From reading both articles, I now understand that Moby Dick is an extensive novel that exposes human greed. In other words, we categorize and label experiences based on our implicit biases and pride, whether we like to accept this factual statement or not. I feel that there is a working between outside events and subjective intake that has plagued the working class of the 19th century, because we cannot accept ideologies apart from Western ideology or societal principle.

The Blue Humanities article talks about how the symbolic features of the sea can be inadvertently used to justify uplifted status in the terrestrial land. ” It became a symbol of eternity, a comfort to those who, having lost their faith in divine dispensation of everlasting life, came to see in its apparently timeless flows evidence of nature’s immortality and a secular promise of life everlasting.(Gillis)” While this is indicative that there is co-existence that is present with the sea, the symbol of nature and the sea as “transcendent” bleeds into the human supremacy of the privileged groups on land. In a way, this metaphor for life and living becomes a danger for those unprivileged and marginalized groups in land. Consequentially, I think that Melville uses Moby Dick to call out the symbol within the Industrial Age.

On the contrary, the symbol of the sea works to articulate the invisible power of marginalized communities during the Industrial age, and gives a platform for those voices. Even though the experimental novel works to examine the romantic senses that is excessively capitalized in the Industrial Age, its spiritual symbol is so authentic to human culture, surpassing elite status or upper class society within the terrestrial land hierarchy. For example, the symbol is reflective of our behavior and brings back the sentiment of human contentedness and hope when comparing our labor to the immense infrastructure of the sea and what we don’t know.