The Tempest Analysis

A new concept of an individual emerged in every field, in most parts of the Western Europe affected by the reformation of the Protestants and the rise of the bourgeoisie trade, in the 16th century. The embodiment of most of this idea is shown in The Tempest, where Prospero combines Aeriel’s holy spirituality and Caliban’s ruthless materiality. However, he becomes anxious about the achieved equilibrium that rules out the unique position of a man’s pride in the great humanity chain. To defeat Caliban, he must admit adopting this concept to remind his audience that the partaking of human beings of the devil or the angel is indeed problematic. In the 17th century, what remained of Prospero is a discouraging and hidden formalized conflict between the body’s reasoning and its passions.

Capitalism transforms labor into a product to cause the submission of workers’ activity to an external order that they cannot control or identify. Hence, the process of labor becomes a self-estrangement ground where the worker only feels himself when not at work and feels outside himself when working. He stays at home when not working and vice versa. Likewise, Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest insists on the economic fact which critically speaks of the value of labor power. He provides this fact to Miranda after manifesting her disgust utterance towards Caliban when she says that he cannot be missed because he makes their fire, fetch in their wood, and offer services in their profitable office (Federici 137). Just like Prospero, When a Cartesian man is place in a world that is soulless and a machine-like body, he would break his magic wand thus becoming entitled to the responsibility of his actions which seems to be the center of power.

When his body divorces him, it is certain that the self-rationale loses its reality and natural solidarity. However, the privacy of the body is similar to the King’s. According to the Cartesian person model, there is no open relationship between the mind that thinks and the working body, except for the relationship between a slave and a master. This results from the will of primarily dominating the body as well as nature. However, according to the Cartesian model, the decentralization and diffusion of power can only occur to the extent that it centers within an individual and reconstitutes in a microstate. Indeed, the content and aims of power are not lost but simply acquired through the collaboration that promotes the person. Considering Brian Easlea’s proposed thesis in this context, the main advantage of Cartesian dualism to the class of capitalism was the soul’s immortality defended by the Christians, and possibly defeating atheism magic implicit which gave subversive implications.

Easlea supports this view on the basis that the religious defense was centralized on the Cartesian theme. He argues attractively by insisting on the reactions of the thoughts of Descartes, making it impossible for him to answer his own raised question that seeks to determine the strength of holding Cartesianism in Europe, even after dispelling the belief in Newtonian physics of a world free from cult powers. In summary, Shakespeare attributes the misfortunes of Prospero which excessively interests him in magic books where he eventually ends ups renouncing for a life that is more active in his kingdom. Here, he will acquire his power from governing his subjects and not from magic. His exile island already has a new world order of prefigured activities where power is gained by enslaving a number of Calibans in colonies of a far distance.

The exploitative management of Prospero towards the Calibans prefigures the future role of master of plantation who will not force nor torment or torture his subjects while working. Work Cited Federici, Silvia.