LOLHSC 2013

Module C: Representation and Text

Elective 1: Conflicting Perspectives

In their responding and composing, students consider the ways in which conflicting perspectives on
events, personalities or situations are represented in their prescribed text and other related texts of
their own choosing. Students analyse and evaluate how acts of representation, such as the choice
of textual forms, features and language, shape meaning and influence responses.

Alessandro Cowley Module C: Julius Caesar

Conflicting perspectives are constructed by composers to shape meaning and influence a responders
understanding of personalities, events or situations. They are inevitably connected with the act of
representation, and allow us to question how responders can arrive at an enriched understanding of
ideas, through the choice of textual form, language features and a particular view of reality, as
presented by the composer.
William Shakespeares tragedy, Julius Caesar (1599), is a play which presents conflicting
perspectives to build dramatic tension, as Shakespeare provides a provocative representation of
power and ambition. Through Shakespeares multiple portrayal of these ideas, the audience reaches
conflicting views about the nature of leadership and perceptions of honour. President John F.
Kennedys Inaugural Address (January 20th, 1961), showcases representations of power and
ambition that reflect Kennedys cold-war context. Through the textual form of a speech, Kennedy
creates differing perspectives of leadership and honour. Both composers reveal how representations
of power and ambition lead to conflicting perceptions of leadership and honour, thus they enlighten
their audiences through this intricate relationship between representation and meaning.
Various representations of power result in conflicting perspectives of what makes a good leader. In
Julius Caesar, the different perceptions of Caesars leadership through the lens of multiple accounts
create a constructed representation of a historical personality. For example, Flavius views Caesar as
an ambitious, quasi-divine being, sustained through the metaphor, who else would soar above the
view of men?, aligning his greatness to the Eagle, a symbol of Jupiter. However this is only one
side to a wider perspective, as Cassius dismisses Caesar's divinity, when he manipulates Brutus
through the language of deception. Firstly, Cassius uses a simile, I was born free as Caesar, so
were you, to present a counterpoint to Caesar's divine image. Furthermore, Cassius concocts a
story, using a hyperbole, Caesar cried, 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink, in order to represent Caesar
as a weak mortal who, Is now become a god. Therefore, Shakespeare constructs a direct
dichotomy between the Godly divine Caesar presented to the audience by Flavius, opposed to a
mere-mortal represented by Cassius conversation with Brutus. This antithesis of power, is
fundamental in creating conflicting perspectives of leadership. It is through this dramatised form,
that Shakespeare creates a new perspective of Caesars leadership, but more so, raises questions of
the nature of leadership itself - who has the power? Is the leader merely a pawn? Hence,
Shakespeares constructed representation of power, through various perspectives, lead the audience
to an enriched understanding of power and its inextricable relationship with leadership.
Conversely, President Kennedy's inaugral address, utilises the textual form of a speech to enrich
audiences perspectives of power and how it represents conflicting ideals of leadership. Kennedy,

Elite Education | The experts in private tuition

www.eliteedu.com.au | 1300 914 329

LOLHSC 2013

through the use of rhetoric presents an antithesis, man holds in his mortal hands the power to
abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. Kennedy views the control of
power as a requirement of a good leader and presents a conflicting perspective into this
representation of power, by reminding the audience, through the stern warning of an anecdote,
those who foolishly sought power, by riding the back of the tiger, ended up inside. Thus, Kennedy
views the control of power as a requirement of leadership and presents this conflicting insight into
the nature of leadership.The responder's understanding of power is reflective of Kennedy's
interpretation of what makes a good leader, reflective of his cold war context. Kennedy enriches the
audiences' understanding of leadership and its conflicted ideas through representations of power.
Hence, both texts provide an insight into leadership and how it can be conflicted through various
representations of power. The resulting effect is fundamental in shaping meaning and enriching an
audiences' understanding of what makes a good leader.

The underlying meaning of honour is conflicted through multiple representations of ambition. In

Julius Caesar, Shakespeare creates meaning through the representation of an event - Brutus and
Anthonys eulogys. For example, Brutus antithesis, ...not that I loved Caesar less but that I loved
Rome more, is syllogistic reasoning, convincing the plebs that Caesars ambitions were of
detriment to Rome, thus as a dishonourable tyrant, his death was justified. Shakespeare
compliments this, by providing the audience with the logical element of rhetoric, There is tears for
his love, joy for his fortune, honour for his valour, and death for his ambition, leading the audience
to the understanding that every action has implications. This view of Caesar as a dishonourable and
ambitious tyrant is contrasted by Antonys eulogy, his speech captivates all three elements of
rhetoric - ethos, pathos and logos. Combined, they break the perception of Brutus honour, making
Brutus speech redundant in the eyes of both the plebs and the audience. Through the sarcastic
syllogism, coupled with the element of pathos, He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But
Brutus says he was ambitious and Brutus is an honourable man, Shakespeare constructs an
alternate representation of ambition which challenges the audiences and the mobs perception of
honour. The rhetorical question, I thrice presented him a kingly crown, Which he did thrice refuse:
was this ambition?, provides thought stimulation for the audience and mob, who have viewed two
conflicting perspectives. Shakespeare allows us to contemplate which constructed representation of
ambition and honour leads us to a particular view of the facts. Therefore, the juxtaposition of these
speeches result in an enhanced understanding of the relationship between the representation of
ambition and the meaning derived through the perspectives of honour.
In contrast, President Kennedy showcases a positive ambition, which testifies to a differing
perspective of honour. Kennedys elevated tone, let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts,
eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce , presents a
viewpoint of future ambitions, however Kennedy reminds the audience that America is ambitious,
not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is
right. Thus, through ambition, a renewed perspective of honour comes to fruition. Like Julius
Caesar, Kennedys speech create particular views about situations and events. The act of
representation may differ, but nevertheless, the representation of ambition leads to conflicting
perspectives of honour, which inevitably allow composers to provide an astute understanding of
their intricate relationship.
In conclusion, these texts use the form and content of the English language to influence and
transform the perspective of audiences through conflicting ideas and hence, offer a representation or
mediated, edited version of people, events and situations. It is through an appreciation of
production, textual form, perspective and choice of language that audiences can gain insightful
meaning from the compositions.

Elite Education | The experts in private tuition

www.eliteedu.com.au | 1300 914 329