When Money Talks

When money talks, everyone listens. When father talks, son sometimes listens. In the Americanization of Shadrach Cohen by Bruno Lessing, the conflict between father and son, the divergence of values, the clash of ideologies are on the stage. But what is behind it? Dollars, which create, ruin and recreate the stage. The popularity of utilitarianism justifies people’s desire to maximize their benefits and disregard of their moral obligations. It is a shame that utilitarianism shapes the relationship between father and son in the story.

The story starts as sons “saw an opportunity of investing further capital in it [their store] to good advantage … [and] wrote to their father to come to this country.” Gaining money to expand business, rather than family reunion and improvement on father’s living condition, is the main goal of sons’ invitation to father to live with them. Father is regarded as an owner of property and a source of capital, yet not a creator of life or a caretaker of sons. Geographical distance causes spiritual distance. Five years’ separation and lack of communication may have something to explain the gap between father and sons, but what matters more is what has happened in the last five years. Sons  come to America alone with little money, start their business from scratch and probably struggle to survive in the poor sections occupied by the minority like other Jewish immigrants. Fierce competition and harsh burden compel them to accept utilitarianism as a guiding principal of their life, which undoubtedly shapes their attitude towards their father. The motivation is the premonition to a disappointing gathering.
 

At the first sight of “their father [wearing] a gabardine-the loose, baglike garment of the Russian Ghetto…[having] a long, strangling grey beard and ringlets”, “they looked at each other in dismay”. The typical appearance of immigrants has been the target of sons’ distain. They welcome their father with persuasion to trim his beard instead of “an effusive greeting”, before father declines the advice without any hesitation. The assumption that the reason why sons crave the Americanization of their father is that they hope the immediate adaptation to the new environment, including the change of appearance, can protect father from local residents’ discrimination and make him happier is obviously wrong, because father enjoys keeping his own tradition, ignoring others’ opinion. We can deduce that the actual reason is their fear that father’s way of life might impair their image, thus hindering them from entering mainstream class. Sons’ shame of father is just the byproduct of the fear. The cold war goes on with the discord between sons’ urge for father to be so-called Americanized and father’s tenacity to old habits and customs. “After all, I have no one but you two.” This is a father’s plea for sons’ love. Nevertheless, we can see that father’s profound love, reflected by tolerance and generosity, is unable to undermine sons’ intense shame of him. It can be inferred that sons determine everything by its utility, the dogma of utilitarianism. Father’s love itself can hardly satisfy sons’ demand, as their focus is on the benefits father can bring. Here a classification is vital in analyzing sons’ value system: a benefit and a thing measured by its generated benefits. Money, social status and fame fall into the first category, while father’s love into the second.

The refusal of one of his sons to introduce his future wife to father, with the concern that his old-fashioned way of life may “spoil everything”, ignites father’s “suppressed anger”. It is believed that such refusal is so tremendous an insult that almost no father can endure. It is at this moment that father confirms his doubt of sons’ shame of him and their utilitarian judging style. Father must have been aware of the fact for a long time, but he is reluctant to admit it and still hopes that his love will help sons find the lost cohesion of the family. At last he embraces the cruel reality that his sons immersed in utilitarianism will love him only if his love manufactures such benefits as money and fame.  “The turning of a worm” becomes the only choice, an involuntary choice though.

Now father discovers the shortcut to establishing a close relationship with sons. He increases business with his “money-making spirit”, which “in the mercantile realm” makes him a real father compared with his sons. When his sons see “vistas of prosperity beyond their wildest dreams”, they begin to “look upon their father with increasing respect”. The reputation among businessmen wins further admiration from his sons. Under the severe supervision of their father, sons are forced to obey “every tenet of their religion”. The profitable management structure and lifestyle finally changes their attitude towards religion and customs. In essence, “the turning of a worm” is the shift of power, resulting in the accumulation of wealth and the acceptance of values. It can be concluded that the emotional reunion of the family is the victory of father’s mastery of utilitarianism.

If father boosts business and gains prestige, why not admire him? If girlfriend disdains father’s image, why take her to father? If Americanization helps get involved in the community, why not adopt it? If Judaism earns more money, why get rid of it? Love and care, shame and pride, religion and morality are all decided by the generated benefits, consisting of money, power, fame and a girlfriend. Such logic manipulates realistic sons’ choices, and is manipulated by perspicacious father to win sons’ hearts.
 

If money didn’t talk, would a worm turn?

When Money Talks

When money talks, everyone listens. When father talks, son sometimes listens. In The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen by Bruno Lessing, the conflict between father and son, the divergence of values, the clash of ideologies are on the stage. But what is behind it? Dollars, which create, ruin and recreate the stage. Karl Marx is right again. Economy determines infrastructure. I am reluctant to admit that utilitarianism plays a major role in shaping the relationship between father and son in the story.

Gaining money to expand business is the main goal of sons’ invitation to father to live with them. Father is regarded as an owner of property and a source of capital, yet not a creator of life or a caretaker of sons. Although “an effusive greeting” or expression of affection is far beyond his expectancy, he still finds humor in the charge of the purse-strings. Little conversation exists in the absence of common interest and the discord between sons’ urge to be so-called Americanized and father’s tenacity to old habits and customs makes things worse, so father begins to find that money becomes “the only bond between him and his sons”.

Father never loses his temper or upbraids his sons until the refusal of one of his sons to introduce his future wife to him, with the concern that his old-fashioned way of life may “spoil everything”, ignites his suppressed anger. He decides to take control of everything, including the business. As the business of father increases with his “money-making spirit”, which “in the mercantile realm” makes him a real father compared with his sons, even his sons see “vistas of prosperity beyond their wildest dreams” and begin to “look upon their father with increasing respect”. It seems the aptitude and ability to make money and the prosperity of business are closely related to reverence. The reputation among businessmen wins further admiration from his sons. Under the severe supervision of their father, sons are forced to obey “every tenet of their religion”. The management structure finally changes their attitude towards religion and customs. In essence, “the turning of a worm” is the shift of power, resulting in the accumulation of wealth and the acceptance of values.

Happy ending comes as the future daughter-in-law meets father, forming the image of a patriarch in her mind. Of course his son is satisfied. So is father.

The popularity of utilitarianism justifies people’s desire to maximize their benefits and disregard of their moral obligations. Love and care, shame and pride, religion and morality are all decided by the generated benefits, consisting of money, power, fame and a girlfriend. If father boosts business and gains prestige, why not obey and admire him? If girlfriend disdains father’s image, why take her to father? If Americanization helps get involved in the community, why not adopt it? If Judaism earns more money, why get rid of it? Such logic manipulates realistic sons’ choices, and is manipulated by perspicacious father to win sons’ hearts.

Geographical distance causes spiritual distance. Long time’s separation and lack of communication may have something to explain for the gap between father and sons. Even after their reunion different ideologies drive them apart. Moreover, father’s profound love, reflected by tolerance and generosity, is unable to undermine sons’ intense shame of him. Therefore, “the turning of a worm” becomes the only choice, an involuntary choice though. And it does work out.

If money didn’t talk, would a worm turn?

When Money Talks

When money talks, everyone listens. When father talks, son sometimes listens. In The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen by Bruno Lessing, the conflict between father and son, the divergence of values, the clash of ideologies are on the stage. But what is behind it? Dollars, which create, ruin and recreate the stage. Karl Marx is right again. Economy determines infrastructure. I am reluctant to admit that utilitarianism plays a major role in shaping the relationship between father and son in the story.

Gaining money to expand business is the main goal of sons’ invitation to father to live with them. Father is regarded as an owner of property and a source of capital, yet not a creator of life or a caretaker of sons. Although “an effusive greeting” or expression of affection is far beyond his expectancy, he still finds humor in the charge of the purse-strings, ironically humorous to a reader. Little conversation exists in the absence of common interest and the discord between the urge to be so-called Americanized and the tenacity to old habits and customs makes things worse, so father begins to find that money becomes “the only bond between him and his sons”.

Father never loses his temper or upbraids his sons until the refusal of one of his sons to introduce his future wife to him ignites his suppressed anger. He decides to take control of everything, including the business. As the business of father increases with his “money-making spirit”, which “in the mercantile realm” makes him a real father compared with his sons, even his sons see “vistas of prosperity beyond their wildest dreams” and begin to “look upon their father with increasing respect”. It seems the aptitude and ability to make money and the prosperity of business are closely related to reverence. The reputation among businessmen wins further admiration from his sons. Under the severe supervision of their father, sons are forced to obey “every tenet of their religion”. The management structure finally changes their attitude towards religion and customs. In essence, “the turning of a worm” is the shift of power, resulting in the accumulation of wealth and the acceptance of values.

Happy ending comes as the future daughter-in-law meets father, forming the image of a patriarch in her mind. Of course his son is satisfied. So is father.

The popularity of utilitarianism justifies people’s desire to maximize their benefits and disregard of their moral obligations. Love and care, shame and pride, religion and morality are all decided by the generated benefits, consisting of money, power, fame and a girlfriend. If father boosts business and gains prestige, why not obey and admire him? If girlfriend disdains father’s image, why take her to father? If Americanization helps get involved in the community, why not adopt it? If Judaism earns more money, why get rid of it?

If money didn’t talk, would a worm turn?

Direction: In the Dead Men’s Path the priest says “let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch.” Discuss what you think he means and what this saying reveals about him

The dead men’s path is a battlefield, where tradition is on one side and modernization on the other. The clash of ideologies, the conflicts of values all point to whether or not to abolish the path. Peace is based on compromises. “Let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch.” It is the seemingly only solution to the raging war. The priest figures out a way to let two ways of life and thinking survive on the same land. The superstitious civilians can hold their own roots while the young headmaster eager for revolution can carry out his projects. Peace brews development and wars always lead to ruins and destruction. Although the dead men’s path still exists on campus, the spread of westernization will gradually diminish its impact on the young generation. Severe measures can cause a disaster of fierce opposition, depriving the ambitious headmaster of the opportunities to make improvement forever. Therefore the priest’s advice is not only to attain temporary peace but also to achieve prosperity.

The putative modernization is westernization in the story. A priest must have received some western education, so he may realize the absurdity of the path and the advantages of the western civilization, as can be perceived from the comparison he makes: “the hawk” and “the eagle”. However unlike the unscrupulous and self-asserted headmaster, he has a clear vision of the village, the residents and their tradition, which enables him to pursue his career. Moreover he knows well the spirit of tolerance and respect in a diversified community. It is he that really grasps the essence of the globalization and the skills of keeping a balance between the old and the new, the domestic and the foreign, the tradition and the modernization. “Let it be”, a good adage in a flat world.

At the end of the story, I see the unseen necklace around the heroin, sparkling with grace, serenity, beauty and glory. Just as Mrs. Mallard in "the story of an hour", she has found her own identity, the value of her life. Blinded by vanity, she tends to live for others. Luxurious clothing is not our skin, but others' sight. She is free, at last.

Subtle changes sometimes lead to dramatic deformation, creation and prosperity, a law witnessed and performed by everyone. Complaints about lack of opportunities seem ridiculous, because it is us that always wait for a knock at the door while shut the window to keep chances out.

Losing is gaining, another lesson from the story.
The fake necklace lost, the real beauty found.
I may have gained more from each loss.