Leaving home
Note: I think u should define the authors definition of obligation and loyalty in the introduction or ur understanding of their definitions in terms of ur thesis cuz sometimes its hard to understand the difference b/w the two..and that shouldn’t really happen cuz that is the focus of ur essay
Red: corrections (make sure u read the sentence wit read stuff cuz the whole sentence had to change sometimes)
Blue: comments
Yellow highlight: erase those things (not needed)
Leaving home is a difficult choice for any individual to make. A decision of this caliber contains conditions of no obligation, enforced obligation, and obligation in conflict with loyalty. Under these circumstances, a citizen’s loyalty to his/her country ceases to make sense, which is supported by Shklar’s article, “Obligation, loyalty, exile”. Judith Shklar, in her essay has evidently analyzed the argument of ‘obligation, loyalty and exile’, in regards to emigration. Though there are many unconditional matters to be questioned, the focus of this essay will be on the in my interest to structure (structure of wat, exile?) and define the chosen reasons for exile argued in Shklar’s article. “In ordinary talk the two words loyalty and obligation are generally used interchangeably as if they were identical”, but it is Shklar’s argument “that it is important not only to keep them apart but to go on to make clear the distinctions between obligation, commitment, loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity”. (Shklar, 182) This essay will support her argument and show how both obligation and loyalty are both principle elements that force a person to exile.
Obligation is defined as rule governed conducts and “political obligation specifically refers to laws and law-like demands, made by public agencies.” (Shklar, 183) When thinking of obligation, one may connect it with loyalty. Many individuals come to the conclusion that obligation exists where there is loyalty, but another view argued by Shklar argues is that it is more rational to ‘keep them separate’. Through her extreme examples of exiles such as ‘limiting case’, Shklar’s arguments are adequate and evident. (I don’t think u need this sentence, if u want it there, it needs to be reworded-try to maintain one tense-usually present tense) It is an individual right to feel protected by his or her own country, a right for a sense of belonging, and, most importantly, mainly a the right to be protected. With regards to obligation and exile, it is common practice to one would question the importance of justice. “Injustice not only cancels obligations and undermines loyalties, however resilient the latter may seem; it also engenders the conflict between obligation and the effective ties that bind us”. (Shklar, 197) Hence, if this statement is true,(don’t say this ur trying to prove ur thesis, by saying if, ur argument weakens-ur arguments have to be strong) it is reasonable to conclude that justice arises with the presence of both obligation and loyalty. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain justice due to the rise in swindle, cheating, and lying in government strategy. Betrayal to state and irrational obligation has become another reason why an individual would exile from his or her country. (this sentence doesn’t really flow with the essay at this point, but maybe if u reword it, itl work-but seems like its another agrument in itself) Enforcement of law, where forced obligation becomes unbearable, may also lead an individual to exile. The author portrayed this reason of exile through an example of a French army man, Traifis. Traifis was accused of passing secret’s to German’s and was convicted and charged accordingly. Through all of this, he still became loyal to obey (wrong word-wat r u trying to say?-protect?) his country, though in reality he was betrayed by his own state. The author finds it difficult to understanding how one could still be loyal to a country without feeling obligated. (this needs to be explained more-the definitions of the 2 cuz its hard to understand the difference at this point, or how they do/don’t relate to eachother) His obligation ceased, and he signed up with the army again; this shows that his loyalty is greater than the feeling of obligation. This is a case which Shklar would describe as “crazy”. (don’t need this sentence) It is important to note how Shklar stresses that “obligation is a reasoned answer”. If one cannot come up with a reasoned answer as to why he or she should obey, then there is no place for obligation to exist. (this is good to put in ur intro to describe the meaning of obligation in the eyes of the author…if not, put it in the beginning of this argument, it’ll help the reader understand ur argument better) An important point to note is that those who leave home do not necessarily disobey the state, but rather the state has disobeyed them. As one’s right to feel safe is taken away, the insecurity drives the citizen away from his or her own land. Shklar uses more specific and extreme cases to strengthen her argument that it is the degree of injustice and cruelty that many ordinary people have been through in the past, and unfortunately many more are victims of same examples today. (u need a more strong concluding sentence and I think u should only uses this lsat point if u give an actual example from the article-if its just a point within her essay, don’t say it’s a specific extreme case-maybe say that she is strong to point out that……..) Government conduct is only one of the driving factors of exile, for emotional attachment plays a large part in an individuals actions as well. (this is to tie in the two arguments together, as for the beginning of the sentence, that’s wat I understood of the first argument, if its wrong, then change it….jus wanted to give u a idea for a concluding sentence)
