Methodology I carried out this study to get professional opinion on the self-other subject and try to understand the navel and reason to homogeny

Methodology
I carried out this study to get professional opinion on the self-other subject and try to understand the navel and reason to homogeny. It is the homogeny trait that leads to the critical topic of discrimination; gender discrimination, social discrimination, religious discrimination and racial discrimination. I had an urge to understand what goes through the human minds that make them discriminate some members of their species or why they try to suppress the other party. All I wanted was to try and see things from their vantage point (Hernandez Grande, 2014). Away from the homogeny, I also wanted to get insight on how the subjects react and the triggers that precede their actions. This study is a collection of all the views that have been generated and how they have been portrayed over time. From them I draw my own inference and reach my own conclusion.
The research design was mainly the review design. These are the books I used to build content of this case (Hernandez Grande, 2014). To attain a finesse touch I also employed the descriptive research design; here I used only the naturalistic observation style as a case study would have been too broad. In the two, one that was most efficient was the review design.
Main sources used were published books by literates and psychologists; the books I picked from different timelines and tried to notice the evolution pattern of the issue if there any. A compilation of online articles that touch on this matter of self-other also came in handy as they gave a clear chronological order caped with authenticity.
The text Tempest by William Shakespeare touches on several dimensions of the self-other topic. Popularity of the book was something I took as an advantage as my audience would be intrigued and be naturally compelled to read the research. The extreme nature of the main characters in the book made the choice worthy (Viviana & Jankowski & Reynolds, 2004); Prospero and Caliban were the perfect subjects I could use to build the topic. The fact that Miranda was the exact alter ego his father also added weight to the dynamics surrounding the cause and continuation of homogeny practice.
The data generated from my research will be presented in a systematic manner. First I will name a character in the play, enumerate on his or her qualities as per how he is portrayed by William Shakespeare depending on his actions (Woods, 2013). I will try to dissect Williams intuition that led formation and specification of the character; the message behind the character.
I will try to give my own reasons on why he or she had the particular notions or why he did things or his general behavior and talk then lastly crosscheck my reasons with ones from literates and psychologists (Jonk, 2017). After strictly this following this flow I will say if the notions the characters had in mind were justified in the final outcome of events in the play (Woods, 2013). This will be interesting as we will be seeing the main characters change their way of thinking and acting. This flow will be a collection of the audience thoughts, literate opinions and my own take about the issue. All this three aspects will form the summary of this chapter.
Results
I found that race and heritage was a factor that led to the Prospero’s unfair and wicked treatment towards Cabinal. He assumed that he came from a superior birth line; when he came to island he thought himself so superior that he began teaching Cabinal about his religion and culture (Maquerlot ; Willems, Eds. 2006). This is a trait that carries on throughout the play as it leads to Prospero enslaving Cabinal.
Economic background was also a finding. When Prospero and his 5 are marooned in the island they find undeveloped thus assume that they should take dominance and take on the leadership from Sycophax, cabinals father (Maquerlot ; Willems, Eds. 2006). This is also the notion all colonialists had in when; no wonder there was sharp criticism of the play from the England officials.