is a modest proposal an essay

A Modest Proposal

Introduction of “a modest proposal”.

A Modest Proposal is an essay written by Jonathan Swift . The full title of the essay is ‘For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick’ and is commonly known as ‘A Modest Proposal’ in its short form. It was published in 1729 anonymously. The essay is labeled as the best example of a juvenile satire , directing its arrow of ironic strictures on the existing personalities and figures of his times. The essay revolves around his suggestion of poor Irish children to be sold for food for the elite class of that time in a very mockingly serious mood . The hyperbolic suggestion, sometimes, evokes highly reprehensible emotions amongst the readers.

Summary of “A Modest Proposal”

Written in the first person, the proposal outlines the problem of the children that Ireland was facing during the time of Jonathan Swift. The problem outlined was related to the women beggars filling the streets of the Irish cities. Some of them have no means to feed their young kids and the kids becoming beggars was another issue facing the country. During this time the Protestant minority English was ruling Ireland neglecting the poor Irish Catholics. Jonathan Swift has tried to invite the attention of the government toward this problem but it seems that after all of his efforts failed, he has chosen this selected and novel way to attract the attention of the authorities.

As a proposer of this suggestion, Jonathan claims that he has a plan to deal with this problem effectively and efficiently. He states that after he has reserved some years of his life to think of the best possible solution to the problem of child beggars, he has come up with a viable set of solutions. He says that some of his plans have not proved workable in the past due to his inability to accurately make calculations. Also, while others have presented their plans they ‘grossly mistaken in their Computation’. However, in the case of this proposal, he has accurately made calculations before offering them in the essay. He says that a child is supported with breast milk and two shillings per year. However, for the child to enter into the professed beggary takes time and the parents are too poor to provide them. He proposes that the parents or guardians will release the child from their care after the presentation of this proposal finding it financially rewarding.

According to this proposal, there are 200,000 Irish parents actively giving birth to children by which means that if 30,000 of the couples can take care of them, 50,000 face miscarriages, leaving 120,000 parents having the inability to bring up their children in an appropriate way. His contention is how to deal with this explosion of the childbirth rate and what to do with this rising number of children, for they cannot be used in agriculture, or cannot be made skillful workers. They are also too young to support themselves, he says, adding that they also cannot be sold as slaves, or else they would fetch a considerable amount of money. Therefore, he has suggested a comprehensive plan to deal with this increasing birth rate.

Jonathan says that he has been assured by his American friend, whom he does not name, has told him that the meat of a year-old child is very delectable Whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled and without any doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. Therefore, he has made calculations that if they are total 120,000 can be reserved for breeding, and the rest can be reared to sell to the gentry for eating. He states that the wealthy landlords would be the likely buyers.

The reason is that they have already devoured several parents in their greed for more and that they deserve to take lead in this work. He also suggests that by doing this, they would be becoming a source of increasing profits for a considerable number of mothers. He further goes on by mocking the Catholic church that the Catholics produce more children than the Protests who were ruling the country since they are against the birth control that was introduced during that time even though there’s a spike in overpopulation and poverty . If such people, he argues, prove their ability in doing business, they can use the hide and other parts of the children to sharpen their business skills such as they can prepare gloves and shoes from their hide or sell it in the market. Calling his suggestion “innocent, cheap, easy and effectual” Swift states that he has no personal interest involved in this proposal as he has no child and that his wife, too, has passed the child-bearing age.

Major Themes in “A Modest Proposal”

• Exploitation: Although the essay seems a simple satire, the underlying theme is the exploitation of the landlords of Ireland and England who left people with nothing to eat. They were thronging the streets to beg for food. The laws were unfair and maltreated the poor in favor of the rich or the elite class. The rents charged from the tenants and farmers were very high which led to poverty and begging. Therefore, the essay highlights this exploitation in the garb of this suggests that the parents could sell their children to feed themselves and that those children would be used for delicious dishes for the gentry.
• Greed: The essay also shows the theme of greed lurking behind the lines. As it is not obvious, it is shown through the presence of beggars including women and children, who are “forced to employ their time in strolling to beg sustenance.” It shows that they have been forced by their landlords to go hungry or feed themselves and their children by begging. In other words, the greed of landlords brought the poor to the streets. Therefore, the proposal hints at the greed of the landlords.
• Prejudice: The thematic idea, prejudice is not plainly noticeable but it makes up the background of the essay in that the British Protestants used to despise the Roman Catholics and have laws enacted to exploit their vulnerabilities, which left them to roam on the roads in search of food and security.
• Irish Social Apathy: The essay also underlines the Irish social indifference as many people were begging in the streets with children and the government and social responses were almost non-existence as far as the essay shows. That was also a major reason behind his proposal of selling of the children to the gentry for meat and other purposes.
• Poverty: The beginning of the essay shows that poverty was widespread in Ireland on account of the government’s lack of care, the indifference of the upper class and the landlords. The laws were enacted to crush the poor class, the reason that all women, children, and even men of this section of the society had been forced to come into the streets to beg for sustenance.
• Colonialism: Although it is not modern colonialism, English rule on its adjoining lands and countries, unlike Asian and African countries, were for extraction of the sources by exploiting the local population making the situation of living worse in the British colonies. The Catholics were subjected to religious torture and legal exploitation, leaving a chunk of the Irish population to face starvation or beg in the streets.
• Misanthropy: If read in literal teams, the essay shows extreme misanthropy of the author that he has discussed in his letter to Pope, yet when taken as a satire, it shows his love for humanity and his concern for the safety and security of the Irish children.

Writing Style of “A Modest Proposal”

Although the language is quite simple, Jonathan Swift adopted the rhetorical style in this essay to hook his audiences into reading it and applauding his style with detestation. The diction and sentences are formal, implying the proposer of the proposal is serious. However, the use of the trap Swift has exploited to hook his readers is quite unusual and interesting, for he has proposed this solution to end poverty by stressing upon the ills that poverty brings. The use of animal metaphors for human beings in a satiric tone has lessened the impact of misanthropy presented to satirize the Irish authorities of that time. The impact of this satiric-cum-serious tone lies in its impact on the readers.

Analysis of Literary Devices in “A Modest Proposal”  

• Anaphora : The essays shows the use of anaphora . For example, i. Therefore let no man talk to me  of other expedients: of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from LAPLANDERS, and the inhabitants of TOPINAMBOO: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. This example shows the use of “Of…” as an anaphora.
• Anecdote : The essay shows the use of anecdote in the below example, It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes. This example shows the anecdote used as the hook or attention grabber of this essay.
• Allusion : There are various examples of allusions given in the essay. For example, i. These mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes. ii. As to our City of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose, in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting. iii. But in order to justify my friend , he confessed, that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Salmanaazor, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London . iv. For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of Papists, with whom we are yearly over-run, being the principal breeders of the nation, as well as our most dangerous enemies, and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretende. The mention of Pretender of Spain and Barbados in the first, Dublin in the second, Salmanaazor and Formosa with London in the third and Papist and Pretender in the last are examples of geographical and theological allusions.
• Asyndeton : The essay shows the use of asyndeton in the following example, i. I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. The example shows the omission of conjunction between most of the clauses here.
• Dark Humor : The essay shows the use of dark humor in the below sentence , i. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone , the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter . This example shows the use of taboos of cannibalism in a light mood as if they can be exercised freely.
• Ethos : The essay shows the use of ethos . For example, i. It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. This example shows how the author has established his ethos by presenting a common observable scene.
• Foreshadow: The essay shows the following examples of foreshadowing , i. It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. ii. There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children. These quotes from “ A Modest Proposal ” foreshadow the suggestions that Swift is going to throw before his readers.
• Hyperbole : Hyperbole or exaggeration occurs in the essay at various places, for example, i. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust. The above sentence is hyperbole , and also it shows how the suggestion is horrible and disgusting.
• Imagery : Imagery is used to make readers perceive things involving their five senses. For example, i. It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. ii. There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast. iii. Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed; and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken, to ease the nation of so grievous an incumbrance. These examples show different images such as the images of squalor and poverty in the first, of murdering in the second, and of disabilities in the third.
• Irony : The essay shows the use of irony in the below examples, i. There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast. ii. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known, that they are every day dying, and rotting, by cold and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young labourers, they are now in almost as hopeful a condition. Both of these examples show the use of irony as the meanings are not what the author has written but quite opposite to what he says.
• Kairos : The essay shows the use of kairos as the credentials of the author, references to the domination of the Protestant, colonization of the different parts of the world by Britain, and other historical clues point to the context and temporality of the essay.
• Logos : The essay shows the use of logos in the following sentences, i. The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. ii. I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags having been at least four times that value. Both of these examples show the use of logos that is to use evidence to support one’s argument to make it convincing.
• Metaphor : “A Modest Proposal” shows good use of various metaphors in the below examples, i. I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children. ii. Whereas the maintainance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old, and upwards, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a piece per annum. iii. The constant breeders, besides the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year. The first example compares landlords to crocodiles as they devour, the second children to things about their maintenance and third parents to animals who are breeders.
• Mood : The essay “A Modest Proposal” shows various moods but the prominent ones are formal, ironic and cynical.
• Narrator : The essay is narrated from a first person point of view , which is the writer, Jonathan Swift.
• Pathos : The essay shows the example of pathos as follows, i. It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. The example shows how Swift has used pathos to awaken pity and sympathy in his readers.
• Repetition : The essay shows the use of repetition at several places such “I assure you…”, “I am sure…” and “I have been assured…”. These phrases have made it a convincing piece of rhetoric .
• Rhetorical Questions : The essay shows good use of rhetorical questions at several places, for example, i. The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared, and provided for? which, as I have already said. This example shows the use of rhetorical questions posed by the narrator to stress upon the idea instead of asking the question.
• Satire : The essay shows the use of satire in the following examples, i. ..whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation. ii. I am assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London; that a young healthy child, well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food; whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, and I make no doubt, that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or ragout. Both of these examples show the use of satire in the essay.
• Simile : The essay shows good use of various similes in the following sentences, i. I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our school-boys. ii. …and the inhabitants of TOPINAMBOO: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken… These are similes as the use of the word “like” shows the comparison between different things.
• Tone : The tone of the essay “A Modest Proposal” is satiric, sarcastic, and, at times, ironic.

Related posts:

• Jonathan Swift
• Gulliver’s Travels

Post navigation

(92) 336 3216666

[email protected]

• A Modest Proposal

Background of the Essay

Historical background.

The essay “A Modest Proposal” was written by Jonathan Swift. It was published in 1729. The full name of the essay was “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to their Parents or Country and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick.” At that time, England was ruling Ireland, and Swift was one of the ruling class members. The people of Ireland suffered a lot during this rule.

The group of English people ruling England was protestant, and the people of Ireland were mainly Catholics. As a result, there was a vast chasm between the two. The protestant elites did not like the catholic citizens and never took steps for their betterment. Instead, they imposed religious restrictions on them. Moreover, the common people of Ireland were left very poor by imposing many restrictions on trade for them. To add to this problem of poverty, the country was also overpopulated.

Jonathan Swift wanted this situation to change. He made many attempts to persuade the government of that time to take steps for the progress of the country and the prosperity of the people. He wrote many letters in this regard but never got any positive response. So, this proposal is another attempt at making the government realize the woes of the people. He uses his skill of satire to show how grave the problems of common people are. At the same time, he was angry with the passivity and apathy of the Irish people and wanted to awaken them.

Literary Background of A Modest Proposal

“A Modest Proposal” is a satirical essay by genre. The author of this essay, Jonathan Swift, is regarded as one of the best satirists in English Literature ever. This essay holds a special place among his satirical writings. Its effect is enhanced by the shocking change of mood in the middle of the essay.

Satirical essays are characterized by the use of irony and shifts of moods. In this essay, too, the author starts with the description of the miserable condition of the beggar women and children wandering and begging in the streets of Ireland. He seems sympathetic and describes the plights of these beggars. At this point, the shock arrives, and the author presents his strange proposal. He comes up with the idea that these poor children of Ireland should be butchered and eaten. His tone remains totally objective as he supports his claim through various statistics. In this manner, he satirizes the method of objective analysis of social matters, which was very common at that time.   

A Modest Proposal Summary

The essay opens with the narrator invoking the usual scene on the streets in Ireland i.e., the melancholy sight of female beggars begging along with their children. He says that these females are forced to beg for food because they are not able to work. The children grow up to become thieves or go to the Americas, searching for a better future.

After this empathy-inspiring description of female beggars and their children, the author goes on to claim that this is a matter of national concern. He says that these children, in particular, are a burden on the already crippled Kingdom. Therefore, he argues that if anyone can come up with a plan that can turn these beggar children into useful citizens, it will be a great service to the country and its people.

At this point, the author starts describing the authenticity and merits of his proposal. This proposal, he says, can solve the problem of beggar children. Moreover, it can also cater for all children of a specific age whose parents, even though they have not started begging, cannot support them in their current financial condition.

As the background of his proposal, the author provides the statistics of Ireland’s population. He argues that the proposals presented by others regarding this problem are insufficient to solve it. They have not considered the ground realities before proposing their schemes.

Having negated other proposals, the author proposes his own solution to the problem. He says that a child can easily be fed for the first year of his/her life. The total cost needed to bring up a child for the first year is no more than two shillings. The major part of the child’s diet in this period is covered through breast milk, which is free.

The problematic phase starts after the first year. The needs of children grow, and so does the cost of upbringing. So, the “modest” proposal provides a solution for one-year-old children. The author says that his proposal will result in making the setback an advantage. The children, who are now a burden on their families and the government, will become a source of food and clothing.

Moreover, the proposal will result in lessening the ill-practices of infanticide and abortion because the mothers will not have to worry about the expenses of upbringing the child. He says that many people commit these sins because they fear the expenses of feeding a child.

At this point, some more statistics are forwarded. The population of Ireland is around 1.5 million. Out of these 1.5 million people, around two hundred thousand women are adult enough to conceive a child. Out of these two hundred thousand women, only thirty thousand might be able to bring up their children without any financial worries. This leaves one hundred and seventy thousand breeders—as he calls them. Among these breeders, around fifty thousand children can be supposed to be miscarried or die during the first year of their lives.

So, it is clear that every year around one hundred and twenty thousand children are born in low-income families who are unable to feed them properly. Therefore, the problem needs to be solved. These kids cannot be given employment in the country that neither cultivates lands nor builds new houses. The children cannot be sold as slaves before they reach the age of twelve, and when they are sold after this age, they earn very little money. This money is not equal to the amount spent on their upbringing. All of them cannot become thieves as well before reaching the age of six years.

Having detailed the problem, the author forwards his solution to the problem. He says that an American person has told him that a child of one year is a very delicious and nutritious food. The child can be either boiled, or stewed, or bakes, or roasted.

Building upon this information, he says that a proper plan of action should be devised to dispose of the children born in low-income families. Out of the one hundred and twenty thousand children, twenty thousand should be allowed to live. They will serve the purpose of breeding and maintenance of the population.

However, a proper ratio of one male to four females should be maintained among them. One man will be adequate to serve four women in breeding. The remaining one hundred thousand children should be fed and fattened in order to be sold as a food delicacy. The author also suggests the different types of dishes that can be prepared with the meat of these children.

After giving the general idea of the proposal, the author goes on to explain specific details. The first point discussed is the cost of the meat of the children. An average baby at one year age weighs around twenty-eight pounds. This suggests that the meat will be more expensive than the other types of meat available in the market.

For this reason, the delicacy will be primarily available to the wealthy landlords of Ireland who have already eaten the majority of the parents of these children. Secondly, he points out that the meat will be available in the market all year round as the children are born every day of the year. Usually, there will be a surge in the supply during spring.  

The author moves on to explain the difference between the cost and sale price of the children. On average, a child can be nursed for one year for less than two shillings. On the other hand, the meat of the child will yield ten shillings.

This way, the parents will make an easy profit of eight shillings. At the same time, the buyer will also not be at a loss. He/she will have around four dishes of delicious meat and will have fame in his/her society. Moreover, the skin of the child can also be used as leather when needed. The author says that he is quite sure that there will be many people in Dublin that will be ready to butcher the children and conduct the business.  

The author says that he was advised to refine his scheme by a friend. The advice was that he should include teenagers in his proposal because there is a scarcity of deer meat on the tables of the wealthy landlords.

Furthermore, these teenagers are living a miserable life and are unable to find any employment. He, however, disagrees with this suggestion on two points.

Firstly, the meat of the teenagers is lean and hard, and its taste is also not very good.

Secondly, some people might—unjustly—censure this practice as cruelty. Therefore, it would not be wise to add this suggestion to the proposal.  

The author admits that there are a lot of other poor people that are unable to find work for themselves and are a burden on society. These include sick, aged, and disable people. However, he does not show any worry about them because these people are going to die very soon.

The author admits that he has digressed and comes back to his original proposal. He says that his proposal is beneficial in the sense that the Catholics will lessen in number in this way. The Catholics are disadvantageous to the country as they have very large families. He accuses them of their political activities and calls them the enemy of the state.

Another advantage the proposal will have is that the underprivileged tenants will be able to clear their debts by selling their children. In this way, the economy of the nation will improve. Consequently, a liability will turn into a product of the national level. Moreover, a new dish will also be added to the cuisine of the landlords.  

The benefit of selling their children will not stop at eight shillings only. The parents will not have to pay for the growing expenses of their children after the first year.

Moreover, the business of taverns will also shoot up as the poor people will have pennies in their hands. Morally speaking, the scheme will result in an increase in marriages and maternal love for children. Domestic violence will also go down for the period of the time of pregnancy. There will be a competition among mothers to bring the healthiest child to the sale. Other types of beef will then be exported more and will bring money to the country.

Inside the country, they will have to raise their standards in order to compete with the high-quality meat of the children. The author believes that the landlords in London will eat as much as the one-fifth of the total flesh procured in the whole country.

After explaining the minute details of the proposal, the author preempts any type of objections that can be raised. One such objection can be that the population of the country can be reduced very much in this manner. The author says that the reduction of the population is among the goals of the proposal as the population of Ireland is well above the limit. He says that this scheme was prepared for Ireland specifically and should not be applied in any other country.

The author rejects the already existing plans for the prosperity of the country and calls them unrealistic and naive. He says that he has become tired of such unrealistic schemes in the past and is now excited about his current discovery. This plan, according to him, is highly practical and realistic. This scheme also has the advantage that there is no chance that it will anger England. Rather, England will be happy to import this delicacy from Ireland. He says that there is a country that might be able to eat the Irish nation without preservatives.

The author claims that no substitute plan can equal his plan even if they are similarly easy, innocent, and cheap. The reason is that his proposal considers two main issues that cannot be addressed by any other plan. The first issue it addresses is that of clothing and feeding one hundred thousand useless children. The second issue is the extreme level of poverty. The author says that Irish people are so poor that they would be happy to be able to be sold for food.

The author says that this proposal is forwarded in the interest of the common people, and he seeks no benefit out of it. His own children have passed this age and can, therefore, not be sold. He just wants to advance the trade of the nation, relieve the unprivileged, provide for the kids, and give some pleasure to the landlords. 

A Modest Proposal Analysis

In the essay “A Modest Proposal,” Jonathan Swift satirizes the elite class of Ireland and their British colonizers. At the same time, he vents his disgust at the Irish people for not doing anything for themselves. It also mocks the cold and inhumane methods of problem-solving in the eighteenth century. At that time, people used to give solutions to the grievous problems of humanity on the basis of irrelevant statistics.

In order to catch the attention of the audience and to convey his point, Swift makes his proposal sound barbarous without a tinge of human empathy. He talks of human slaughter and cooking like he is talking about cattle or poultry. He takes the path of utilitarianism and talks about solving the problem of poverty and overpopulation in an indifferent economic manner. His proposal can benefit society at the cost of a few humans. Through this technique, he shows how irrelevant utilitarianism is to human problems.   

The Pattern of Rhetoric

In this essay, Jonathan Swift uses the traditional system of rhetoric to organize his argument. In this system, the argument is presented in five steps.

The first part of the argument introduces the subject and is called exordium.

The second part of the argument narrates the ground facts and realities. This part is called the narratio.

The third part of the argument confirms the claims of the argument through proofs and is called confirmatio.

The fourth part of the argument refutes any possible objections to the argument. This part is called confutatio.

The last part of the argument employs pathos and appeals to the audience. It also sums up the whole discussion and is called peroratio.  

In the exordium part of the essay, the author describes the usual scene of the streets of Ireland. He says that the sight of women beggars, along with their children, is very common on the streets of Ireland. These kids are shabbily dressed and are malnourished. This description introduces the problem of hunger, begging, and poverty.

To this problem, the author presents his cheap and effortless solution. The solution is of nursing the babies of these low-income families for one year and then butchering them to be sold as meat to the landlords.   

In the next part of the argument, the author presents the ground realities. He says that among the 1.5 million people living in Ireland, there will be around two hundred thousand breeders. Out of these two hundred thousand breeders, around one hundred and seventy thousand will be poor. If they give birth to children, they will not be able to bear the expenses.

Therefore, they become a burden on the country and their families. Subtracting another fifty thousand children who might die during the first year, a total of one hundred and twenty thousand poor babies are left. Among these children, the author proposes to leave twenty thousand for breeding and to butcher the remaining one hundred thousand for eating.

In this manner, they will bring income to their families and delicious meat to the tables of landlords. Moreover, it will help in controlling the population of the country.

In the confirmatio part of the argument, the author lists the benefits of his proposal. His proposal will help the poor people get rid of their poverty as they will get a profit of eight shillings and will not have to bear the expenses of children after the first year.

Moreover, they will be inclined to marry early and will leave behind the ill doings like abortion and infanticide. On the other hand, the elites will have a new delicious dish on their tables. The economy of the country will also move forward. At the same time, the number of Catholics will be reduced as they are not liked by the ruling class.

In the confutatio part of the argument, the author refutes any possible objection to his proposal. He says that some people might object that this proposal will result in lessening the population of the country. He replies by saying that it was one of his goals while he was forwarding his proposal as the country is overpopulated.

In the last part of the argument, the author employs pathos and says that his proposal is not based on any self-interest. Rather, his sole motive is the common good. He wants to relieve the burdens of ordinary people. As for his part, he says that he cannot benefit from this scheme as his youngest child is already nine years of age.

A Modest Proposal as a A Satirical Essay

The satire in this essay is of a very wide spectrum and ranges from the people of Ireland to the colonizers of England. Following is a brief account of the ways these different groups are satirized.

On the Irish Government

The government of Ireland is satirized for being apathetic and ignorant of the problems of the people of Ireland. They are also satirized for the religious restrictions they have put on the Catholics of Ireland.

On the Irish People

The people of Ireland are satirized for their inability to see and solve their own problems. They are shown to be so dull and lazy that they would even kill their own children but would not stand up for their rights.

On the English Rulers

The colonizers of England are satirized for their inhumane behavior towards the colonized people. The rulers of England are said to be ready to eat the whole nation. It is also said that England will have no objection to this trade of human flesh.

On Utilitarianism

The philosophy of utilitarianism is satirized for its inability to solve the problems of humans. The speaker of this essay employs a utilitarian approach in his proposal, and the ineptness of the approach becomes visible from the very start.

Tone of the Essay

The tone of the essay is thoroughly ironic and satirical. The author presents his proposal in a manner that the audiences are supposed to disagree with. He intends to mock the type of solution which his proposal has. In this way, the author does exactly what he wants to tackle. The inhumane speaker of the essay is the caricature of the followers of utilitarian philosophy.

More From Jonathan Swift

• English Literature
• Short Stories
• Literary Terms
• Web Stories

A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift | Summary & Analysis

Who is Jonathan Swift? Jonathan Swift was an Irish writer, poet, and satirist best known for his novel “Gulliver’s Travels” and his satirical essays. One of his most famous works, “A Modest Proposal,” is a satirical essay published in 1729. This essay is often studied for its biting social commentary and clever use of satire.

Table of Contents

Background of “A Modest Proposal”

“A Modest Proposal” was written during a time of great social and economic turmoil in Ireland. The country was suffering from poverty, famine, and overpopulation, and the British government’s policies were exacerbating these issues. Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal” as a way to draw attention to the dire conditions in Ireland and to criticize the British government’s handling of the situation.

Summary of “A Modest Proposal”

In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift presents a shocking solution to Ireland’s poverty problem: he suggests that impoverished Irish families should sell their children as food to wealthy English landlords. Swift argues that this solution would not only alleviate poverty but also provide a new source of income for the Irish people.

Swift’s proposal is presented in a straightforward and logical manner, but it quickly becomes apparent that he is using satire to critique the British government’s indifference to the suffering of the Irish people. By proposing something so outrageous and morally repugnant, Swift forces his readers to confront the reality of the situation in Ireland and to question the policies that have led to such extreme poverty and desperation.

Analysis of “A Modest Proposal”

Swift’s satirical approach is what makes “A Modest Proposal” such a powerful and effective piece of writing. By presenting his proposal in a calm and rational tone, Swift lulls his readers into a false sense of security before shocking them with the absurdity of his suggestion. This technique allows Swift to highlight the absurdity of the British government’s policies and to make a powerful statement about the moral bankruptcy of those in power.

In addition to its satirical elements, “A Modest Proposal” is also a scathing indictment of the social and political conditions in Ireland at the time. Swift uses his proposal to criticize the British government’s economic policies, which he argues have contributed to the poverty and suffering of the Irish people. He also highlights the hypocrisy of the wealthy English landlords who exploit the Irish peasantry for their own gain.

Impact and Reception of “A Modest Proposal”

When “A Modest Proposal” was first published, it caused a sensation and sparked a heated debate about the state of Ireland and the ethics of Swift’s proposal. Some readers were shocked and outraged by Swift’s suggestion, while others recognized it as a brilliant piece of satire that exposed the injustices of the time.

Over the years, “A Modest Proposal” has continued to be studied and analyzed by scholars and students alike. Its enduring relevance is a testament to Swift’s skill as a writer and the power of satire to provoke thought and inspire change.

READ MORE :

• Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol | Traits & Analysis
• Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift | Characters, Summary & Analysis
• The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare | Summary & Characters

In conclusion, “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift is a masterful work of satire that uses humor and irony to expose the social and political injustices of its time. Swift’s biting critique of the British government and its policies continues to resonate with readers today, making “A Modest Proposal” a timeless classic of English literature.

Was “A Modest Proposal” actually intended to be taken seriously?

No, Jonathan Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal” as a satirical piece intended to criticize the British government’s policies in Ireland. It was not meant to be taken literally.

What was the reaction to “A Modest Proposal” when it was first published?

The essay sparked a heated debate, with some readers outraged by its content and others recognizing it as a work of satire.

What are some of the literary devices used in “A Modest Proposal”?

Swift employs irony, sarcasm, and exaggeration to make his point in “A Modest Proposal.”

What is the significance of the title “A Modest Proposal”?

The title is ironic, as Swift’s proposal is anything but modest. It is a scathing critique of the British government’s policies in Ireland.

Why is “A Modest Proposal” still studied today?

The essay remains relevant because of its powerful social and political commentary, as well as its timeless exploration of the use of satire as a tool for social change.

Related Posts

When was the golden notebook first published, the title of the first book in j.r.r. tolkien’s “the lord of the rings” series, who wrote “the chronicles of barsetshire” series.

Attempt a critical appreciation of The Triumph of Life by P.B. Shelley.

Consider The Garden by Andrew Marvell as a didactic poem.

Why does Plato want the artists to be kept away from the ideal state

MEG 05 LITERARY CRITICISM & THEORY Solved Assignment 2023-24

William Shakespeare Biography and Works

Discuss the theme of freedom in Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

How does William Shakespeare use the concept of power in Richard III

Analyze the use of imagery in William Shakespeare’s sonnets

Top 10 English Novels of All Time Summary and Themes

Which australian poet wrote “the love song of j. alfred prufrock”, what is the premise of “the book thief” by markus zusak, who is the author of “gould’s book of fish”.

• Advertisement
• Privacy & Policy
• Other Links

© 2023 Literopedia

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription.

A Modest Proposal

For preventing the children of poor people in ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick., by dr. jonathan swift.

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars: it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age, who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them, as those who demand our charity in the streets.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation. It is true, a child just dropt from its dam, may be supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most not above the value of two shillings, which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple, whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain a hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand, for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remain a hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared and provided for? which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; they neither build houses, (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing till they arrive at six years old; except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers; as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl, before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolifick dyet, there are more children born in Roman Catholick countries about nine months after Lent, than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of Popish infants, is at least three to one in this kingdom, and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of Papists among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar’s child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, labourers, and four-fifths of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend, or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants, the mother will have eight shillings neat profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

As to our City of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose, in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter, to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said, that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age, nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every county being now ready to starve for want of work and service: and these to be disposed of by their parents if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend, and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys, by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable, and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission, be a loss to the publick, because they soon would become breeders themselves: and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice, (although indeed very unjustly) as a little bordering upon cruelty, which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, how well soever intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed, that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Psalmanaazor, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London, above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country, when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality, as a prime dainty; and that, in his time, the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the Emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty’s prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who without one single groat to their fortunes, cannot stir abroad without a chair, and appear at a playhouse and assemblies in foreign fineries which they never will pay for, the kingdom would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed; and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken, to ease the nation of so grievous an incumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known, that they are every day dying, and rotting, by cold and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young labourers, they are now in almost as hopeful a condition. They cannot get work, and consequently pine away from want of nourishment, to a degree, that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labour, they have not strength to perform it, and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of Papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation, as well as our most dangerous enemies, and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good Protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country, than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.

Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to a distress, and help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintainance of a hundred thousand children, from two years old, and upwards, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a piece per annum, the nation’s stock will be thereby encreased fifty thousand pounds per annum, besides the profit of a new dish, introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom, who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among our selves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, The constant breeders, besides the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns, where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection; and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating; and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.

Sixthly, This would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards, or enforced by laws and penalties. It would encrease the care and tenderness of mothers towards their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the publick, to their annual profit instead of expence. We should soon see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives, during the time of their pregnancy, as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, or sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousand carcasses in our exportation of barrel’d beef: the propagation of swine’s flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables; which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well grown, fat yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a Lord Mayor’s feast, or any other publick entertainment. But this, and many others, I omit, being studious of brevity.

Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh, besides others who might have it at merry meetings, particularly at weddings and christenings, I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where probably they will be sold somewhat cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. This I freely own, and was indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual Kingdom of Ireland, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither clothes, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shopkeepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to myself, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion, as to reject any offer, proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, As things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for a hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, There being a round million of creatures in humane figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock, would leave them in debt two million of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession, to the bulk of farmers, cottagers and labourers, with their wives and children, who are beggars in effect; I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food at a year old, in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes, as they have since gone through, by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of intailing the like, or greater miseries, upon their breed for ever.

I profess in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org . If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

A Modest Proposal

Jonathan swift, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Today we regard “A Modest Proposal” as a seminal work of Western satire—satire being the use of humor or irony to reveal and criticize the evils of society. Though Swift wrote the tract in response to the specific social conditions afflicting his native Ireland, its bitter humor shocks and delights as much now as it did in 1729, when it circulated the streets of Dublin as an anonymous pamphlet. The power of Swift’s satire resides in the intensity of his verbal irony—that is, his ability to say one thing and mean precisely the opposite.

In large part, the humor of “A Modest Proposal” arises from the enormous gap between the cool, rational, self-righteous voice of the speaker and the obvious repulsiveness of his proposal: that the infant children of Ireland’s poor be raised as livestock, slaughtered, and sold as food to the wealthy, who will enjoy them as a tasty delicacy. No reader, no matter her personal values or political allegiances, will be able to take seriously the speaker’s proposal. Thus, the reader’s engagement with the text will consist in constantly looking beyond what is said in search of what is meant —or, to put it another way, looking for a sincere message hiding behind the obvious satire.

One way to understand the text’s irony—this discrepancy between saying and meaning—is to imagine the speaker as a fictional persona (call him “ the Proposer ”) who is totally distinct from Jonathan Swift, the author. The Proposer truly believes in the genius of his plan, and seems oblivious to the fact that it will strike any sane person as monstrous.

Yet, at a few moments in the text, it is possible to recognize Swift’s own voice and ideas sneaking around or through the Proposer’s ludicrous suggestions, advancing instead Swift’s own sincere convictions. This happens in the opening paragraphs of the essay, when Swift can be heard speaking alongside the Proposer—it is safe to say that both he and the Proposer share a mutual concern for the state of society in Ireland. This agreement makes the Proposer’s sudden endorsement of cannibalism all the more shocking and hilarious when it finally arrives. It is important to note that, in 1729, political pamphlets often made the rounds in Ireland, many of them offering earnest if somewhat misguided solutions to the social ills plaguing the country. Accordingly, the first readers of “A Modest Proposal” might not have caught on to the essay’s satirical intent until they reached the speaker’s startling claim that the flesh of an infant could make a fine “ragout,” a type of stew.

In what is perhaps the climax of the essay, Swift presents his own sincere (you might also say “actual”) thoughts on how best to resolve the situation in Ireland. But he does so backhandedly. Rather than state his proposal outright, he embeds it within the Proposer’s dismissal of any and all solutions that do not involve eating children. These alternatives, which the Proposer criticizes as impossible, will strike the reader as exceedingly reasonable, not to mention humane. The literary term for this rhetorical move—advancing an argument by pretending to refuse it—is apophasis, Greek for literally “speaking off.”

Satire and Sincerity ThemeTracker

Satire and Sincerity Quotes in A Modest Proposal

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about 200,000 couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract 30,000 couple who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom;) but this being granted, there will remain 170,000 breeders. I again subtract 50,000 for those women who miscarry or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remain 120,000 children of poor parents annually born.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no saleable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above 3l. or 3l. 2s. 6d. at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection. I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or broiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or ragout.

I grant that this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: of taxing our absentees at 5s. a pound: of using neither clothes nor household furniture except what is of our own growth and manufacture: of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence, and temperance: of learning to love our country, in the want of which we differ even from Laplanders and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: of being a little cautious not to sell our country and conscience for nothing: of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy toward their tenants: lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shopkeepers…

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists – joseph de maistre.

A Modest Proposal

“The Church once allowed priests to marry, and it can do again . . . . Together with this, there needs to be a new monastic order to soak up the degenerates.  Which was a function of the Church in times past, as much as we don’t want to think about it.” 

Aidan Maclear, “A Few Minor Reforms,” SettingtheRecordStraight.com (Sep. 26, 2018)

While reading the archive of an old neoreaction blog, I was arrested by the very sensible suggestion above.  The first part may be controversial, but it is familiar and I am for it.  There may once have been good reasons for a celibate priesthood, but the discipline is not necessary and now does far more harm than good.  It greatly reduces the number of vocations, and with it the general quality of priests and higher churchmen.  There are exceptions, but the general intellectual quality of Catholic clergy is fairly, sometimes egregiously, low.

You know something is seriously wrong when your deacon is more knowledgeable and articulate than your priest!

The discipline of celibacy has also made the priesthood a haven for sexual weirdos, not only homosexuals but also incels and men beset by darker demons of the libido.  The homosexuals are not all tickling altar boys in the vestry, but they give the Catholic Church an unpleasant gay vibe.  The best priest I knew had this demerit.  I have no reason to doubt his chastity, and every reason to believe he was competent and devout, but it was unsettling to watch him mince up the aisle and flop his wrist.

And then there are the priests who have not foregone female companionship in a spirit of heroic sacrifice, but because no woman would have them or because they are haunted by a weird kink they cannot work out.  In either case, these men are four quarts short of healthy masculinity and thus bring weakness and creepiness to the center of the Church.

The Catholic Church would be much stronger if it were manned by men who could get a date, and who could enjoy the date they could get.

But it was the second part of Maclear’s suggestion that really made me think.  Maclear is some sort of medievalist—he can read The Dream of the Rood in the original Anglo Saxon—so he knows a thing or two about monasteries.  Most of us, on the other hand, have a very romantic view of monks, monasteries, nuns, and nunneries.  We imagine that these people and places were pious in the extreme, Maclear says monasteries and nunneries were more like partial prisons where medieval society kept its weirdos and degenerates under lock and key.

Rejection of equality is at the heart of all reactionary thought. Men are not created equal and no amount of social engineering will make them equal.  Every society is therefore saddled with a large population  of degenerates who lack the mental and/or moral power to take care of themselves.  These defects also disqualify them to run loose in society.  They are degenerates, and if left to themselves they will take themselves and their society into terrible swamps of degradation.

Liberals deny that natural degenerates exist. Darwinists say that natural selection should do its work and freeze degenerates under highway overpasses on cold winter nights.  A Christian reactionary says to a degenerate what Hamlet said to Ophelia:

“Get thee to a nunnery.”

Or a monastery, if that degenerate is a man.

Monastic discipline saves people without personal discipline from themselves.  It makes them get out of bed at three o’clock in the morning, sing their prayers, eat a healthy breakfast, and then settle down to a day of regular employment.  Monastic discipline also saves people who do not lack personal discipline from the destructive anarchy that degenerates invariably cause when they are set free to do as they please.

A Christian reactionary does not, therefore, like a liberal lack the wit to see that degeneracy is real and a real problem.  But he also does not lack a heart, and so hopes to save all these weirdos and freaks from degradation and Darwinian death.  Because he has both a head and a heart, the Christian reactionary would institutionaliz all the not-quite-criminal degenerates in nunneries and monasteries.

(I must note that the cloister is also eugenic, because everybody wins when degenerate men and women are kept apart and under lock and key.)

Share this:

42 thoughts on “ a modest proposal ”.

Professor, if you could, I’d like to get your reaction to a video (about 8 minutes long) of a Priest talking about celibacy. Thanks.

https://www.wordonfire.org/videos/bishop-barrons-commentaries/bishop-barron-on-priestly-celibacy/

Thanks for sending this along. The simplest answer to your question, is that the Bishop’s argument that some people in the faith should practice celibacy as a “lived exemplification” of worldly detachment is not an argument that those people should be parish priests. In the system envisioned by my “Modest Proposal,” the Church could easily have celibate orders of monks and nuns, but it could recruit more and better priests. So, I can grant everything the Bishop says and still ask if these embodiment of the “anti-idolatry principle” need to be priests and bishops.

I do not, however, grant everything the Bishop says. If, as he says, Being=Good, why on earth do we confess our sins and fight against Evil? I know the funky arguments where Being is redefined to mean that part of Being that is Good, and Evil is said to be some sort of deprivation or absence of Being. But if God is Love and Being is Good, my question is what need have I of bishops, or a Church, or an Incarnation, or a Crucifixion, or a Resurrection?

But more importantly, I would challenge the Bishop to show me, empirically, that celibacy does in fact engender detachment from creation and attachment to the creator. Is he himself a greater lover of God than some pious grandma with twelve children? Here we have the good Bishop signaling his worldly achievements by sitting in front of a giant bookcase and asking us to believe that innocence of intercourse has brought him closer to God! Well, maybe in some cases it works this way, but I still say the enormous costs I have described outweigh these dubious benefits.

The demand for celibacy skews vocations very heavily towards sexual eccentrics of various descriptions, and it artificially shrinks the applicant pool to a point where a priest can be less intelligent than his average parishioner. I’m not denying the existence of many good and godly priests, but the small sample of priests I have personally experienced contained some that were manifestly “slow,” and others who were at least mildly insane. They were different, but not necessarily in a good way.

Thanks for your response Professor. As a former student of yours, its nice to get your opinions outside of the classroom. I would be glad if you taught a course based on your writings here on Orthosphere, maybe something on Udemy. I’m sure something you put up would be well worth $5-20.

I’m sure 99% of the present curia could (ahem) get behind that — provided they got first dibs on the inmates.

Begin the Beguine.

I follow the blog of the immensely erudite Father John Hunwicke (married, and to, it appears, his intellectual equal), now a member of one of the Ordinariates. A far cry from the muddle-headed bog-escapees of my Oirish-infested Downunder Catholic childhood (a better inoculation against any sense of the transcendent one could hardly imagine). JH is much closer to the platonic ideal. But any improvement would be good.

I wonder, though, about the ‘Greeks’. What do they get up to on Athos and Meteora? After all, one cannot be a Orthodox Bishop without having been a monk first, no?

As you probably know, sexual hijinks at the nunnery was a popular theme among early pornographers. And there was a reason for the rule forbidding “special friendships.” I expect the early infidel propaganda contained salacious tales of monastic sodomy, but having been awake for less than five minutes, I can’t think of any examples just now.

Good post, especially the paragraph starting, “Rejection of equality is at the heart of all reactionary thought…” Defining a 2024 “reactionary” that way is very clarifying. (The problem with “reaction” is that it depends too much on what is being reacted to.)

Aidan Maclear had barely come on my radar when he already disappeared. It’s a shame when such well-written blogs die. Though as your link reminds us, I guess it’s still a lot more accessible than many old books.

Thanks. I think many young men who stop blogging are just overwhelmed by life. Their children get to the time-consuming age, their real job demands more, etc. Others run out of things to say. Many in this class are the best because they are the most serious. Others despair or are frightened by, threatened with, potential real world consequences.

Having read a good deal of the Philokalia and Evergetinos and else besides – I can concur that the monastic profession (is, and) was partially a means to sequester losers in a way that benefitted all.

When monks disparaged of themselves as the least of humanity and swore it the truth, they often meant it in plain terms. Not in a ‘I see what Man could be and thus how far we’ve Fallen’ way; but in a ‘I’d be wearing a prostitute’s skin like a nightgown if I was allowed around women’ way.

Of course these same men would then house travelers, nurse the ill, be at peace without heirs or property, and contemplate the noetic light. Showing what The Least can do, if put in their place. And of course, many extraordinary men just preferred God’s company to man’s.

I’ve long maintained that the monasteries helped humble and uplift all of Europe by showing the laiety how thin their excuses really were, when these happy wretched friars and monks were ambling about just fine.

There are people who require external discipline, and for such a person this “land of liberty” is a very terrible place. When the slaves were emancipated, many Southerners wrote that there would be a great division, with some rising to a better condition than slavery and some falling to a worse condition. Monasticism is really sanctified slavery, although the goal is not financial gain.

“The patriarch cannot have friends; he has his flock, and friendship in the everyday sense is practically impossible because he spends all his energy on being a pastor,” the head of the Russian Orthodox Church said in an interview with Moldovan, Romanian and Russian television channels in Chisinau, Moldova, the report said.

“Solitude will accompany me to the end of my days as patriarch, just as it did all my predecessors.” – Pat. Kyrill.

I like the rule that bishhops should not be married. It’s pretty strange to imagine a Mrs. Pope, for example. Or Mr. Pope, juggling tuition payments. Widowers qualify in Orthodoxy, btw.

Of course, with traditional Christian ecclesiology destroyed, I question Christian institutionalization and hierarchy. When the hierarchs made clear in 2020 that the State, not Jesus Christ, was the head of the Church institutional Christianity disappeared in my opinion. One could also say this was just the culmination of the long disappearance of Christendom and monarchy.

I don’t think the argument from undivided attention stands up to scrutiny. Married men with large families manage to run organizations far more complex than a parish or diocese. And many of these married managers are good fathers. If the argument from undivided attention were true, the Catholic Church should be the most capably managed organization on earth. It isn’t. Not by a long shot.

I would add that bachelors, whatever their reason for remaining bachelors, are not renowned for selflessness. In general they are remarkably selfish. Parenthood is a school of sacrifice and self-denial. Singles get to focus on themselves. This of course applies to bachelorettes as well–a fixation on personal comfort, happiness and well-being.

Defenders of priestly celibacy also make what I’ll call the argument from nepotism. I’ll answer this by saying that children make the future real, rather than an abstraction, and that children therefore make a man really concerned about the survival of things that matter. I’d like a man at the head of the church who was trying to preserve the church for his own posterity because I believe that would make him work harder to preserve it for mine.

I wasn’t arguing for priestly celibacy. As you note, that narrows the pool of qualified parish priests considerably. Given the ecclesiological norm of a parish for every 100 households, more or less, restricting the priesthood to celibate males is just not doable. Very few humans are capable of monastic life.

Catholic hierarchy is an example of hierarchy for its own sake. What in the world are the Cardinals for? And combined with celibacy requirements, you simply end up with the world’s largest bureaucracy of oddballs. Original Church hierarchy was notably flat: there were priests and bishops. Period.

The good bishops I’ve known simply are not marriage-material. They are just too “meta” in their orientation, so we put them in charge of meta-issues like theology and ecclesiology. Very different from running a secular institution.

Again, of course, this is a mostly academic discussion as Christendom has disappeared and Christian ecclesiology with it. (I’ll point out that any religious faith disconnected from tangible places and peoples is not really a religious faith any more but that’s another topic.)

I’ve never known a bishop even slightly. I have been in the same room with a few, and heard them talk. My impression was essentially that they were middle managers, seemingly overworked, but probably due to their own inefficiency.

Did those medieval monks and others get some training in polyphasic sleep?

Or did they suffer through brain fog daily from the scheduled interruptions and likely lack of REM sleep?

Or are there other plausible explanations for daily experiences?

I don’t know, but would guess that irregular sleep and brain fog is less of a problem when your day is filled with mindless routines. When I say mindless, I do not mean stupid or pointless. Only that they do not require much thought.

Someone smart once said that there may very well be a good reason for tearing down a fence, but you had better understand fully why the fence was put there in the first place before doing it.

Not saying I understand fully the reasons for priestly celibacy, or am the one to defend it. But you demonstrate you don’t understand the reasons well enough to conclude we should do away with it. The unbelief that you’ve shown before on core Catholic tenets, such as the supremacy of the Eucharist, suggest that spiritual reasons for celibacy you would scoff at, however gently and civilly. Not intending to make this about you, but I see it as germane to the discussion.

Given the casual nature of a blog exchange, I think I have made a good faith effort to answer the main defenses of priestly celibacy. My answers may be no good, but I attempted to answer the argument from renunciation and otherworldliness, and also the argument from undivided attention. I didn’t discuss the argument from nepotism, but i mentioned it. Contra Chesterton’s analogy of the fence, I did not demanded that we tear down this “fence” before I took the trouble to understand some of the reasons the fence was put up in the first place. I watched a video of a bishop giving what he regards as the best defense of priestly celibacy, and then made some reasonable objections to his argument.

I think it is also significant that I did not simply attack priestly celibacy out of the blue. I am very clearly alarmed by the low quantity and quality of priests. If I were the person you seem to think I an, I would just laugh at this problem, not propose a solution. The present solution is to hire immigrants to do the celibacy than Americans won’t do, but I doubt this will really fix the problem. Parishioners need priests they can both identify with and look up to. I think this means priests from their own society, who are more intelligent than the average parishioner, and who are not oddballs. Do you disagree with this? Or do you thing we should have more unintelligible Nigerian priests who are subject to strange flashes of anger?

It would be better to have exclusively awkward and discomfiting Nigerian priests with valid orders than to have highly intelligent men who are stellar preachers – holding themselves out to be priests but having no valid orders, many examples of which have occurred in Christian history.

Why not intelligent, native to our soil, and also having valid orders? Yes, I’d take it if I could get it*, but it’s beside the point.

Am I mischaracterizing you in saying that you think delivering a good homily is more important than the ability to deliver the Eucharist validly? You did say once that you decided to stay home rather than hear your parish pastor moralizing in a worldly-acceptable way on social issues. I’m not scandalized by your decision to avoid going to Mass, I’m just noting that this sort of prioritizing shows that you aren’t on the same page as the Church historically. I’d say you are on a very different page, one that rightly brings into question whether you could know what’s in the best interest of the Church on this matter of priestly celibacy.

For the record, this is not me saying that as long as we have the Eucharist what could we possibly have to complain about.

*for what it’s worth, I live in an area of the country that is serviced by Dominican friars of the Eastern province in the US. I am not holding them out as an ideal (I don’t know enough about them to do so), but what I can say is that they are celibate, they are not cloistered, they are in the world, they are not particularly traditional (at least not holding it out as a “brand”), and they are burgeoning as an order, at least relatively so. And I have never met a one (and I’ve met many) who would sashay or do other odious things with body or limb. All to a man have struck me as the sort who would be able to attract a gal if they so chose. In fact, one thing that may be less than ideal is the effect I’ve seen these young men having on the young women under their charge in youth groups, retreats, etc.

I am a blogger, not a theologian or a doctor of the Church. I read something interesting or provocative, often while eating my morning oatmeal, and if I have the the time and inclination, I type some remarks on it. I have never written anything I know to be false, but I have written many things that may or may not be true. I am trying to keep this very small and obscure blog alive, and I therefore try to be as eye-catching and entertaining as decency and my limited talent allow.

Twenty-five years or so back, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church, and I was for at least twenty years very active by normal lay standards. I have described different aspects of this experience here at the Orthosphere, although I don’t think I have ever presumed to explain specifically Catholic doctrine. I’ve written well over a million words here, so I may have slipped up somewhere; but I normally use the word Christian and not Catholic.

I am still a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and in fact was at mass twice in the past few weeks; but it would be fair to say that my Catholicism is now more nominal than otherwise. I do not believe several of the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, although this does not in every case mean that I believe these doctrines are false. You raise the questions of Apostolic Succession and Transubstantiation. The first I do not believe because there have been too many scoundrels within the Succession and too many great Christians outside it. I will defend the Christianity of Catholics against any Protestant bigot that comes my way, but I equally despise all Catholic bigotry. I am more agnostic about Transubstantiation, but I can make no sense of the notion that the effect of ingestion of the Body and Blood of Christ wears off in a week.

I do not say any of this to scandalize or offend you. I think honesty is important and I try to be honest with others and myself. In any case, I believe reasonable men can discuss the costs and benefits of priestly celibacy without blasphemy or danger to their immortal souls. I think the question is worth considering, and I think the arguments so far offered for celibacy are post hoc and weak. If I were Pope—which I most certainly am not and do not wish to be—I would make celibacy a meritorious but personal devotion. But there is no reason anyone should be alarmed or offended by my opinion, since my opinion counts for nothing on this question, as it counts for nothing on almost all other questions.

I don’t get it – are you presenting an argument or not? Are we supposed to congratulate you if we agree on something, but let everything slide if we don’t because you were eating cereal while you wrote it?

I appreciate that you are airing your thoughts in a somewhat informal manner, maybe not quite as much as I appreciate your patiently approving my peanut gallery comments over the years.

But it’s a bit frustrating that you at least seem to be deflecting from having to defend what you wrote when you do approve my comments. If your defense of your argument is that you are not a theologian or doctor of the Church, then what are you doing putting out arguments that have important theological ramifications?

No, I’m not scandalized, though by that term it seems you mean the colloquial use in that I might be clutching my pearls at your irreverence. Yes, I am concerned about scandal in the deeper and truer sense, as in influencing souls away from the truth.

You can’t be held responsible for the choices other people make to read the blog I suppose. Nor for their carelessness in taking it too much to heart. I get that.

I thought I did present an argument. It was (a) that the quantity and quality of priests is too low, (b) that this problem is exacerbated by the requirement of celibacy, (c) that the cost of the requirement of celibacy is not justified by its doubtful benefits.

Against this it is possible to argue: (d) that the Church has more than enough high-quality priests, (e) that celibacy makes vocations more attractive to normal heterosexual males, (f) that the costs of the celibacy requirement is justified by the benefits.

Only counterargument (f) was advanced by dissenting commenters like yourself. This took two forms, the argument from otherworldly detachment and the argument from undivided attention. I don’t say I crushed those arguments, but I raised some reasonable objections and doubts (e.g. our evidence for the otherworldly detachment of priests is largely their own testimony).

Or I suppose there may have been a third counterargument, largely implied. This is that it is impudent and irreverent of me to put arguments (a), (b), and (c) out there for consideration. The “unclean hands” argument.

Well, not sure that my challenge is encapsulated in one of your counterarguments. It is that how can someone who is agnostic about transubstantiation be taken very seriously in addressing the priestly vocations crisis. If you don’t believe in transubstantiation (and by that I mean the reality represented by that theological term), then you cannot comprehend what the Church’s mission is when she sets out to ordain this or that priest.

I can be agnostic about transubstantiation and yet understand its importance in Catholicism. Its connection to the priesthood is not hard to understand. It is possible to believe these doctrines without understanding them, and to understand them without believing them. It is possible to understand and believe at the same time. Now I grant that you are using the words “comprehend” and “understand” in a fuller sense than I am. You mean not only to grasp what is happening with one’s intellect, but also to feel it in one’s heart–to be awestruck with the majesty of what it all means. I don’t wish to profane any of that. But I would suggest that your sense of awe at the mystery of the eucharist may be blinding you to mundane but serious staffing problems. You know the sisters Mary and Martha who were friends of Jesus. Mary adored Jesus, Martha got dinner on the table. So you are Mary, awe-struck with admiration, and I am Martha, worrying about who will do the work. We can both help in our own way.

This is interesting. I remember commenting at Zippy’s site once, citing the old (purported) Mormon missive stating that, “any unmarried young man over the age of 25 is a menace to society.” Zippy responded to the effect that, ‘that’s why Catholics long ago invented monasteries.’ Probably not the first time I was unwittingly the butt of Zippy’s good natured jokes of a kind.

A mass of single young men is a serious menace to society, as can be seen in mining camps and oil boom towns. Our society aims to castrate virile energy, but no society that wishes to survive lets it run wild.

Masses of single women are even worse. They’ll vote in the most tyrannical, busybody government you’ve ever seen, paid for by taxes on the labor of men.

Getting back to bishops, a genuinely good one has to be half manager and half mystic; Bishop Anthony in the US Antiochian Archdiocese is a good example. Again, these types are really just too meta for a marriage and physical intimacy.

The Mormon missive is kind of ironic, considering that polygamy means inevitably you end up with numbers of unattached men.

To my knowledge, there’s never been a time in the history of the Church when priests were allowed to marry – there have been times when married men could be ordained, but they could not remarry if their wives died (the same rule applies to deacons today). Married bishops aren’t unheard of historically, but were very rare.

In any case, letting married men become priests would be an unmitigated disaster. The onerous requirement of celibacy (combined with the Church’s loss of social standing) has produced the hopeful situation where younger clergy tend to be more conservative than their elders. Removing the main disincentive to becoming a priest would, barring divine intervention, place the Church on the same path of terminal decline affecting all other traditional social institutions.

I don’t know, but I think there are several hundred years when the organizational side of church history is rather murky. We know a lot about heresies, but much less about day-to-day operations at the mundane level. There is also a question of definition. Perhaps we should not call church officers priests until they are celibate and celebrate something like the mass,

I didn’t discuss the argument you allude to here, which I’d call the argument from high cost of entry. I think this is a good example of a historically contingent argument. In the middle ages, the priesthood was an attractive line of work. A younger son of aristocrats or an unusually intelligent peasant had few other options. Thus it made sense to weed out mere opportunists with this higher demand (although many priests were celibate but not chaste). This no longer holds. An intelligent young man with verbal skills has millions of alternatives, and would not choose the priesthood on careerist grounds. In this sense modernity has been good for the church. On the other hand, the celibacy filter mow makes the job very attractive to an intelligent young homosexual with verbal skills who wants mom and dad to stop asking when he is going to get married.

Deacons are almost always unpaid volunteers, so comparing priests to them is unfair. Having married priests would turn the priesthood into just another career – this is not an issue with deacons.

This is why it is embarrassing that deacons are sometimes more capable than the priest. I’ve seen this first hand. The deacon ran a business, raised a family, worked in local government, and on top of that visited the sick and delivered very good homilies. I don’t think the priesthood would become just another career because the pay is lousy and, outside the Catholic community, Catholic priests have low status. Taking away the celibacy requirement does not make this job attractive to anyone without a religious vocation.

You make a compelling argument. The Catholic Church can allow married men to become priests if they are married first, but once they become priests they can never marry again. Eastern Catholics to include but not limited to the Byzantine Ukrainian Catholics, the Iraqi Chaldean Catholics, the Lebanese Maronite etc. can marry. However, bishops must be single or widowed.

I am not as keen as you to have married priests as you for a few reasons. It is easier to move a single priest from one parish or diocese to another to an a priest with a family. A single priest is cheaper to pay for. A married priest’s children and and especially may cause more problems than they are worth such as juvenile delinquency and filing for divorce in a secular courthouse etc. As the old saying goes, be careful of what you ask for because you may get it.

I think a ban on marriage while in holy orders would be advisable. We don’t want all the old maids and widows in the parish vying to catch the eye of the priest. Your argument from cost has real weight, although I do not know how much a priest. I have a vague idea that the popular ones get gifts from grateful parishioners. So they may be low-cost labor in the say way college football players are low-cost labor.

We Latin or Western Catholics will need to talk to our fellow Eastern Catholics as to how works, and we may still decide married priests is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. The 2% Eastern Catholics are united with us 98%Western Catholics under the same Pope in the same Catholic Church, but Eastern Catholics are Sui Uris or of their own right churches and are semi-sovereign unlike the Latin Church. The Western Latin Church is like being in the states such as Alaska, California, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, New York, Illinois etc. while the Eastern Catholic Churches are like being Commonwealth territories or Indian Reservation like Puerto Rico, Guam, U. S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa etc.

The worse potential problem is a man’s family especially his wife and not the money.

The New Testament says that church officers must exercise control over their wives and children. It is not clear that a church officer complies with this rule by having neither wife nor children. Some Protestants see success as head of a household as a test of man’s capacity to serve as head of a church, and they are probably right. Some good men have been cursed with wild wives and children, but a happy and well disciplined family tells you something about the man who heads it.

I am confused. Volcels are voluntary celibates and Incels are involuntary celibates while asexual men do not want to have sex with anyone be they men or women etc. Incels are usually less popular with men, women and children especially with the ladies than the other two on average although there are exceptions and degrees as virtually always. Maybe what you should have said is we need priests who know how to handle people and are charming and charismatic for most people to be around and not the opposite. I have a tendency to agree but the problem is to at the popular people are often the ones to tell the people what they want to hear which is often lies instead of the truth which is what they need to hear.

What I mean by volcel is celibate owing to weak libido or sex aversion. I understand that the word can cover heroic renunciation, but I am throwing some light on the fact that heroic renunciation is not all that heroic for some men. Low-testosterone males are not charismatic and they do not tell people what those people do not want to hear. They are bland, conformist, conflict-shy and risk-averse. They are, to put it bluntly, old men in young men’s bodies. In any case, they are cannot lead.

When Jesus threw the money-lenders out of the Temple, he showed that he was not a low-testosterone male. This was not a hissy-fit, but was a straight-up, manly attack n his enemies. One sees the same manliness in his verbal altercations with the Pharisees. There is noting beta, or passive-aggressive in those. They are alpha-aggressive, and alpha-aggressive is what men and women follow.

You have a valid point about men being able to exercise control over their own wives and children is a better indicator if he can do so over other men, women and children not their own in the parish than single men who are untested. However, the government and culture effectively makes women or wives the head of the household if she wants it and is the final arbiter of what a parent can do with his children so this is a lot more difficult to do in the past. Protestant laity have a lot more authority to send clergy they don’t like away than Catholic and Orthodox clergy so Protestants are a lot more likely to send away truth tellers clergy they do not like that the Catholic and Orthodox laity can do to their clergy. The Protestants are much worse about turning their men into Pussy-whooped cuckold simps for their women on average with some exceptions and degrees of course than the Catholics and Orthodox Christians and the Catholic and Orthodox Christians are very bad in this regard as an example. Christianity teaches that men should be they head of the household but most Western households are headed by women due to government and cultural enforced wife dominance over her husband in the marriage couples who stay together as well as divorce, single motherhood and widowhood for those couples who do not stay together. Widowhood is the only acceptable manner in which women should be head of the household according to Christian doctrine with the only exception is if she unjustly killed her husband due to murder or manslaughter yet justifiable killing of him by her is allowed but a very rare occurrence.

Not all protestant churches have congregational government. Some are episcopal and others presbyterian. With hundreds of years testing under our belt, I think we can see the unique weakness of each form of church government. Episcopal government clearly does not guarantee strong meat from the pulpit. What it seems to yield nowadays is a mix of pablum and propaganda.

I almost forgot. Don’t be so hard on men who are not successful with the ladies. Sometimes if the men are too successful with the ladies then they fornicate or commit adultery which causes its own disastrous set of problems. Unchecked hypergamy etc. among Western women these days is making an ever increasing percentage of men into losers with the ladies with fewer men enjoying ever increasing numbers of women who are in virtual rotating harems which these same men financially pay little to nothing to have sex with these women. These popular men with the ladies are called Chads or Tyrones. The real thing the church needs is for clergy be they men or women to call these sinful women out to change their sinful nature which is seldom to never done these days although they have no problem saying what they find wrong with men.

Maybe I should have written volcels and not incels. I think asexual is the preferred term nowadays. There is no doubt that the structure of a church triggers female hypergamy, and that sexual scandal can very easily result. Female hypergamy lusts for the big man in the room, and it is not at al hard to see the man in the pulpit as the big man in the room.

An associate priest’s duties are difficult and a pastor priest’s duties are at least as doubly difficult.

I am sure they are difficult, but I very much doubt they are more difficult than the duties of an elementary school principal, or fire chief, or hotel manager. And they do not, in most cases, have to mow the lawn, or clean the garage, or read their children bedtime stories. In any case, under my modest proposal, these poor, overworked priests would get some help. Al married clergy are assisted by their wives, and an increase in the number of priests would allow more division of labor.

Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Parody: the Art of Satire and Subversion through Imitation

This essay about the role and significance of parody in literature, music, and entertainment. It explores how parody serves as both humor and critique, using imitation to highlight the absurdities of its subjects. From classic literary parodies to modern memes and TV skits, parody evolves alongside culture, offering fresh perspectives and challenging societal norms. While often humorous, parody also carries deeper social commentary, critiquing its targets while sometimes expressing admiration for them. Ultimately, parody remains a dynamic and powerful tool for reflecting and distorting the world around us, reminding us not to take ourselves too seriously.

How it works

Parody is a creative form that brings humor and critique to the forefront through imitation. It occupies a unique space in the world of literature, music, and entertainment, straddling the line between homage and mockery. To the untrained eye, parody may seem like mere mimicry for laughs, but it’s much more than a clever impersonation. It serves as a lens through which we view society, art, and culture, often revealing the absurdities of the original subject by holding up a mirror to it.

Understanding parody means recognizing how it uses familiar forms to subvert expectations and deliver nuanced commentary on the world around us.

At its core, parody relies on a deep familiarity with the original subject. Think of classic parodies like Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote , which humorously undermined chivalric romance literature by depicting an aging knight errant who mistakes fantasy for reality. This humorous skewering of a popular literary genre highlighted the absurdity of the knight-errant ideals that had pervaded European culture. Similarly, in contemporary times, films like Scary Movie poke fun at the tropes and clichés of the horror genre, making their appeal primarily through the audience’s recognition of the familiar patterns they disrupt. By playing with well-known styles, structures, and conventions, parodies are accessible and relatable, allowing audiences to laugh both at the parody itself and at the source material it imitates.

One of the most interesting aspects of parody is how it evolves alongside its targets. As popular culture changes, so too do the subjects and styles of parody. Modern parodies often target recognizable cultural phenomena, like YouTube videos, viral memes, or popular TV series. For instance, TV shows such as Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons regularly poke fun at political figures, celebrities, and other media through skits and references, skewering public figures and trends in ways that are instantly recognizable. Meanwhile, the rise of social media has democratized parody, allowing individuals to craft their own humorous takes on popular culture with relative ease. Memes, in particular, have become a major vehicle for parody, enabling anyone with a smartphone to participate in the longstanding tradition of satirical imitation.

Despite its humorous veneer, parody often carries a deeper, sometimes biting criticism of its subjects. By exaggerating certain characteristics or highlighting inconsistencies, it exposes the flaws and absurdities within the original works or societal norms. Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal , a satirical pamphlet that suggested the consumption of infants to combat poverty, serves as a stark example of how parody can be a vehicle for social critique. Swift’s exaggerated and grotesque solution starkly highlighted the British government’s indifference to the plight of the Irish poor in the 18th century. Though outlandish, Swift’s work remains a masterful example of how parody uses shock value and absurdity to convey pointed social commentary.

Yet, while parody often seeks to critique, it sometimes walks a fine line between satire and homage. It may express a level of admiration for its target while still seeking to make a point. This duality is evident in works like Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks, which both parodies and celebrates the legacy of classic horror cinema. By mimicking the aesthetic and narrative elements of older Frankenstein films, Brooks plays with expectations and invites the audience to simultaneously laugh at and appreciate the genre’s conventions.

In conclusion, parody is a dynamic and layered form that has evolved with culture, offering humor, critique, and sometimes even a touch of admiration. Its ability to both mirror and distort its targets provides us with fresh perspectives, challenging our preconceived notions and encouraging us to look deeper into the art and society around us. Whether we’re laughing at absurd skits on TV, clever memes online, or classic literary works, parody remains a powerful tool that holds up a funhouse mirror to culture, reminding us not to take ourselves—or the world around us—too seriously.

Cite this page

Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/

"Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/

"Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Parody: The Art of Satire and Subversion Through Imitation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/parody-the-art-of-satire-and-subversion-through-imitation/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

How an obscure, 45-year-old tax change transformed retirement and left so many Americans out in the cold.

Credit... Illustration by Tim Enthoven

Supported by

• Share full article

By Michael Steinberger

Michael Steinberger is a contributing writer for the magazine. He writes periodically about the economy and the markets.

• May 8, 2024

Jen Forbus turned 50 this year. She is in good health and says her life has only gotten better as she has grown older. Forbus resides in Lorain, Ohio, not far from Cleveland; she is single and has no children, but her parents and sisters are nearby. She works, remotely, as an editorial supervisor for an educational publishing company, a job that she loves. She is on track to pay off her mortgage in the next 10 years, and having recently made her last car payment, she is otherwise debt-free. By almost any measure, Forbus is middle class.

Listen to this article, read by Malcolm Hillgartner

Still, she worries about her future. Forbus would like to stop working when she is 65. She has no big retirement dreams — she is not planning to move to Florida or to take extravagant vacations. She hopes to spend her later years enjoying family and friends and pursuing different hobbies. But she knows that she hasn’t set aside enough money to ensure that she can realize even this modest ambition.

A former high school teacher, Forbus says she has around $200,000 in total savings. She earns a high five-figure salary and contributes 9 percent of it to the 401(k) plan that she has through her employer. The company also makes a matching contribution that is equivalent to 5 percent of her salary. A widely accepted rule of thumb among personal-finance experts is that your retirement income needs to be close to 80 percent of what you earned before retiring if you hope to maintain your lifestyle. Forbus figures that she can retire comfortably on around $1 million, although if her house is paid off, she might be able to get by with a bit less. She is not factoring Social Security benefits into her calculations. “I feel like it’s too uncertain and not something I can depend on,” she says.

But even if the stock market delivers blockbuster returns over the next 15 years, her goal is going to be difficult to reach — and this assumes that she doesn’t have a catastrophic setback, like losing her job or suffering a debilitating illness.

She also knows that markets don’t always go up. During the 2008 global financial crisis, her 401(k) lost a third of its value, which was a scarring experience. From the extensive research that she has done, Forbus has become a fairly savvy investor; she’s familiar with all of the major funds and has 60 percent of her money in stocks and the rest in fixed income, which is generally the recommended ratio for people who are some years away from retiring. Still, Forbus would prefer that her retirement prospects weren’t so dependent on her own investing acumen. “It makes me very nervous,” she concedes. She and her friends speak with envy of the pensions that their parents and grandparents had. “I wish that were an option for us,” she says.

The sentiment is understandable. With pensions, otherwise known as defined-benefit plans, your employer invests on your behalf, and you are promised a fixed monthly income upon retirement. With 401(k)s, which are named after a section of the tax code, you choose from investment options that your company gives you, and there is no guarantee of what you will get back, only limits on what you can put in. This is why they are known as defined-contribution plans. Pensions still exist but mainly for unionized jobs. In the private sector, they have largely been replaced by 401(k)s, which came along in the early 1980s. Generally, contributions to 401(k)s are pretax dollars — you pay income tax when you withdraw the money — and these savings vehicles have been a bonanza for a lot of Americans.

Not all companies offer 401(k)s, however, and millions of private-sector employees lack access to workplace retirement plans. Availability is just one problem; contributing is another. Many people who have 401(k)s put little if any money into their accounts. With Americans now aging out of the work force in record numbers — according to the Alliance for Lifetime Income, a nonprofit founded by a group of financial-services companies, 4.1 million people will turn 65 this year, part of what the AARP and others have called the “silver tsunami” — the holes in the retirement system are becoming starkly apparent. U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that in 2017 49 percent of Americans ages 55 to 66 had “no personal retirement savings.”

The savings shortfall is no surprise to Teresa Ghilarducci, an economist at the New School in New York. She has long predicted that the shift to 401(k)s would leave vast numbers of Americans without enough money to retire on, reducing many of them to poverty or forcing them to continue working into their late 60s and beyond. That so many people still do not have 401(k)s or find themselves, like Jen Forbus, in such tenuous circumstances when they do, is proof that what she refers to as this “40-year experiment with do-it-yourself pensions” has been “an utter failure.”

It certainly appears to be failing a large segment of the working population, and while Ghilarducci has been making that case for years, more and more people are now coming around to her view. Her latest book, “Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy,” which was published in March, is drawing a lot of attention: She has been interviewed on NPR and C-SPAN and has testified on Capitol Hill.

It is no longer just fellow progressives who are receptive to her message. Ghilarducci used to be an object of scorn on the right, once drawing the megaphonic wrath of Rush Limbaugh. Today, though, even some conservatives admit that her assessment of the retirement system is basically correct. Indeed, Kevin Hassett, who was a senior economic adviser to President Trump, teamed up with Ghilarducci not long ago to devise a plan that would help low- and middle-income Americans save more for retirement. Their proposal is the basis for legislation currently before Congress.

And Ghilarducci recently found her critique being echoed by one of the most powerful figures on Wall Street. In his annual letter to investors, Larry Fink , the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock, one of the world’s largest asset-management companies, wrote that the United States was facing a retirement crisis due in no small part to self-directed retirement financing. Fink said that for most Americans, replacing defined-benefit plans with defined-contribution plans had been “a shift from financial certainty to financial uncertainty” and suggested that it was time to abandon the “you’re on your own” approach.

While that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, it seems fair to ask whether the country as a whole has been well served by the 401(k) revolution. The main beneficiaries have been higher-income workers; instead of making an economically secure retirement possible for more people, 401(k)s have arguably become another driver of the inequality that is a defining feature of American life.

When it comes to generating wealth, 401(k)s have been an extraordinary success. The Investment Company Institute, a financial-industry trade group, calculates that the roughly 700,000 401(k) plans now in existence hold more than $7 trillion in assets. But the gains have gone primarily to those who were already at or near the top. According to the Federal Reserve, the value of the median retirement-saving account for households in the 90th to 100th income percentile has more than quintupled during the last 30 years and is currently more than $500,000. In one sense, it is not surprising that the affluent have profited to this degree from 401(k)s: The more money you can invest, the more money you stand to make.

In 2024, annual pretax contributions for employees are capped at $23,000, but with an employer match and possibly also an after-tax contribution (which is permitted under some plans), the maximum can reach $69,000. Workers 50 and over are also allowed to kick in an additional $7,500, potentially pushing the total to $76,500. Needless to say, only a sliver of the U.S. work force can contribute anything like that to their 401(k)s.

The withdrawal rules have evolved in a way that also favors high earners. You are generally not supposed to begin taking money from a 401(k) before you are 59½; doing so could incur a 10 percent penalty (on top of the income-tax hit). What’s more, you can now put off withdrawing money until age 73; previously, you had to begin drawing down 401(k)s by 70½. Those extra years are an added tax benefit for retirees who are in no rush to tap their 401(k)s.

People in lower-income brackets may have also made money from 401(k)s but hardly enough to retire on with Social Security. In 2022, the median retirement account for households in the 20th through 39th percentile held just $20,000. For this segment of the working population, 401(k)s sometimes end up serving a very different purpose. They become a source of emergency funds, not retirement income. But then, for many of these people, retirement seems like an impossibility.

Laura Gendreau directs a program called Stand by Me, a joint venture between the United Way of Delaware and the state government that provides free financial counseling. She says that when she asks clients if they are putting aside any money for retirement, they often look at her in disbelief: “They say, ‘How do you expect me to save for retirement when I’m living paycheck to paycheck?’” She and her colleagues try to identify expenditures that can be eliminated or reduced so that people can start saving at least a small portion of what they earn. But she says that some clients are having such a hard time just getting by that they can’t fathom being able to retire. Sometimes it does not even occur to them to look into whether their employers offer 401(k)s. “They have no idea,” Gendreau says.

Ghilarducci has been hearing this sort of thing for years. Her career in academia began around the time that 401(k)s first emerged, and from the start, she regarded these savings plans with skepticism. For one thing, she feared that a lot of people would never have access to them. But she also felt that 401(k)s were unsuitable for lower-income Americans, who often struggled to save money or who might not have either the time or the knowledge to manage their own investments. In her judgment, the offloading of retirement risk onto workers was worse than just an economic misstep — it represented a betrayal of the social contract.

Ghilarducci, who is 66, has the unusual distinction of being a high school dropout with a Ph.D. in economics. She also has firsthand experience of economic hardship, and her working-class roots have shaped her worldview. She was raised by a single mother in Roseville, Calif., and money was always tight. Despite a turbulent home life, she excelled academically and was able to take advantage of a program that allowed California students with strong grades and test scores to attend schools within the California university system without charge.

After being accepted at the University of California, San Diego, she stopped going to high school — it bored her — and never graduated. A year later, she transferred to the University of California, Berkeley. Neither university knew that she had not completed high school. “They didn’t ask, and I didn’t tell,” she says with a laugh. She majored in economics at Berkeley and also obtained her doctorate there. She then taught at the University of Notre Dame for 25 years (she joined the faculty of the New School in 2008). During that time, she acquired a national reputation for her expertise on retirement.

In 2008, Ghilarducci proposed replacing 401(k)s with “guaranteed retirement accounts,” a program that would combine mandatory individual and employer contributions with tax credits and that would guarantee at least a 3 percent annual return, adjusted for inflation. Her plan drew the wrath of voices on the right — the conservative pundit James Pethokoukis called her “the most dangerous woman in America.”

But her timing proved to be apt: That year, the global financial crisis imperiled the retirement plans of millions of Americans. Ghilarducci suggested that if the government was going to bail out the banks, it also had an obligation to help people whose 401(k)s had tanked. Her idea inflamed the right: Rush Limbaugh attacked her during his daily radio show, which brought her a wave of hate mail.

Her hostility to 401(k)s is partly anchored in a belief that when it comes to retirement, the country was on a better path in the past. In the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans could count on pensions and Social Security to provide them with a decent retirement. It was a different era, of course — back then, men (and it was almost always men) often spent their entire careers with the same companies. And even at their peak, pensions were not available to everyone; only around half of all employees ever had one. Still, in Ghilarducci’s view, it was a time when the United States put more emphasis on the interests of working-class Americans, including ensuring that they could retire with some degree of economic security.

She portrays the move to defined contribution retirement plans as part of the sharp rightward turn that the United States took under President Ronald Reagan, when the notion of individual responsibility became economic dogma — what the Yale University political scientist Jacob Hacker has called “the great risk shift.” The downside of this shift was laid bare by the great recession. Many older Americans lost their savings and were forced to scavenge for work.

This was the subject of the journalist Jessica Bruder’s book “Nomadland,” for which Ghilarducci was interviewed and that was the basis for the Oscar-winning film of the same title. To Ghilarducci, the portraits in “Nomadland” — of lives upended, of the indignity of being old and having to scramble for food and shelter — presaged the insecure future that awaited millions of other older Americans. And Ghilarducci believes that with record numbers of people now reaching retirement age, that grim future is arriving.

Her new book makes a powerful case for why all working people deserve a comfortable, dignified retirement and why, for so many Americans, the current retirement system is incapable of providing that. Her nationwide book tour has had the feel of a victory lap, although the vindication she can plausibly claim is no cause for celebration. “It’s the pinnacle of my career because what I told people would happen is happening,” she says. “So it’s a big told-you-so, and that told-you-so is on the backs of around 40 million middle-class workers who will be poor or near-poor elders.”

Ghilarducci finds it outrageous that Americans who don’t have enough money set aside for retirement are now being told that the solution to their financial woes is to just keep working. Forcing senior citizens to stay on the job is cruel, she says, and especially so if it involves physically demanding labor. She has observed that older workers often have “a shame hunch” — their body language suggests embarrassment. They are spending their last years in quiet humiliation.

To Ghilarducci, all of this represents a retreat from the ideals that fueled America’s prosperity and made the United States a beacon of opportunity. As she writes in her book, “A signature achievement of the postwar period — the democratization of who has control over the pace and content of their time after a lifetime of work — is being reversed.”

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, many companies, in addition to providing their employees with pensions, offered tax-deferred profit-sharing programs, which were available mostly to executives. But there was a lot of murkiness surrounding these defined-contribution plans — and a lot of concern that the I.R.S. might eventually ban them. When Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1978, it included an addition to the Internal Revenue Code that was intended to provide greater clarity about how these plans were to be structured and who could participate. The provision, which took effect in 1980, was called Section 401(k). According to a 2014 Bloomberg article, the staff members who drafted it thought it was a minor regulatory tweak, of no particular consequence. One former senior congressional aide was quoted as saying it was “an insignificant provision in a very large bill. It took on a life of its own afterwards.”

That’s because Ted Benna saw something in that new section of the Internal Revenue Code that had eluded the people who wrote it. Benna, a retirement-benefits consultant, was in his suburban Philadelphia office on a Saturday afternoon in 1979, trying to figure out how to devise a deferred-compensation plan for one of his firm’s clients, a local bank. At the time, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent, and the bank wanted to see if there was a way to award bonuses to its executives that could limit their tax bill.

As Benna read the provisions of section 401(k), a solution dawned on him: The language seemed to indicate that he could create a plan in which the bonuses were put in a tax-deferred retirement plan. There was a catch, though. Under the terms of 401(k), this could be done only if rank-and-file employees participated in the plan. Benna knew that getting them to agree to set aside some of their pay would not be easy, so he came up with a sweetener — he proposed that the bank would partly match the contributions of its employees.

The bank balked at Benna’s proposal; it was concerned that regulators would rule the scheme illegal. Benna’s own firm decided to implement the idea, however, and it proved wildly popular with the company’s 50 or so employees. Benna and his colleagues called the plan “cash-op,” but the name never caught on, and instead came to be known as the 401(k). The new savings vehicle eventually did run into government resistance, when the Reagan administration, concerned about the lost tax revenues, tried to eliminate 401(k)s in 1986 — this notwithstanding the fact that 401(k)s, with their promise of individual empowerment, seemed emblematic of the so-called Reagan Revolution. But by then it was too late. A number of companies were already offering 401(k)s to their employees, and the financial industry, eyeing a lucrative new revenue stream, threw its lobbying muscle behind these investment plans.

Benna is 82 now, and I recently met with him in York, Pa. (He was there visiting family; he lives near Williamsport, Pa.) He is still working. He told me that his religious faith had compelled him to put off his own retirement. “The Creator didn’t create us to spend 30 years doing nothing,” he said. A tall, unassuming man, Benna suggested that we meet at the Cracker Barrel in York. There, over iced tea and coffee, we talked about the trillion-dollar business that resulted from his close reading of section 401(k). Benna had been quoted in the past voicing some misgivings about these savings plans. He told the magazine Smart Money in 2011, for instance, that he had given rise to a “monster.”

But he explained to me that the remorse he expressed had nothing to do with 401(k)s themselves, which he said had helped convert millions of Americans from “spenders into savers.” Rather, what he regretted was the complexity of many plans — he thought a lot of employees were overwhelmed by all the investment options — and the fact that the financial-services industry profited from them to the degree that it did. Benna said that the advent of the 401(k) turned the mutual-fund industry into the colossus that it is today and that too many fund managers charged what he considers unjustifiably high fees. “Over the life of an investment, it is a real hit — it is gigantic,” he says.

Yet Benna rejects the idea that 401(k)s took the country in the wrong direction. He contends that traditional pensions were doomed with or without 401(k)s. He recalls visiting Bethlehem Steel in the 1980s to talk about 401(k)s. “I told them that they had to start helping their employees save for retirement, and their H.R. person said, ‘Our employees don’t need to do that because we take care of them for life.’ And what happened to that?” (Bethlehem Steel filed for bankruptcy in 2001, and the government had to fulfill its pension obligations.) Likewise, he doesn’t think it is true that 401(k)s have really only benefited the well-off. He mentioned his brother-in-law, who lived in York and worked as a supervisor at Caterpillar, the construction-equipment manufacturer. When Caterpillar announced in 1996 that it was relocating its York plant to Illinois, he chose to take early retirement rather than uproot his family. “He told me that was only possible because of his 401(k),” Benna said. But he conceded that too many people are being let down by the retirement system and that something needs to be done to help them save for their later years.

Benna is one of a number of experts who believe that mandates will ultimately be needed to improve retirement financing — that the voluntary approach, in which companies decide whether they want to sponsor 401(k)s and employees decide whether they wish to participate, is leaving too many gaps. He thinks all companies above a certain size should have to offer employees 401(k)s or alternative retirement-savings options. (Starting next year, employers that establish new 401(k) plans will be required to automatically enroll workers in those plans. There is still no obligation, however, to actually provide the plans themselves.)

Other countries go further. Australia’s Superannuation Guarantee requires companies to contribute the equivalent of 11 percent of an employee’s monthly pay to an investment account that is controlled by the worker, who can also put in additional money. The “Super,” as it is known, includes full-time and part-time workers and has proved to be enormously successful. With its relatively small population — just 27 million — Australia now has the world’s fourth-highest per capita contributions to a pension system, and almost 80 percent of its work force is covered. BlackRock’s Larry Fink says that “Australia’s experience with Supers could be a good model for American policymakers to study and build on.”

The desire to give less affluent Americans the chance to build a decent nest egg is one that is shared across ideological lines. That in itself is a big change from, say, the debate about health care reform, which bitterly divided liberals and conservatives. (It is worth recalling that the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010 without a single Republican vote.) In fact, concern about the retirement-savings shortfall has become a rare source of bipartisan cooperation in Washington, and it has also yielded some unlikely alliances.

A few years ago, Kevin Hassett, who was chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers for a portion of Donald Trump’s presidency, became familiar with Ghilarducci’s work and sent her, unsolicited, the draft of a paper he was writing about the retirement-savings gap. She replied enthusiastically, and he suggested that she write the paper with him. Their partnership eventually yielded a plan for helping lower- and middle-income Americans save for retirement.

The idea they hatched was to make the Thrift Savings Plan, a government-sponsored retirement program for federal employees and members of the uniformed services, open to all Americans. T.S.P., which in total assets is the largest defined-contribution program in the country, includes automatic enrollment and matching contributions from the government. A number of states now offer retirement-savings plans for people whose employers don’t provide 401(k)s, but none of these include matching contributions, which many experts believe are an important incentive for getting workers to set aside a portion of their own salaries.

Ghilarducci and Hassett think that only a federal program in which savings accounts of eligible workers are topped up with government money will significantly increase the participation and savings rates of low-income Americans. Their proposal is the basis for the Retirement Savings for Americans Act, a bill recently introduced by the U.S. senators John Hickenlooper and Thom Tillis and the U.S. representatives Terri Sewell and Lloyd Smucker. Two are Democrats; two are Republicans.

This past January, another bipartisan collaboration — between Alicia Munnell, who was an economist in the Clinton administration and who now serves as the director of Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, and Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank — published a paper calling for a reduction or an end to the 401(k) tax benefit.

Their research showed that it had not led to more participation in the program nor had it significantly increased the amount that Americans in the aggregate were saving for retirement. It was mostly just a giveaway to upper-income investors and a costly one at that. They estimated that it deprived the Treasury of almost $200 billion in revenue annually. They proposed reducing or even ending the tax-deferred status of 401(k)s and using the added revenue to shore up Social Security.

When I spoke to Biggs, he emphasized that he was not against 401(k)s. On balance, he thinks that they have worked well, and he also says that some of the criticism aimed at them is no longer valid. For instance, the do-it-yourself aspect is overstated: Most plans, for instance, now offer target-date funds, which automatically adjust your asset allocation depending on your age and goals, freeing you from having to continuously readjust your portfolio yourself. He acknowledges that rescinding the tax preferences could be tricky politically: The people who have chiefly benefited from them are also the people who write checks to campaigns. But he is confident that Americans can ultimately be persuaded to give up the tax advantages. “If we say to people, ‘Look, we can slash your Social Security benefits or increase your Social Security taxes, or we can reduce this useless subsidy that goes to rich people who don’t need the money’ — well, that’s a little more compelling.”

Hassett told me that his work with Ghilarducci does not represent any softening of his faith in the free market. Quite the opposite: He sees government intervention to boost retirement savings as a necessary step to preserving American capitalism. Hassett has been concerned for some time that the country is drifting toward socialism — the subject of his most recent book — and part of the reason is that too many Americans are economically marginalized and have come to feel that the system doesn’t work to their benefit.

“They feel disconnected, and they are disconnected,” Hassett says. Having the government help them save for retirement would be prudent. “It would give them more of a stake in the success of the free-enterprise system,” he says. “I think it’s important for long-run political stability that everybody gets a stake.”

Jen Forbus is not economically marginalized, but many in her community struggle. Lorain, a city of about 65,000 on the shore of Lake Erie, has never recovered from the loss of a Ford assembly plant and two steel plants. Around 28 percent of Lorain’s residents now live in poverty. By the grim standards of her area, Forbus is doing well. “I’m definitely privileged,” she says. Even so, she knows that despite her diligent saving and careful budgeting, there is a good chance that she will not be able to retire at 65. She dreads the prospect of having to remain in the labor market as an elderly person. “Something like waitressing — past a certain age, that’s really difficult,” she says. And she admits that she finds it jarring that even for someone like her, retirement may be an unachievable objective. “I do feel our system fails too many people,” she says.

Read by Malcolm Hillgartner

Narration produced by Tanya Pérez

Engineered by Steven Szczesniak

Advertisement