for she does not yet understand love. Tolstoy writes:

It was not because Pierre was a married man, but because Natasha felt very strongly with him that moral barrier the absence of which she had experienced with Kuragin that it never entered her head that the relations between him and herself could lead to love on her part, still less on his, or even to the kind of tender, self-conscious, romantic friendship between a man and a woman of which she had known several instances. (585)

After her nearly ruinous experience with Anatole, Natasha naïvely associates love with the absence of a moral barrier. Yet, she does acknowledge that Pierre’s behavior towards her seems natural. Tolstoy describes, “nothing good on Pierre’s part seemed to her to be an effort, it seemed so natural for him to be kind to everyone that there was no merit in his kindness” (585). In contrast to the “unnatural” (181) quality of Pierre’s relationship with Hélène and Natasha’s “horror” (503) with Anatole, Pierre’s kindness towards Natasha is genuine and nonthreatening. Pierre and Natasha’s relationship is never subjected to a societal pressure; therefore, this naturally occurring moral barrier remains intact.

This relationship is able to develop into a successful romance, because neither Pierre nor Natasha forfeits his or her individual morality. When Pierre and Natasha’s love finally takes shape in the final episodes of the novel, Pierre observes the difference between his old and new romantic relationships. With Natasha, “There was now no shadow of doubt in his mind as to whether what he had undertaken was right or wrong” (994). Pierre and Natasha’s love serves as a positive example of a moral barrier. Because their relationship blossoms naturally, without the intervention of group mentality, their love is genuine and morally sound. Thus, Tolstoy elevates naturally occurring love, which does not require the violation of a moral barrier, to moral superiority over both prearranged marriage and lust.

Although much of Tolstoy’s discussion of barriers focuses on romantic relationships, Tolstoy also explores barriers in relation to life and death. This exploration is exemplified in the brutal execution of the innocent Vereshchagin at the hands of a Moscow mob. Tolstoy describes the scene:

But after the exclamation of surprise that had escaped from Vereshchagin he uttered a plaintive cry of pain, and that cry was fatal. The barrier of human feeling, strained to the utmost, that had held the crowd in check suddenly broke. The crime had begun and must now be completed. The plaintive moan of reproach was drowned by the threatening and angry roar of the crowd. (791)

As is the case with romantic relationships, individual morality cannot exist within a group mentality. In this episode, the “barrier of human feeling” (791) is destroyed at the same moment in which the crowd takes action. Tolstoy shows that individualism, without which there cannot exist moral boundaries, is nullified by the crowd’s agency. An individual forfeits his or her humanity by joining the crowd’s animalistic “roar” (791). Once one partakes in the entity of the crowd, one forgets individual morals in frenzied pursuit of a shared goal. In this case, the crowd’s shared goal is the death of Vereshchagin. It is not until this goal is achieved that moral barriers are restored to individuals. Tolstoy writes of the members of the crowd, “Each one came up, glanced at what had been done, and with horror, reproach, and astonishment pushed back again” (792). No one member of the crowd takes responsibility for Vereshchagin’s death, because at the time of the killing each member only exists as a piece of the crowd; each is beyond the “barrier of human feeling” (791) and has no sense of morality. However, once freed from the mob mentality, individuals can experience remorse. Tolstoy, through this barbaric execution, emphasizes that individuals are capable of morality, but this morality disintegrates within a group context.

Tolstoy further develops the relationship between a moral barrier and life and death through the dying thoughts of Prince Andrew, who takes refuge with the Rostov family during the French occupation of Moscow. Tolstoy describes Prince Andrew’s mental process,

During the hours of solitude, suffering, and partial delirium he spent after he was wounded, the more deeply he penetrated into the new principle of eternal love revealed to him, the more he unconsciously detached himself from earthly life. To love everything and everybody and always to sacrifice oneself for love meant not to love anyone, not to live this earthly life. And the more imbued he became with the principle of love, the more he renounced life and the more completely he destroyed that dreadful barrier which—in the absence of such love—stands between life and death. (868)

When Andrew is alone, “during the hours of solitude” (868), he begins to understand the concept of eternal love. To experience eternal love is, “To love everything and everybody and always to sacrifice oneself for love” (868). By extension, Andrew sees the necessity, “not to love anyone, not to live this earthly life” (868). Andrew’s solitude leads him to the discovery of this eternal love, which in turn leads him to the idea of self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice, or death, is the extreme of solitude. In short, eternal love drives Andrew away from “earthly life” (868), from other humans, to the death. However, armed with eternal love, Andrew does not fear death. In fact, it not death, but the barrier than separates one from death, if one lacks eternal love, that Tolstoy defines as “dreadful” (868). To the truly individual or solitary person, one whose thoughts are untainted by social pressure such as Andrew in this episode, death is a welcome escape from the influence of society. Tolstoy’s exploration of barriers culminates in this episode. Through Andrew’s deeply individual discovery of eternal love, which allows him to overcome the barrier between life and death, Tolstoy classifies death as a route to complete freedom from the influence of one’s fellow men.

The question proposed at the outset of this analysis remains: To what extent is the individual free? Through the recurring metaphor of a barrier, Tolstoy shows that each individual is free to create a moral barrier within himself. Pierre does this in his effort to resist the seductive allure of Hélène. Tolstoy defines to what extent an individual is free by exploring to what extent he is confined. He develops the idea that when one is under the influence of a social group, one is not free to live by one’s individual morality. Although Pierre is free to draw a line between himself and Hélène, the persuasive will of a larger societal group convinces him to cross this line. So too, is Natasha unable to maintain a moral boundary around Anatole, for she is under the destructive influence of Hélène’s social circle. And, such is also the case when each member of the Moscow crowd succumbs to the mob mentality that leads them to brutally kill Vereshchagin. Finally, Tolstoy implies, through the dying epiphany of Prince Andrew, that in death one is truly free from the authority of group mentality. Only by departing from the largest human community—the living—can one exist purely on one’s own terms. In other words, it is impossible to live in this world and remain purely oneself, untainted by the influences of others. The barrier motif is not the only tool Tolstoy employs in War and Peace to explore this question of human freedom. However, to identify all the rhetorical tools and intricacies of Tolstoy’s thousand page masterpiece could take a lifetime or more. Perhaps this is why, since its publication in the 1860s, the overarching truth in the epic War and Peace has evaded definition. War and Peace’s overall meaning is wrapped in a veil of mystery—one that inspires critics, scholars, and students to revisit Tolstoy’s longest work time and time again.

Work Cited

Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace: The Maude Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism. Trans. Aylmer Maude and Louise Maude. Ed. George Gibian. New York: Norton, 1996. Print.

The Biogeography of Crassitegula C.W. Schneid., C.E. Lane et G.W. Saunders (Sebdeniales, Rhodophyta)
Erica Quinones
Originally collected in 2006, the identity of an unknown specimen from Bermuda presented a mystery to researchers. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that the specimen was a member of the family Sebdeniaceae. However, analyses of gene sequences of the small subunit rDNA revealed that the specimen was phylogentically distinct from Sebdenia, the only existing genus of the family at the time. This distinction led to the establishment of the new genus Crassitegula and the specimen was named Crassitegula walsinghamii C.W. Schneid., C.E. Lane & G.W. Saunders (Schneider et al. 2006).

Since then, Crassitegula imitans G.W. Saunders & Kraft from Lord Howe Island and C. laciniata C.W. Schneid., Popolizio & C.E. Lane from Bermuda have been described (Kraft et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2014). The genus Crassitegula is characterized by its dorsiventral thalli, filamentous medullas, and nemathecial tetrasporangia (Schneider et al. 2006). Morphologically, C. laciniata is the most distinct of the three known speces as it is branched and dissected in comparison to suborbicular thalli in C. imitans and C. walsinghamii. In early development, the blades of C. laciniata are oval-shaped and angular later becoming long and narrow as it reaches maturity. On the other hand, C. imitans and C. walsinghamii both produce suborbicular proliferations along their margins, and this is not the case for C. laciniata (Schneider et al. 2014).

In addition to their morphology, the Crassitegula species also differ in the habitats where they are found. In Bermuda, C. walsinghamii was found in inshore and inland habitats, such as Walsingham Pond, at depths as shallow as 1.5 m deep as well as 18 m offshore (Schneider et al. 2006). Crassitegula laciniata was also collected in Bermuda, however it was found on the north and south shores on reefs at depths ranging from 7 to 12 m (Schneider et al. 2014). Crassitegula imitans was found on Lord Howe Island on Malabar reef 15 m deep (Kraft et al. 2011). To date, these are the only known locations of Crassitegula species, each being endemic to their island. There is one additional locality of an unnamed species of Crassitegula found in Western Australia (Fig. 1). The specimen was collected from the Basin on Rottnest Island (Kraft et al. 2011).

Given the distribution of Crassitegula as a genus, determining its biogeography becomes a matter of connecting the region of Australia to Bermuda. Lord Howe Island is located 31.5 °S of the equator and is located 600 km off the coast of New South Wales, Australia. Water temperatures vary from 17-25°C depending on the seasons (Anonymous, 2010). Womersley (1984) described the waters of this region of Australia as warm temperate. On the other hand, Bermuda is located 32°N of the equator. The waters are subtropical with mean sea temperatures between 17-28°C (Glasspool et al. 2009). Figure 1 shows the worldwide distribution of Crassitegula and it is important to note the locations of each island, as Bermuda and Lord Howe Island occupy identical latitudes in the north and south hemispheres. While connecting these two regions may seem like a relatively straightforward task at first, it soon becomes clear that the puzzle presented by the distribution of Crassitegula is missing several pieces. As a result, determining which pieces are missing is essential to developing a hypothesis on the biogeography of Crassitegula. To begin, the center of distribution for the genus must be determined.

Based on the available molecular data on Crassitegula, I propose that this genus has a center of distribution in Australia. Figure 2 displays the phylogenetic relationships between each species determined by Schneider, Popolizio, and Lane (2014) using the alignments of ribosomal 28S sequences. The “dark” Crassitegula species (C. sp. WA) from Western Australia as well as C. imitans from Lord Howe Island are basal to the two Bermuda species (Fig. 2). According to this data, the Australia species emerged first, which is why it is reasonable to conclude that Crassitegula distributed from Australia. This is a logical inference, as Hommersand (2007) suggested that Australia is more important as a donor than a recipient. Though it has not been described, the existence of a Crassitegula species in Western Australia that is basal to all other species in the genus suggests that ancestral Crassitegula existed in this location. Therefore, I propose that western Australia is the center of distribution of Crassitegula.

Hommersand (1986) suggested that species with a center of distribution in west and southern Australia have ancestors that originated in the southern Tethyan Ocean. From the northern edge of Gondwanaland, these Tethyan species migrated south upon the northward movement of India to the south west coast of Australia during the Cretaceous period approximately 118 mya (Phillips 2001). I propose that an ancestral Crassitegula species migrated from the west coast of Australia to South Africa. This migration occurred via the North Equatorial current of the Indian Ocean to East Africa and then via the Agulhas current to South Africa sometime after the mid-Miocene (15 mya) when temperatures had decreased (Fig. 3). Hommersand (1986) stated that there were numerous genera or species that seemed to have a center of diversity in south and west Australia that also have a species or two in the East Cape or Natal. In 2007, Hommersand extended his original theory by citing the discoveries of a new species of the genus Calliblepharis in South Africa in addition to the known species in the North Indian Ocean, Brazil, and North Carolina. Therefore, it is plausible that once in South Africa, ancestral Crassitegula migrated up the western coast of Africa via the Benguela current and to the western Atlantic via the equatorial currents of the Atlantic Ocean as proposed by Hommersand in 2003 (Fig. 3).

Once in the western Atlantic, Crassitegula was able to migrate via the Florida Current-Gulf Stream system. Due to Bermuda’s location on the eastern side of this current system, it can receive seaweeds from southern tropical regions (Searles et al. 1987). As my theory begins during the mid-Miocene (15 mya) and Bermuda originated nearly 33 million years ago (Glasspool et al. 2009), dispersal to Bermuda could have occurred any time following the arrival of ancestral Crassitegula in the western Atlantic. The emergence of C. walsinghamii and C. laciniata could have occurred any time throughout the migration of the ancestral Crassitegula species. However, I speculate that Crassitegula speciated once it arrived in the tropics of the western Atlantic after the rise in temperatures near the equator. Once in Bermuda, Crassitegula speciated sympatrically into C. walsinghamii and C. laciniata, effectively accounting for the distributions of the Bermudian species. It is also possible to explain the current distribution of C. imitans on Lord Howe Island. As can be seen in Figure 4, the dual water movement of the West Wind drift and the Leeuwin Current would have allowed Crassitegula to migrate eastward (Phillips 2001). Following the formation of Lord Howe Island 7 million years ago, it is likely that Crassitegula migrated via kelp rafts from the coast of Australia to Lord Howe Island along the lines proposed in British Columbia by Saunders (2014). I propose that Crassitegula speciated allpatrically into C. imitans due to vicariance on Lord Howe Island.

As previously mentioned, the limited distribution of Crassitegula leaves holes that need to be filled while deducing a theory for dispersal. I believe there are more species of Crassitegula that remain to be discovered not only in the western Atlantic and Australia, but also in the Indian Ocean and South Africa. Hommersand (2007) proposed that relicts of the migration of species from Australia through the Indian Ocean to Southern Africa should be preserved in deeper waters. Species of Crassitegula may also exist in the Caribbean but few collections are being made presently in water as deep as the collections in Bermuda. It is possible that Crassitegula has been outcompeted in these regions, however it is more likely that they exist and have yet to be discovered. Louis Druehl (1981) suggested that phycologists should not accept disjunct distributions without questioning the completeness of the record. He also wrote that phycologists must distinguish between “the proof of absence and the absence of proof”. That is why I believe it is safe to conclude that just because this genus has yet to be found, does not mean it does not exist in these regions.

Based on available information, it is likely that Australia is the origin of distribution for the genus Crassitegula. It makes the most sense that it migrated through the Indian Ocean to the southern tip of Africa on to the western Atlantic where it dispersed to Bermuda. In the past decade or so, three species of Crassitegula have been described. It is my prediction that more species will be collected in the coming years. Much remains to be seen when it comes to the complete biogeography of this genus but with the current information, one can piece together the history Crassitegula.

Erica Quinones

Marine Phytogeography, 2015
Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2010. Natural values of Lord Howe Island marine park [Internet]. Hurtsville (NSW): NSW Marine Parks Authority (New South Wales); [cited 2015 Nov 6] Available from http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Natural-Values.pdf

Schneider, C.W., Lane, C.E., & Saunders, G.W. 2006. Crassitegula walsinghamii (Sebdeniaceae, Halymeniales), a new red algal genus and species from Bermuda based upon morphology and SSU rDNA sequence analyses. Eur. J. Phycol. 41: 115-124.