Summary:
A brief analysis of Gulliver's character and leadership as portrayed in Jonathan Swift's novel Gulliver's Travels.
Similar to many authors, Jonathan Swift wrote with the intention of a deeper meaning of the content. Specifically, I am referring to Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Much like George Orwell's Animal Farm, Gulliver's Travels has hidden allusions left to be interpreted by the reader. Specifically, with his reference to the Lilliputians, the interpretation is that these people are "small-minded" or have less significance. These "small-minded" people that Swift uses act the workers who as individuals, can not perturb this large stranger, Gulliver, but as one agglomerated society, the can move him and even believe that they can force him into a belief that he may not necessarily be willing to have. I believe even Gulliver himself states something similar. In having these people act this way, Swift is deriding English society saying that, in these times, religion and morals are, in a sense, forced upon the youth of the society. Swift scoffs at the politicians as he notes: "These animosities between these two [political] parties run so high, that they will neither eat nor drink, nor talk to each other."(Swift 511). The implication is that these two parties' moral opinions are so different that they feel that they cannot even conduct conversation with someone who thinks so contrarily to them.
As a whole, the Lilliputians would argue that their society is in fact utopian. However, never will there be a utopian society. In this distopian society that these Lilliputians occupy, many people constantly quarrel with friends. In fact, it is uncommon for someone in Lilliput to walk around without some blunt object to protect themselves with. A utopian society will not arise due to the fact that there will always be those who oppose authority by wit and those who oppose it with force. In saying that, a new question arises: which property is better in a leader, physical strength or physical righteousness? Well if you consider a leader with complete physical strength, the result would be similar to that of a dictator. Things would get done in a shoot now ask questions later manner. The effectiveness of that manner could be argued. On the other hand, a completely physical righteous leader would know to do all this is right, but could he get "it" done? So on one hand there is a leader that gets everything done, right or wrong, or you have a leader that knows what is right but cannot achieve it. In summary, a true ideal leader should posses both qualities and balances them appropriately to the conflict.
This is the complete article, containing 421 words
(approx. 1 page at 300 words per page).
