Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
26 August 2008
Underlying Messages
Richard Scarry’s book What Do People Do All Day? attempts to teach children how an average American citizen lives, or rather, should live. It stresses the importance of having a job, owning a house, traveling, health, and most importantly, family. Although there is no argument when it comes to the significance of family, this book repeatedly illustrates a family as being a mother and father with children and also portrays the father as being the provider for the family. This picture, however, is not consistent with reality today. Although Scarry’s book can potentially teach a child important life lessons, it may also leave children thinking in a somewhat stereotypical point of view.
Many pictures and captions reinforce this stereotypical outlook that Scarry creates. The illustration on the top of page six immediately puts up a red flag. Yes, there is in fact a female pictured in the group of “workers”, but she is holding a broom and wearing an apron. In addition to this degrading illustration, the short story follows Farmer Alfalfa throughout his hard day at work and shows him buying his wife a new pair of earrings by the end, as if she could not buy them on her own. Similar to this, the first caption on page nineteen states that, “Mother Cat was ironing one of Daddy’s shirts,” again implying that a woman’s place is at home. Nearly every worker shown in this book, including Doctor Lion, Blacksmith Fox, Stitches the tailor, and Baker Charlie, is male. These examples send a few underlying messages to children. The first message being that every family consists of a mother, father, and children. The second message channels children to think that the father is always the provider for the family.
These messages that Scarry intertwines within his book are, in many cases, unlike the real world. Many families in today’s society do not fit the idealistic father and mother with children picture. A lot of families have gone through divorce, which may have lead to remarriage, stepparents, and stepsiblings. On the other hand, some families are unfortunately devastated by the loss of a loved one. So in short, a handful of families include only one parent, or, in the case of divorce and remarriage, more than two parents. This makes Scarry’s second underlying message unrealistic. The father in a family is not always the sole provider of the family. Based on today’s competitive economy, numerous families make it by on a double income, in which both the mother and father work full time. In contrast, a handful of families survive on their mother’s income alone. This contradicts Scarry’s unrealistic view that the father, and only the father, can provide for his family.
Contradicting the book’s unrealistic aspects, the book is generally realistic. Scarry creatively illustrates to children the importance of getting a job, when they are of age, and providing for their family. Although some of the jobs are a bit old fashion, the book displays a great array of professions a child may gain interest in. In addition to the realistic idea of having to work for your money, Scarry also incorporates health and family into the scenario. He demonstrates the importance of health by following Abby to her visit with Doctor Lion and then shows Betsy Bear sending a letter to her grandmother, which shows the significance of family.
However, the idealistic picture Scarry has created of what a family should look like is inaccurate and disagreeable. His point of view on the topic of family appears to be biased. Contrary to this, Scarry’s point of view throughout the book is, for the most part, legitimate. It is true that the majority of American citizens work, have a home, visit the doctor regularly, and respect their family. Considering the date of publication of the book is 1968, his stereotypical view of what a family should look like is understandable. Back then, divorce rate was not nearly as high as it is today. Also, many women stayed at home and did not even consider taking on the jobs that men partook in. So the picture of “Mommy” dressed in an apron and holding a broom on the top of page six would not have been the least bit offensive to women years ago. To be decisive, Scarry’s point of view is agreeable. This is because the pieces of his story that could be argued are simply behind the times. Customs have changed and Scarry’s point of view is out dated. He wrote based on the point of view of the time period he lived in and illustrated it in a way that is agreeable.
In conclusion, Scarry wrote “What Do People Do All Day?” in attempt to steer children in the right direction in life. He stressed work, health, and family among other things in order to fix in the minds of children how an average American citizen should perform. Although his point of view is agreeable based on the publication date of the book, Scarry includes underlying messages that leave a child thinking in a somewhat stereotypical point of view.
1 comment:
This is a fairly effective introduction, although it might have been shorter. More importantly, you could/should phrase your arguments as directly as possible. You are arguing that Scarry is teaching children a sexist, antiquated, and morally questionable way of understanding family and gender roles - why beat around the bush about it?
I love your focus on page six, and I suspect you could have done even more there. The best thing about this paper (and the thing that others reading this should take away from it) is your effective use of concrete examples - although they might have been *more* numerous and *more* concrete.
Your discussion of how the book *for the most part* is realistic, despite its unrealistic vision of what families are like, could have used a little more work - more concrete details here would strengthen your argument. After all, if you’re arguing that Scarry is trying to teach patriarchal gender roles (which I think you are doing), then your point will be made if you show that he is *only* unrealistic when depicting gender roles.
Another way to put this is that you might argue that he portrays *men’s* work accurately and *women’s* work inaccurately, which might have allowed you to provide more concrete examples of how he is simultaneously realistic and unrealistic.
Your generalizations about 1968 weaken your argument unnecessarily. Just because we have an ideal image of the past doesn’t mean that our culture actually corresponds with that vision - if you look at the statistics, it’s clear that many women worked in 1968 (but for less money and less status), and that it’s not like we invented divorce in the 70s. A little research here would have helped you to argue that your point that he portrays *our* world incorrectly also means that he portrays *his* world incorrectly.
In short: this is a strong beginning, but there are many ways in which you could have strengthened your focus and more compellingly defended your argument.
Post a Comment