Discussion about the Play “A Raisin in the Sun” Essay
Discussion about the Play “A Raisin in the Sun”
If the dreams between people clashed in a way that their desires are going towards different unparallel directions, will it be a significant factor that can suggest that the dream will no longer be achieved? Or will it remain to be a matter of what to do and dependent with the ability to adapt with all the situations – To create a new one or to stay as a victim of the failure that happened? Moreover, it can be the test of whether the dream will be created by a person or the situations like failures will create the dreamers.
Either way, it is up to the dreamer which one he will allow to happen. The play A Raisin in the Sun portrayed a family bound with dreams, subjected for possibility and risks of failures and tended to stand up once again to bound themselves again with different dreams and start all over. Situations had become too oppressive that they found themselves sometimes, in the midst of dilemmas that are more likely to be considered as lack of options. Each members of the family has repressed wish that distinguished their character from another.
In a way, this is the typical American family with their economical and social structure and reacting normally with the involvement of the other big factor that made the twist of the story – the factor of Money. With the flow of the story, the struggles the family had in dealing with their situations after the death of the father caused them to create the ideal situations in their head of what needs to be done. There remained their intentions to have better life for their family and better life for themselves individually.
This later tested their grasp with their family ties. With the individual conception of what is good, what can only go wrong is the inability to be in alignment of what you wanted with what other family members wanted. It can also become a consequent question of whether you hold fast to your dreams or hold on to the bigger picture of what needs to be done as part of the family (Mintz and Kellogg 38). The characters of the play supplied the dreamers role and collectively, a set of contrasting roles carrying ideas and subjects.
Set in mid 1800’s, the story was centered in the dreams of the Younger Family and clashes with prejudices that the characters had as they strive to have a better position in their community as a whole. Perspective to be used in the Analysis There are schools of thoughts that are highly applicable with the study of the family being portrayed in this play written by Lorraine Hansberry: first, we can see it in the perspective using functionalism or second, it can be through interactionism. Later, this will be used to reveal how the dreams are being formed and what the motivations that determined the creation of these dreams are.
These are the schools that traced the families in America with their way of being developed, managed and designed. The material variable in the family structure can be seen through the role they are playing and be analyzed objectively. Also, we can also see it from the perspective of an interactionist who is primarily concerned with the way the people are acting in response to other people or situations. Yes, these schools have difference with the primary objects of their concern, but essentially they contribute with the thorough understanding with the functions and interactions aspect of a family (Hamilton 47).
It can give us the ideas of where the dreams of the characters in the story are actually directed. The Dreamers, their Motivations, and the Clash It all started with Ten Thousand Dollars. The characters of the play provided the audiences with the humanistic range of possible thought process that can be derived from a single source of stimulus. There was an emphasis given earlier with the role of Money in this story for this is the stimulus that moved the characters to make their stand. The money pertains to the $10,000 insurance amount that Lena Younger, the maternal character not just a mother figure, got after her husband passed away.
Lena is also called Mama in the story and she possessed the maternal qualities that exhibit a picture of a loving, caring, and understanding woman. Such a woman only has one goal in life – To make her children happy or happier with all of her ability. The material figure that conveyed this goal of Mama is the house that she bought for $3,000. It symbolizes the unity, stability, and economical status that she believes to be important for her family (Morrin and Hansberry 35-38). The picture of the house portrayed the whole dream of Lena. It extends from the social ground of its manifestation to the subtle emotion a mother could possibly feel.
This dream clashes with her son’s concerns. Walter, the son, has concerns about the Money that can be categorized as the dream for continuous economic stability of the family. When it comes with the nature of his character, he can be the figure that represents masculine authority of the story. He supplied the protagonist role but with his racial prejudices paired with his conflicts while performing both role of a son and a husband makes him supply his own contrast as an antagonist. Walter became not excited about the house bought by Mama. He has ulterior motives for the money and had a clear image in his mind on what to do with the money.
For quite a long time, he has a dream of participating in a business involved in Liquor products (Morrin and Hansberry 47). As a masculine role, the story puts more authority in Walter’s hand as he got the control over the Insurance money and managed it. Lena put his trust on Walter and this shows how Lena is more than willing to give whatever her child wants. Though this doesn’t show any touch of negligence in her part. The acquisition process of the dream in this context doesn’t have any conflict yet. The conflict happened with the aftermath of the decision that placed Walter in the position of higher authority with the Money.
The first clash of dream is done with the two given characters and the structure of both dreams must be observed carefully. We can notice the function of money ranges from how it fueled the quest for the dream to the conflict the two characters had. The conflict didn’t last since one of these two dreams was restructured. Lena, whose dream is to provide what her children wanted still managed to achieve it in a way by fueling Walter’s procedure of achieving his dream. There was a conflict because the functions of the house Lena bought don’t go with the alignment of Walter’s dream.
It was settled because Lena followed that alignment as a response without violating her desires that is basically structured solely for the happiness of her children. The other child of Lena is Beneatha, the twenty year old woman, who had dream of being a physician. She is considered as intellectual and also an ambitious college student and required Money for the matriculation of the course. The conflicts Beneatha had are related to the money she required for her education and this is directed to Walter who has the control over it.
Her sole dream of becoming a doctor will be compromised without the money. She got mad at Walter when she learned that Walter did not put any amount for her study. It seems like a big turnaround from all of her aspirations and she went depressed. This clash is apparently hard for Beneatha since, if money is the fuel for her actions in making her dreams realized, then it is a big contrast to have none of it. Her dream almost vanished. How did she turn out to continue seeing hoe despite of what happened? There is another character named Asagai who became the voice of realization.
He made Beneatha realized the key thing about this vision of the dream she formed in her head. The dream had already been in her thoughts even prior to the death of his father, so it means that equating money to her dream is a big nuisance. It would be similar to the terrible equation of his father’s death hand in hand with the money. This showed that there remained to be ways on how it could be fulfilled without that so-called fuel of money. It can be money coming from different source instead. Beneatha realized this important thing, found her hope, continued dreaming.
With the structure of their dreams, it is apparent that money equates house, then money equates liquor store and finally, money equated matriculation. With its many form, money remained to be the prime motivation that was shown in the play. The big question would be, along this clash of dreams, for how long can money control or determine the actions of the characters? On the mid part of the play, Walter was betrayed by his business partner leaving him with no money. There came the confrontations with Walter and the other characters especially with his wife, Ruth, who was also driven by dreams of having financial stability.
It made them start from the scratch and all realizations that they need were established. Money is just a motivation but never a determinant of the quality of life that a harmonious family could have. Moreover, the dreams are manifestations that we are living while seeking whatever we want out of life. Money is not much important although, yes, it rates reasonably as oxygen. Lorraine Hansberry’s approach in tackling the concept of American dream showed that Money can either be seen as a fuel or an obstacle. The dreams that we have though is a picture of what we can do.
At the same time as what we can see in the play is the motivation that money can give us but it doesn’t match the quality of motivation that important people can give. Works Cited Hamilton, Peter. Reconsidering Blummer’s Corrective Against the excess of Functionalism. Talcott Parsons: critical assessments. 4 (1992), 47-49 Mintz, Steven and Kellogg, Susan. Domestic revolutions: a social history of American family life. New York: The Free Press, 1988 Morrin, Maxine and Hansberry, Lorraine. A raisin in the sun. USA: Research and Education Association, 1994.