In the first scene of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, Menenius tells a short story about how a human body wasted away. He begins with the “members” (organs of the body, excluding the stomach) complaining about how the “belly” (the stomach) does no work while the members do all of the work. Menenius continues by saying that the members felt like slaves who had to provide for all of the belly’s wants. The members decided to stop doing what they felt was “all the work,” and they let the belly starve.
After that, the entire body began to starve and die, and they realized the work the belly had after it was too late. Menenius akes this anecdote and compares it to the predicament he is currently faced with. The citizens of Rome (the members) are ganging up against him and the other senators of Rome (the belly) because the citizens claim they are not being fed enough and the senate is not working property. Menenius defends himself and the senate by saying that they are proficient in their work because they have to collect the food before distributing it among the people.
He concludes by stating that if the citizens had been paying attention to his story, if they revolt against the senate then the entirety of Rome will perish. Menenius even uips that the first citizen, who is stirring up the rest, is the “great toe” of the body. The analogy Menenius uses to dissuade the citizens from uprising against the senate is effective in its purpose. Menenius gets his point across in some way or another. He convinces the public that the senate is concerned not only with themselves, but with the entire population. However, an analogy, by definition, can not portray the two compared subjects in an exact manner because it is a mere comparison between two different subjects on the basis of their similar structures. The similarities are used to explain the subject which is unclear.
Since a comparison is not a definition, loopholes can be found in every analogy, and the analogy’s intended purpose can always be distorted and disproven by using the loopholes against it. One unexpected point of objection that can be found within Menenius’ analogy is that in the realm of the organism, the organs, including the stomach, are fixed and have finite roles. For example, the lungs must carry out respiration in their fixed position in the organism, the brain must lead the nervous system and carry out movements in its fixed spot in the head, the skin must provide a layer of protection around the entire organism, the stomach must be he center of digestion in its fixed location in the organism, and so on and so forth.
However, we come across discrepancies when Menenius’ extends this metaphor to the political arena of Rome. The organs, or the members, are no longer in fixed positions, nor do they have finite roles in society. The citizens of Rome are very mobile, physically and socially, and their roles are ever-changing. For example, a man may have been a blacksmith and something may have changed in his life, forcing him to become a street merchant instead. This leads us to another point of objection that Menenius’ analogy does not account for: the idea of growth.
In the realm of the organism, since birth, and even before birth, the “members” are carrying out specific functions within the body. As the body ages, the members age; however, the members’ original functions do not change in the slightest. Back in the political sphere, the citizens’ functions change immensely as they age. For instance, a child’s function is to suckle its mother’s breast. At this stage, the child has virtually no importance in the socio-political sphere. As that child ages and becomes a student, its functions become more important as it learns subjects and grasps different views of the life it once knew.
As we fast-forward to when the child is an adult, its influence is maximized in the political sphere, depending on the role it chose to pursue for its own life. The concept I refer to in disputing the fact that Menenius has left out the aspect of growth and development in his comparison of the social or political body with a living organism lies within another of Shakespeare’s writings: As You Like It, Act 2, scene 7, 11. 140-166.
Shakespeare explicates my argument in the realm of the social body, proceeding from the infant to the school-boy to the lover to the soldier to the justice to the pantaloon, to the econd childishness and mere oblivion. Although it is not an all- inclusive list of all the stages a man is in in his life and all the functions a man can carry out in those stages, it provides a clear comparison to how rigid the members within an organism are. One more extended objection we can draw from the note that on one side of the analogy the members are fixed and finite and on the other the members are dynamic is the fact that along with dynamism comes diffusion. If we look at the realm of the organism once more, we have already concluded that the members are in a sense “stuck. ”
However, in the worldly realm, itizens within the belly and citizens within the members may diffuse into the other body. What I mean is a so-called average citizen can one day become part of the senate, or a senator can one day leave the senate and become an average citizen again. What takes place here is impossible to occur within the organism, as we have said before that the members and the belly are fixed and finite. Analogies, used properly and in the right contexts, are excellent tools that enable us to explain or clarify certain ideas to others. They are most useful when attempting to teach individuals less intelligent that oneself.
The reason for this is because the individual whom one is attempting to teach already should have a clear understanding of Subject A, the first part of the analogy which is being compared to Subject B. The individual may have a brief knowledge or no knowledge at all of Subject B, but through the comparison, Subject B will become clearer. For example, if I wish to teach a young child what driving a car is like, I would start with what riding a bicycle is like. Subject A would be riding a bicycle, and Subject B would be driving a car.
The child would most likely have a crystal clear understanding of what riding a icycle is like, so I would explain that with a bicycle, one steers with handlebars, but with an automobile, one steers with something known as a steering wheel. Simply by making that connection, that child will understand the function of the round wheel with three spokes in front of the driver’s seat. Moving forward, the analogy would have to be extended, and at a certain point, it would have to be abandoned because of too many discrepancies between a car and a bicycle. This is the reason analogies are only useful for learning in certain instances.
If we try to compare two entities that are too omplex, the analogy falls apart because our knowledge of both subjects is too extensive. Essentially, we can tear apart our own analogies by finding the points of variation in the two separate subjects and acknowledging that they are not identical. Therefore, analogies can only be beneficial for teaching in two models. Model1 must consist of two relatively simple concepts or objects that we can find at least one level of comparison within. Model 2 must consist of one relatively simple concept or object that we have a clear understanding of and one relatively complex concept or object that we are looking to learn about.
