Philosophy Journal #3/ Machiavelli/ Virtù and the Herbivore Men

Virtù and the Herbivore Men

I dare assume that Machiavelli’s Il Prince can be summarized into one word: virtù. Virtù is a word that means “range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to ‘maintain his state’ and to ‘achieve great things,’ the two standard markers of power for him,” according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Machiavelli accentuates this trait’s significance as an essential quality for a potential prince to acquire in order to face fortuna, which can be roughly translated as vicissitudes of life (and a state). He seems to identify the state with its ruler, so virtù is clearly a personal quality that influences the whole state. Those with the capability to withstand fortuna can overcome random and at times adverse circumstances and accomplish something great.

Machiavelli is pretty macho in explaining this term. While personifying fortuna as a mettlesome woman, he insists that a young, less cautious, more spirited, bolder man with virtù can “master” her by treating “aggressively” and “violently.” Though I do not think men (compared to the past) do not (and should not) mistreat women, maybe such masculinity can be ‘virtuous’ for individuals who seek to acquire what they want and change their communities by fighting off external influences. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I’m not the only one who thinks so. A Professor of Government at Harvard University Harvey Mansfield takes it even further by saying that men these days lack manliness, citing on the Machiavellian virtù. Following a Machiavellian line of thought, he does not wish to judge right or wrong of a man with virtù, for he is a man who wishes to change his community, including the value-judgment system. He elaborates on the concept of virtù by naming it manliness, a quality that makes heroic individuals say and act boldly to accomplish what they want, regardless of perils on its course. Although Professor Mansfield almost lost his job for being criticized as “chauvinistic” by feminist thinkers, I pretty much agree with him. And I think his remark on contemporary society as having less virtù or manliness is quite insightful.

In 1999 Blair administration initiated a term “NEET (Not currently engaged in Education, Employment or Training).” It designated unemployed young men who have no will to engage in advanced education or a stable employment. They instead work as part-timers in department stores, convenient stores, restaurants and etcetera.

Or we see “herbivore men” of Japan and Korea. A term coined by pop culture columnist Maki Fukusawa, the term “herbivore men” designates male that take up a 30% portion of Japanese male population who reject eagerly engaging into social movements or occupation but choose to enjoy hobbies like foot cosmetics and gardening. Fukusawa comments that their carnal instincts for rich, reputation, social change, and sex had been nearly castrated.

Some might say that these NEETs or herbivore men have adapted well to the Machiavellian fortuna by following the current of the “violent river” Machiavelli pointed out as a trait of fortuna. Nonetheless, they would be neglecting the latter part of Il Prince that mentions how a prince should treat goddess fortuna “violently” and “aggressively;” they are neglecting that Machiavelli supported an active adaptation to circumstance, not a passive. By ferociously fighting with vicissitudes, a prince might acquire dominance over state, whether it be literal or metaphorical. In a modern application, would NEETs who were excluded from the society due to depression be ever able to wiggle out of their cashiers and Buy The Way uniforms and initiate social change? I doubt it; until they acquire virtù for the guts for change, they will never be able to rule the state. 

Philosophy Journal #2/ Thomas More/ An Outsourcing State

An Outsourcing State

I once heard an interesting analogy on the comparison between Communist North Korea and Capitalist America. He would say that North Korea is a Darwinist competition society while America is a socialist one. His rationale was that North Koreans compete to climb mountains for tree barks and grass roots to eat and Americans wait in line for federal-issued free lunch boxes. This half-humorous half-sour joke gives something beyond poking fun at the ideological confusion in two countries; it seems to hint a Hegelian notion that in order for an idea to sustain, it must have its complementing (and at times binary) substance within. This can be signified by the white dot in yin and black dot in yang in the Taoist Taiji symbol.

Reading More’s Utopia gave me a similar impression of the anecdote above. In a place where ‘everyone’ is meant to be happy without any need for private property, people prepare gold to hire mercenaries that would fight for them, and although they think war should be avoided, they engage in it when they have to. In order to maintain a ‘clean’ ‘state,’ the utopia outsources uncleanliness that is essential to the sustenance of the state. Formal-logically speaking, utopia can never be a universal form of society, for it has to have a complementing part of the dystopian society for its sustenance.

And I see a modern-adaptation of this kind of community in one country: America. It is very indicative that More places in Amerigo Vespucci as the founder of such a place. Not to mention the outsourced manufacture of Nike shoes in African sweatshops, Blackwater private military company is a modern version of mercenaries. Completely multi-national and external to any sovereignty, there is practically nothing that could stop this company nominally other than UN Security Council in which its hirer holds the veto power. When Blackwater USA agents massacred a native town, US government was free from its prone criticisms. When more human rights and less collateral damage is expected from the sovereign government, it can simply outsource it. Same goes to tortures; we have an International Herald Tribune op/ed that asks for a stricter human rights measure for US government while demanding more torture for terrorists outside the borders. There has to be filth to keep the cleanliness, so we can just kick it out and leave it to barbaric states who are willing to this for, literally, ‘gold.’

More was somewhat very insightful in how the future would come, but not how it should have come. Outsourcing had surely induced better lives, or has it? Mega-corporations like Samsung outsource high-risk works by setting up a paper company and making manual laborers toil. When human rights issue or industrial accidents should take place, it is something that the employers of the paper company should be responsible of. More’s utopia is menacing because it not only functions as a state but as a corporate, or any group that needs some filth but is unwilling to be responsible for it. Thinkers and social philosophers other than More were busy how to solve the problem; More found a way to sweep it away. As a result, we now have a contradictory state where it discriminates between humans in and humans out of the community, which hardly bear any difference. A reason why EU is building up electric trenches against North African immigrants, and US builds immigrant blockade against Hispanics. But unless this outsourcing and filth-ing the outward societies doesn’t cease, such desperate immigration will not stop. And one day these utopias would have to pay the price for all the dust they swept underneath the carpet.

And here comes a million-dollar question: how could More even think of corrupting foreign political leaders with gold, when he thought it was such a corrupting, evil substance for the utopians to use as building material for toilets and handcuff chains? Or has nationality or race already become a major dividing line between entities of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species by More’s era?

Philosophy Journal #1/ Spinoza / From Spinoza to Democracy

From Spinoza to Democracy

When I had presented that Spinoza was a pantheist philosopher who claimed that all that ends well is well, I was over-simplifying. I was probably confused on how any ethical discussion could be possible if everything was to be operated under god’s will. To me at that time, Spinoza said God was always logical and reasonable, so everything just had to be good. If everything was operating logically well, why think over what is right or wrong?

And precisely at that point, I had made a grave mistake in leaving out ‘myself’ from the godly operation of the world. If ‘everything’ were to operate under God’s logical, inevitable, and reasonable will, that would include me as well as many others. Moreover, since the operation was logical, I would have to contemplate, just as a reasonable God would, to make a logical, inevitable, and reasonable decision and an ensuing action.

This explanation may clarify how freedom is possible in Spinoza’s deterministic universe. With knowledge and reason, we can avoid unenlightened circumstances or external influences which would have been otherwise unavoidable. And when we do, we are not merely obeying something, even God, but becoming a more substantial part of it, the order of the universe. So in a sense, Spinoza’s philosophy is more than mere obedience to authority. It is actually closer to ascension of reasoned minds, where every mind is capable of reasoning regardless of social classes. This notion indicates freedom from ignorance and any authority other than a higher power. And even this higher power is strictly bound to inevitability and natural laws (as in rain falls downwards). No wonder the church had to excommunicate Spinoza, for there was no place for unnatural miracles and a mysterious church in his philosophy, not to mention unquestioned authority (for people who are not priests could also understand God’s will).

As Spinoza notes, a more complete comprehension of the world is indeed freedom within the worldly system. To people who still persist that there is no freedom in a determinist system, I would like to ask them whether they feel less freedom every time they realize the Earth spins around every 364.4 days. When we usually discuss freedom, it is freedom from other humans or social institutions, not natural circumstances that we already perceive as natural.

Now that we realize what freedom Spinoza has been trying to fight for, we must contemplate on how such freedom should be acquired in a political dimension. It is a famous anecdote that Spinoza had been excommunicated from his Jewish community, for he wrote that faith and philosophy (governance) should be separated. Offended, the Jewish community pushed him out of its circle. At this time, I would have no other choice but to support the church’s decision. I believe Spinoza articulated his theory in a misleading way, and that church nonetheless had interpreted it right and reacted appropriately.

Spinoza, while discussing on the concept of social contract, quotes Moses and the Jews as an ideal historical example. He cites the Hebrew state, and that upon people’s agreement Moses was able to rule with boundless authority. As implicitly shown in the example, what Spinoza meant by the separation of faith from philosophy was actually of faith from church. As reasonable persons, the Hebrew could respectively ‘choose’ a sovereign subject such as Moses. And their decision was a pretty good one. In short, religious faith is newly amalgamated to reason and logic, the persons themselves. Unlike what Spinoza had bluntly stated, it can be reversely interpreted that a Spinoza-n social contract is that of a democracy that places faith in themselves and their decision.

It was a long way from God’s will to democracy, but from the point that Spinoza made clear that his concept of God was not a human-like being but reason and logic attainable by any men if there were efforts, there is a way from a theocracy to democracy, while the theos is naturally converted into demos. As Spinoza puts it, all’s well that ends well; vox populi vox dei. 

World Literature#4/ The Dead/ Embracing the Other

Embracing the Other

             From a distance, James Joyce’s “The Dead” might appear as a rambling story filled with conflicts irrelevant to the protagonist or the main theme. After all, when characters such as Lily, Aunt Julia, Freddy, Miss Ivars, Aunt Kate and Mr. Browne come in and out consecutively, readers are lured to mistaken the characters’ names, forget who they were and  trivialize what they did. However, on the other hand, it seems oddly conspicuous that all these characters show hostility and expose alterity (otherness) to each other. Whenever a new character appears, a new conflict ensues.

             When Lily pops out in the earlier part of the short story, there is no description on why she reacts uncomfortably to Gabriel’s question on marriage. Although Gabriel “had known her when she was a child and used to sit on the lowest step nursing a rag doll,” he has not been in such intimate relationship with her for a time. He does not know whether Lily is “done schooling” or what love life she had experienced. Also, he does not expect Lily to react with slight hostility when he offers to give some coins. Does she have any bad memories from the past in receiving gifts? No one knows.

             Same goes for the conflict (although not blatant) between the Aunts and Freddy. Freddy Malins is not welcomed in the party. Aunt Kate makes Gabriel to “see if he’s all right, and [not] let him up [stairs] if he’s screwed.” She is “sure he’s screwed.” But contrary to Aunt Kate’s expectations, Freddy Malins does nothing misled, except that he makes loud jokes while “rubbing the knuckles of his left fist backwards and forwards into his left eye.” In fact, he appreciates the food and music that the Aunts provide with hospitality. Then why did the Aunts fear Freddy’s arrival? Did he do something despicable in the past? No one knows.

             “The Dead” is a story filled with small conflicts ensued by different persons. One discrepancy from ordinary clashes is that there is a lack of understanding on the people who are engaged in the conflicts. Was there a similar incident? Did the two parties ever fight before? No one knows. Nonetheless, there is one that explains itself and the people involved in it: the quarrel between Gabriel and Gretta. Unsurprisingly, it is the one that enables Gabriel to experience an epiphany. Gabriel abandons “his own foolish speech” and recognizes the past, the past that his wife had lived through, when she had a lover, a sentiment. Then he feels “a feeling [that] must be love” to his wife, not hostility as other persons had had in many conflicts.

             In this sense, James Joyce seems to imply where hostility stems from. Why do characters jostle over small matters, such as where one spends vacation (Miss Ivors and Gabriel) and who sings for the church (Aunt Kate and Mary Jane)? Is the fact that Gabriel does not mention his true thoughts (“literature is above politics”) or tell Miss Ivors from what grounds he refuses to spend his vacation in his homeland related to why Miss Ivors leaves abruptly? The past is absent in all dialogues that is engendered from unresolved conflicts. Then what should we do to fight less and feel “a feeling [that] must be love?” Simple. We talk more with each other: about our respective histories, the past.

[Personal Epiphany] Brown, Sturdy Tree, After Struggle, Dies

(This is a story that I wrote for another class; but I would still like to share it as my personal epiphany. It’s a short story that explains my personal thoughts, but I couldn’t write it as an essay or a prose; it would just get too cheesy. I would gladly accept any deduction in score for not presenting a work solely for this assignment.)

“I have lived a shameful life.”

“Why, M? What are you starting all over again? Did hiking make you all somber and tired?”

          My friend Y and I, we would often go to mountains, carrying factory-made axes in our backpacks. When we got in deep enough so that nobody would see us, we would chop down randomly selected large trees. When wood chips were flying about, each time the edge of ax hit the trunk, we would suddenly be relieved. I would talk, my friend would chop.

“Well, uh, it seems like my, uh, life is filled with heaps of large mistakes, failures, and uh, uselessness. I feel helpless. I feel, uh, this void. Things used to make me, uh, angry, but now, I’m not even angry. Lethargy clings on my back, and I am powerless against……I don’t know. I don’t know what it is, but it’s pressing me hard. When I was angry, uh, at least I was angry. But now, when I realize, uh, how weak I am against this……I don’t know what it is, but it’s made me not even angry, just, uh, just tired.”

          All trees would resist foolhardily when the axes bit off its chunks. The tree would shake in agony, spitting out blood-like sap. Yet it still resisted, only until the ax passed through the center of the tree. Because when it did, no matter how large, the wood swung less frequently, and just waited to be snap off on itself. The tree we were chopping would then begin to comply with its fate, swaying less, spitting less, and resisting less.

“Yeah, M. But it’s something that we all face. You talk as if you’re the only one having that issue.”

“But still. If everyone feels the same thing, then why does everyone just go through the same process? We get angry, we try to, uh, resist, and we get…….castrated. A bit odd, uh, you know, that word castration. But I guess that’s the right way to put it. I can’t do, uh, anything.”

          Silence. As soon as I stopped talking, he put down his ax. Mine was already on the ground. He sat down on a flat rock, so did I. The tree was almost chopped down, and it would snap itself anytime. He opened his mouth and slurred, 

“I think I know the reason why we sneak out of school every day and wander around in the mountains. Before, mountains used to be a place to be conquered by men. Nowadays, it’s where the conquered hide.”

“Hide from what?”

“Hide from…….something. I don’t know.”

          My friend was a muscular guy. Wearing brown, sturdy muscles and short hair, he was an athlete-type of kid. Nonetheless, he was a smart kid too. He read philosophy, literature and history books since a young age, without preparing to get the good numbers in school report cards. A deep kid, he was, but numbers never liked him. Numbers on his math test never liked him, numbers on his school report card never liked him, and numbers on the standardized tests never liked him.

          But I liked him. His friends thought he was a cool, yet deep kid. Teachers thought he was thoughtful. Classmates who didn’t know him very well admired him. But Seoul National University didn’t value him as highly as people did. It seemed that companies like Samsung wouldn’t like him in a close future. He would have to work at a place where they hire him even when the company doesn’t value him so highly. A queer thing was that I can always draw my friends, the people in my head, but I can never picture these colleges, these companies. It was like when I was trying hard to figure out what KMLA was, although I could easily imagine KMLA students or KMLA teachers. 
          
He opened his mouth and blurted:

“I actually agree to what you said about that castration. But what point is there to be angry about it? You don’t even know what’s pressing you down. How can you be angry at it? It’s pointless, fighting against it. Just do what they say. No, what it says. Don’t be angry, yeah, don’t be angry at it.”

It wasn’t like him, talking so much. He usually maintained his sturdy, silent figure. Then this boy wearing brown, sturdy muscles sighed and went on.

“It’s really nothing, ultimately. You see? I don’t think there is a valuable meaning to it. But nonetheless, it is strong. It pressures me.”

“You sound like, uh, someone like Bukowski.”

“Charles Bukowski might not have suffered from school or career, but I hardly doubt that it would have been something so different from what we know of now. But I think Osamu Dazai would be a better comparison: disqualified from a functioning human. No Longer Human.”

“Nay, I, uh, won’t become one of those, uh, Dazai characters in his novellas. You know, maybe we could get, uh, good scores and uh, do stuff, and some day we can, uh, succeed. Whatever, uh, success is. Maybe it could someday like us too, just like other kids.”

“Maybe you can write about this. Like Dazai, like Bukowski. Saying cool stuff about life, pain and etcetera.”

“This isn’t cool; this is so common and loser-like thing. Even if I wrote a story, it will be only read by people like…..us!”

          We both laughed loudly. Then we treaded back to school. We had to hurry; or we might have gotten caught for wandering around outside school during school hours.

          A month later, I revisited our lumbering site, alone. All was same, except for the tree we left in the process of chopping. The tree snapped on its own; it snapped itself. It was disintegrating into the ground. Fungi were growing on the tree’s brown, sturdy trunk.

          So I changed my mind and decided to write an observation of the trees, a story for the trees. Isn’t it a common thing for axes chop, and trees chopped? The place we flee to becomes our grave. At the end of the day, we all die, just like that. And live on.

World Literature#3/ Araby/ Part of Darkness

Part of Darkness

             The Homer epics and King Arthur legends have protagonists who overcome difficulties and succeed in becoming a complete manly figure. Initially weak, flawed figures improve themselves by winning over adversary and fully maturing. However, modern day readers cannot sympathize or feel for those characters, at least less than how we used to. Why? Because we know that maturity comes not from victories, but from failures that make us realize how small we are….

             In such sense, classifying “Araby” as a modernist literature is quite appropriate. Unlike conventional novels or heroic epics that portray unrealistic victories, it carefully delineates the slow process of realization that a boy goes through. Through the course of action, the young protagonist experiences a slow yet painful death of its innocence and fantasy. While despising the world of adults, he notices that he is not much different from those adults, and that he is actually similar to them. Instead of the expected en—“light”—enment, he witnesses a fading of the light.

             The protagonist explains his love as something holy and divine. He sings her name as “strange prayers and praises which” he himself does not understand. His “body was like a harp and her words and gestures were like fingers running upon wires.” This imagery conjures a striking contrast with the description of streets he live in that is filled with “barrels of pigs’ cheeks” and “the nasal chanting of street-singers.” The protagonist admits that “[h]er image accompanied” him “even in places the most hostile to romance,” indicating the notion that his environments and other people were a mismatch with his seemingly pure romance.

             But a close reader can realize a discrepancy between the protagonist’s opinion on his own love and the reality of his sexual desire. The narrative description from the protagonist’s point of view is rather sexual. It follows the order of seeing a woman’s body by a typical man. The protagonist sees the silver bracelet go “round and round her wrist,” catches his breath when he sees the “white curve of neck” and notices “the white border of a petticoat.” The part in which “the white border of a petticoat” appears is self-explanatorily sexual. The concentrated depiction of joints such as neck or wrist indicates that he is not looking at the girl as a whole; he is displaying a fetishistic sexual desire of the girl’s body. As psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan notes, true love of an individual is constituted of the observation of the lover as a connected whole, not a fetishistic sum of hip, breast, waist and lips. The sexual description by the boy raises doubt upon his “romance.”

             The adventure of bringing something from Araby is hardly epic. The protagonist realizes that he does not have any source of income, so that he has to rely on his drunkard uncle for a florin. This realization is evident when he intentionally makes noise with coins to indicate that he has money towards the cashiers. Also, he has to ride “alone in the bare carriage” beside an “improvised platform.” There is nothing grand or special in the ride. Most importantly, he sees “a young lady……laughing with two young gentlemen.” It is heavily suggested that they are flirting, just like how the boy intended to do with his crush. It is possible that he realizes the absence of difference between them and himself.

             He is dismissed and disregarded by the flirting group of men and woman. The cashier’s “tone of……voice was not encouraging,” for it seemed that she has “spoken to me out of a sense of duty.” He is not considered a sexual equal by the cashier; he is just a little kid. He manages to “murmur[ed]” that he does not need help, when he actually needed one. His sense of failure and sexual subjugation make his “eyes burn[ed] with anguish and anger.” The interesting part here is that what the boy despises is actually what he is. Therefore, he does not feel sudden en—light—enment, but identifies himself as a part of darkness that he hates so much. Therefore the light goes off, telling the boy that he too is a part of the darkness, no different.



Paragraph

From a distance, James Joyce’s “Araby” might appear as a short story depicting a child’s pure love. After all, when the nameless narrator depicts the protagonist as an innocent boy trying to buy something for his lover, the readers may expect to see a stereotypical praise of true love. This notion is especially suggested when the boy describes his lover as a holy being as he hears “strange prayers” because of his love. However, on the other hand, the narrator shows instances of the boy looking at the girl as a sexual object. A reader can realize a discrepancy between the protagonist’s opinion on his own love and the reality of his sexual desire. The narrative description from the protagonist’s point of view is rather sexual. It follows the order of seeing a woman’s body by a typical man. The protagonist sees the silver bracelet go “round and round her wrist,” catches his breath when he sees the “white curve of neck” and notices “the white border of a petticoat.” The part in which “the white border of a petticoat” appears is self-explanatorily sexual. The concentrated depiction of joints such as neck or wrist indicates that he is not looking at the girl as a whole; he is displaying a fetishistic sexual desire of the girl’s body. Not only that, His “all…senses seemed to desire to veil themselves” indicates that he had desire for the girl. The sexual description by the boy raises doubt upon his pure “romance.” Therefore, Araby shows how there are no such thing as pure, romantic love even within a young child. Joyce shatters the idealist image of pure love by diminishing it even from a young child.

World Literature#2/ The Lady and the Dog/ Morality of Love

The Morality of Love

           Two points constitute the significance that short story “Lady and the Dog” bears. Sergeyeyna’s husband is not directly described as a villain, and the story is written from the perspective of the two adulteresses.

          Of course, this is not the first story in human history that deals with the theme of adultery. The Bible has stories of adultery, whether mistaken or unintentional. Shakespeare deals with adultery in his plays and poems. However, there are significant differences that set this story apart from any other of these stories. Chekhov’s characters are serious; they live in real world where adultery is considered as a sin a crime, while Shakespeare’s characters in comedies live in fantasy world where one or two day’s bed switch was considered as the most humorous thing at that time. Also, the characters adulterate in intention; they do not mistakenly sleep together as Noah or Shakespearean characters would do in deceivable situations. Most importantly, the husband of Sergeyeyna is not vilified although the protagonists are willing to justify and enjoy their espionage.

          The discussion on Chekhov’s realism had been rampaging here and there, but what seems to be more important is the significance of the realism, not whether the story is a realistic one or not. The characters in Chekhov’s “The Lady and the Dog” are not gods and goddesses in Greek Myth. They do not have superhuman powers or classical atmosphere that makes adultery somehow justified and accepted as Zeus would. Instead, the affair goes on in a very real place—Yalta—where we can find the city on a map. The description is real: the dog eats the bone, the grass is mowed, and the adulterers’ wife and husband are real. It is as if they are people who could be existent any minute during the late 19^th century.

            Nonetheless, there is less hostility towards the couple to be found in this story. This couple intentionally engages into immorality, yet they enjoy the umbrella held by Chekhov to protect themselves from moral criticism. Not only are those, the couple’s counterparts, the faithful wife and husband not depicted as villains. Of course, the protagonists had some dissatisfaction with their spouses. However, the level of dissatisfaction is very low: calling her husband a “flunkey” is not much of a slander, while characterizing one’s wife as “boring” is something universal. They are not villains. The “flunkey” husband even lets his wife freely travel to Yalta and to Moscow whenever she wants to.

             Then what is the significance of these characterizations done by Chekhov? Why are the characters depicted as engaging in an intentional and unreasonable adultery? Do they have a reason to do so?

The striking significance is that there is no such grand reason, there is no such justification. Things we call “immorality” can be an unfair denomination of what are just consequences of random emotions. In the past, loving one another than the wife was considered a sin. There had to be a justification that either the spouses were evil or it was unintentional. However, as restrictions go loose, there is no such need. What, should love be restricted in the upcoming 20^th century? 

World Literature #1/ The Student/ Night after the Crucifixion

Night after the Crucifixion

It has been agreed that Anton Chekhov’s The Student is a realist short story, depicting the everyday life of Russians. I think differently. The constant Biblical allusions dictate that the subtext beneath the seemingly realist story endows much meaning to the story. In order to trace the clues that Chekhov laid for the readers to follow, one should notice the straightforwardly spoken generalization in the conclusion of the story.

Now the student was thinking about Vasilisa: since she had shed tears all that had happened to Peter the night before the Crucifixion must have some relation to her. . . .

He looked round. The solitary light was still gleaming in the darkness and no figures could be seen near it now. The student thought again that if Vasilisa had shed tears, and her daughter had been troubled, it was evident that what he had just been telling them about, which had happened nineteen centuries ago, had a relation to the present -- to both women, to the desolate village, to himself, to all people. The old woman had wept, not because he could tell the story touchingly, but because Peter was near to her, because her whole being was interested in what was passing in Peter's soul.

The excerpt above gives two useful guides in interpreting this short story. (1) It explicitly suggests that the story of Vasilisa and her daughter bears a relationship with the Twelve Gospels (referred to as “which had happened nineteen centuries ago” in the excerpt above). (2) The concept of past and present had played an important role in the story. Therefore, in this essay, I will show (1) how related the two stories are and (2) what the timeline linked from past and present foreshadows future events.

The description of timeline in the story is something to note. The narrator, Ivan Velikopolky, conjectures that during “the days of Rurik” and “in the time of Ivan the Terrible and Peter,” there would have been “same desperate poverty and hunger” as it is right now. He compares such status to the atmosphere with “cold penetrating wind” and “needles of ice.” However, he states that in a closer past (“[a]t first”), “the weather was fine and still,” there even was a “gay, resounding note in the spring air.” To sum up, “same darkness, the same feeling of oppression” has been existent for a very long time, but with a small aberration in the distant past.

Another notion to take in regard is that the time setting in the story is Good Friday, when “nothing has[d] been cooked.” Good Friday is a Christian holiday that commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus. In memoir of his sacrifice, Christians fast during the day Christ had been in pain. For a long time, the Jews had been under foreign oppression until Jesus has come to enlighten them and lessen their burdens. However, on Good Friday, he was caught by Roman and dissident rabies and later crucified. The atmosphere changing from the super pastàdistant pastà present in the story pretty much matches with the Bible.

But of course, this coinciding change of atmosphere is not sufficient enough to show a link between the short story and the biblical tale. Nonetheless, the concatenation of events and their settings in The Student are identical with that in the Gospels.

The characteristics of Vasilisa and her daughter Lukerya links to the tale of Peter and Jesus. When Jesus was dragged off by the Jewish dissidents, Peter warmed himself by the fire after having slept. Similarly, Vasilisa stands by “the fire” and has spent time “with the gentry” and could express “herself in refinement” while Lukerya was “beaten by her husband” as a village peasant. The expression that Lukerya was “beaten” is noteworthy. Chekhov uses the same word (“beat”) when describing the ordeal Jesus had to go through, hence “beat Him” and “…He was beaten.” Also, it is suggestive that Vasilisa and Lukerya had “just had supper” by the time Velikopolsky arrives to the campfire. When he tells the tale that Peter wept bitterly after the crow crowed, Vasilisa starts making “big tears” flow “freely down her cheeks.”

By now, it is reasonable to assume that Lukerya is being compared to Jesus while Vasilisa to Peter. However, there is one doubt that lingers in the story; Velikopolsky describes Lukerya as “a little pock-marked woman with a stupid-looking face.” Not only that, Peter, though finding meaning of life, does not “feel as though Easter would be the day after to-morrow.” It is absurd that Peter is joyful when the widows are either weeping or in “enduring intense pain.” The sudden lesson at the end of the story hints that there might be a deviation from the original ending in the Gospel, resurrection.

American Literature#12/ Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story/ Lover as an Offensive Intruder

Lover as an Offensive Intruder

             We see SNS flooding with confessions of loneliness. We constantly blame the cut-throat competition, “the system”, “something out there” (whatever “something out there is) to have driven people inhumane and incredulous. In all, we find the cause of their aloofness from the other, longing for a perfect relationship with an ideal man/ woman.

             But at the same time, we are extremely offended when someone intrudes into “our” sense of sphere. A nation-wide example would be xenophobia prevalent in any country, multi-ethnical or homogeneous. On a smaller scale, it would be increasing inclusiveness of sexual harassment. In the status quo, European Union now has leaders with populist and xenophobic support, while modern democracies are filled with extremely sensitive women. Republic of Korea even passed a bill to illegalize “perverted staring” by including it in legal scope of sexual harassment.

             These conflicting expectations towards an ideal life bear too much burden for our ideal, imaginary partners. So our ideal friend/ companion should be someone who is trustworthy enough so that we can let him of her discover our deepest, darkest side, but at the same time be respectful towards our sphere. Is this possible? Is the concurrence of complete affection and mutual independence plausible? If not, a truthful relationship would necessitate significant alteration in the existence or characteristics of the individuals involved in it.

             “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” is a depiction of modern individuals exerting each other at the verge of true relationship, thus alienating themselves from the others and regressing to autistic attitudes. This story answers the question above, if a true relationship solely with happiness but not pain and conflict would ever be possible. The answer from the story reads no, and it can be observed by dividing the beings we confront into three parties.

             The simplest dividing line of the beings we face would be between humans and objects. Objects are obviously not alive, and especially enable themselves to be used in any general contexts. This phenomenon is even more apparent nowadays. Because the objects, or to be more precise, products, are mass-produced and mass-consumed, there is no distinctiveness in the objects we use. It can be used by anyone other than myself, thus showing the fact that the relationship between the object and I is typical and superficial.

             Another characteristic inherent in objects is that the pursuit by jouissance is one-directional in its relationship with the user. The object lacks the ability to go for its jouissance, it is sexually castrated being. The user, in contrast, is the only one who takes advantage of the object and enjoys an autistic orgasm. In the sense that the user who solely resorts to such enjoyment fails to make a mature relationship with other individuals indicate that the user is inherently fetishistic and obsessed with childish preference that only satisfies low dimensional needs.

             In “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story,” there are yuppies, professional and young, who “most…..were divorced.” They have no place to go except for the expensive bars and “white-washed apartments.” They eat “evening meals in radar ranges” while “TV chuckles quietly.” All of these commercial products bear no special meaning to the users. Not only that, the yuppies go through this everlasting circulation of banality, failing to meet anything but these objects and fellow coworkers, bearing a strong similarity,

             The confrontation between coworkers, or people of similar social status and identical dilemmas might function as a defense against the argument that the yuppies in “Sarah Cole” are not autistic or fetishistic. They might not be fetishistic in such sense, but they are autistic and narcissistic. When a person loves the other that bears a similar characteristic as him, and feels affectionate for the similarity he finds in the other, the relationship is more of self-love than true love of others. If a person finds comfort in the similarity, then what significance does the similar other possess? How is it different from finding comfort of one being himself?

             Here is the place when the concept of neighbor kicks in. Loving oneself is never difficult, but loving one another is extremely challenging. Such is the reason why Freud addresses the difficulty to “love thy neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18) in his book Civilization and its Discontents. A neighbor is inherently a being that is outside the rule of one’s family. This is not significant to a subject, but when this neighbor with an inherent difference lives close, the existence of the neighbor becomes menacing. In short, a neighbor is a complete other that has little similarity and is unavoidable.

             There is only one neighbor that the protagonist meets in “Sarah Cole.” Protagonist Ronald meets Sarah Cole and engages into an intact relationship. Nonetheless, the effort that Ronald puts is to extract Sarah from her life and place her in his context. He tries to “draw her forward from the context of her life and place her, as if she were an object, into the context of mine.” This is more of an action of self-defense than of aggression. Because Ronald’s relationships were restricted to materials and people similar to him, he had to treat her as an object, so that he could maintain who he was. This is shown when Ronald rejects to engage in sexual intercourse in Sarah Cole’s house but does in his house. Before Sarah Cole, all sexual actions were either materialism or masturbation (for he has sex with people similar to him), while that with Sarah Cole necessitated the interchange of Sarah Cole into an object of his context of life, so that he could comfortably enjoy his childish sense of jouissance.

             However, Ronald’s effort to capture Sarah Cole into his context fails. Sarah Cole’s presence forces him to change his lifestyle and attitude towards life, thus change himself. He is forced to visit parties that he would not if alone, meet people that he dare would not if alone. After the materialization of Sarah Cole fails, Ronald avoids her, such as not answering her phone calls or letting it ring five or six times before he picks it up. Although he wanted a deep relationship from the beginning of the story, and admits himself as being “shallow,” he refuses to engage in such, which makes the title of the story as not a true love story, but only “a type of love story.”

American Literature#11/ Fish Cheeks/ Hypocritical Cultural-relativism

Hypocritical Cultural-relativism in “Fish Cheek”

             We live in a society that upholds diversity and cultural-relativism on one hand and “political correctness” on another. The term “political correctness” consists of respect towards minority, and moral that treats every groups and individuals with egalitarian standards. In general, it is used to describe an attitude that respects every others’ opinions.

             Because respect towards other’s opinion has become the dominating hegemony, we always respect others’ opinions—at least outwardly. Many whites detest the “Japs”, “Chin-chins” and etcetera, but this idea rarely appears in the public sphere. Hence the new racial slur such as “Asians do math,” many hold discriminatory prejudice that trifle minorities, but such discourse is never done in a public discourse, where the minorities could fight back. Such backbiting occurs in a private level where only people with similar thoughts share what they think, and solidify their antagonism. The reason for this twofold phenomenon would be concurrence of hatred towards outsiders and WASP arrogance to maintain the “politically-correct” behavior.

             William Bennett was gravely criticized when he stated in his call-in show: “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” This might seem as a prominent example of proud American civic consciousness. However, I doubt whether the criticism was directed at the content of the statement or the context of the statement. If Bennett had stated this in a dinner table with conservatives, would he have been criticized so much? Many whites would actually agree to the statement, but also agree that it was not “politically correct”, content otherwise.

             Of course, I don’t mean to say that all racial slurs and hate speech should be out in the open and proudly bellowed—they are all repulsive. But what I wish to stress is that pretending to be “politically correct” when they are morally not is even more disgusting. People in mainstream maintain their imperialistic, colonialist behavior behind their mask of tolerance. If such behavior is existent in the public sphere, it can be attacked and overcome, but because it lurks in the private sphere, it has become stronger and more rooted.

             In such sense, Amy Tan’s work “Fish Cheeks” is an exemplar of how well-masked colonialism can impress even those who are suppressed. This story seems to follow a stereotypical college-essay fairytale; there is a personal yet sympathizing experience nicely wrapped by concluding axiom. Hence what the narrator’s mother says at the end of the story: “But inside you must always be Chinese. You must be proud you are different. Your only shame is to have shame.” This is an ideal lesson for growing children of a culturally-relativistic era. But is it really?

             This extremely short narrative invests most of its 500 words into a foul description of Chinese food culture and the narrator’s shame about it. The description is done from Westerner’s perspective: “slimy rock cod with bulging eyes”, “[t]ofu, which looked like stacked wedges of robbery white sponges,” “squid…..resembled bicycle tires,” “my father……belched loudly.” In any westernized reader’s perspective, it is pretty repulsive. Disgust resulting from such description cannot be all covered up instantaneously by a short, hasty “words of wisdom.”

             Amy Tan’s story is more of a situational irony than an educational children’s story, even if not intended. No matter what Amy Tan felt after the Christmas Eve visit, the minister’s family (including Amy Tan’s crush) would leave disgusted by Chinese food culture. Despite the reputation as a post-colonial story “Fish Cheek” has, does the viewpoint of Westerners in the story ever change? Or does the readers’ perspective change? Hardly. Even if it does, it is only a superficial level of “The Chinese have some strange culture, and I don’t understand why the fuck they eat such disgusting stuff, but I’ll respect them anyway, because I am a proud, intellectual, politically correct American citizen.”

             The intention to justify assimilation or uphold respect towards others’ cultures (cultural-relativism) might have been kind, or to say, “politically correct.” But the actual function it does is to form a superficial level of respect, more of avoidance, to an unfamiliar culture. In a Zizekian sense, the Westerners are further alienating the Chinese by showing a gesture of acceptance. The Chinese fail to enter the Western pool of culture as a respectful, mature culture but as weird, queer lifestyle. Of course, Amy Tan’s story is politically correct, but the actual meaning that it delivers isn’t. The respect in Amy Tan’s story reflects more Western arrogance (“We, the civilized, accept your barbarism”) than true alienation that outsiders face.



Comments:

Lee Hyunseok: Interesting reflection upon individual plus society. But along the flow or your points, I wonder that although problematic assertions relating to races do now always reflect public but only some people in dominant position. Isn't it so dangerous since those are often influential and power-speaking? 

Han Jonghyun: A very impressive start. I was very surprised by how you have started writing this reflection relating to the general society. However, some ideas you have mentioned seem pretty vague that I cannot fully understand what you are saying. Furthermore, I want to question you that Amy Tan's Fish Cheek does not represent the westerner's view of the Chinese food culture, but rather Amy Tan's personal opinions. I believe that in this "society that upholds diversity and multi-cultralism", the westerners are not so hostile.

American Literature#10/ The Most Beautiful Woman in Town/ Truthful Ugliness

AmeLit Prompt: The following short story "The Most Beautiful Woman in Town" is an example of not only a Beat Generation writer but of the Confessional Period in American Literature. In a well-organized essay, reflect on what the author is confessing, and how the author's style affects the impact of his confession. Use the reverse of the page if necessary.

The word “confession” contains more meaning than simply saying the truth. Usually, it is more about the silenced truth, about uncomfortable subjects that people choose not to tell. So when it is stated that Charles Bukowski’s “The Most Beautiful Woman in Town” is a confessional literature, there must be identification on what the uncomfortably confessed truth is, and how it is portrayed.

The general characteristics of the protagonist of “The Most Beautiful Woman in Town” indicate every traits of rural lowlife. He is unemployed, uneducated and most of all impassionate. There is no attempt made to elevate his social status, and he is not ashamed of it. An average man would castigate the protagonist for being a scum, but in a closer view, the “broken” lifestyle of the protagonist is much reasonable compared to that of the average men. What meaning is there in diligence, social respect and admired jobs, when everyone dies anyway? At the end of the day, what is left is “Old ladies in their 70's and 80's sat on the benches and discussed selling real estate left behind by husbands long ago killed by the pace and stupidity.”

But then is the protagonist happy? If the protagonist is contented after defying all of social norms, it would not be praised as much. The true despair of absurd is that after realizing the voidness of the happiness from norms, one is hardly able to find its substitute, or true happiness. The confession of Bukowski is that even after our personal enlightenment, much bigger meaninglessness elapses. Bukowski’s despair echoes in the line “Nothing. I can’t get on to anything. No interest.” when the protagonist is asked “What are you doing?”

Bukowski confesses his powerlessness toward the violence of the void, broken world through the protagonist’s actions. It is evident that the protagonist loved Cass, nonetheless, he does not show an immediate reaction to her death. When the bartender tells him that Cass had “cut her throat”, the protagonist simply responds, “I see. Give me another drink.” A more appropriate reaction blurts out after some time when he screams at a honking car, which has nothing to do with the death of his lover. The protagonist’s actions depict everyday lives being torn apart by the depression that the broken society provides. Despite the despair that resides, there is nothing that an individual could do against it. Bukowski illustrates this impotency by ending his story “The night kept coming and there was nothing I could do.”

Absurd and powerlessness against it are both depressing ideas. Eloquent, Shakespeare-like language would not fit illustrating or confessing of such topics. Because the character and the writer are both broken individuals living in broken worlds, their language must be broken as well. Bukowski frequently uses obscene language. These languages’ inappropriateness accurately depicts the daily lives, mismatched and distorted. Illustrating an ugly world with beautiful words and pretending as if it is a beautiful is hypocrisy. 

American Literature#9/ The Conversion of the Jews/ Only a God can Save Us

Only a God can Save Us

             What is god? Before reflecting on the Sunday school rhetoric, let us explore its significance upon the human world. A being that does neither reside nor influence the Real world is world-less (Weltlosigkeit), therefore meaningless. Even if there is a god, and it influences us, it must be something real, something that resides with us, maybe in the literal sense as well. Heidegger seems to agree to this notion. Heidegger requires the divine being to be an individual being functioning as a catalyst of the community. In short, Heidegger’s god is a previously human, currently god being who summons inevitable change in essence of its world. In this essay, I will link Heidegger’s notion of manly god to the significance that the protagonist of The Conversion of the Jews Ozzie holds.

             Heidegger’s god is not divine from birth. Prior or concurring to the violence that the creator pounds on the common, there must be a self-destruction made by the god. Before or along with the transformation in essence of the community, he who creates must deny himself as a banal human being and accept the newly born self. Such allusion can be easily found in other sources such as the film Fight Club, where the protagonist goes through an-inner fight with himself and then starts to destruct the social structure. In Sophocles’ play, Antigone, Antigone had to kill herself to accentuate Creon’s tyranny and put impact on the polis.

             The same allusion is found in The Conversion of the Jews with a tone-down description. Ozzie deliberately ducks Rabbi Binder’s hand, causing “the palm caught him squarely on the nose.” Then Ozzie cries “You bastard, You bastard” at Rabbi Binder. Three facts are observable from this very short sequence of events. First is that it was actually Ozzie who initiated the bodily harm, the blow on his nose was unnecessary and unintended. Second, there was a significant trace of the bodily harm, which is the blood from the nose. Third is that Ozzie practically denies his former position as a student within the rule and the discourse of the synagogue. He blatantly rejects the authority of teacher, religious leader and adult all at once. This denial is extremely significant, for the very part of the story shows Ozzie having trouble in accepting the new self—whatever it maybe, not a normal student, obedient juvenile—by saying “Can this be me?......Is it me? Is it me Me ME ME ME! It has to be me—but is it?” This is a very typical reaction from a human who is turning from a common to a divine or heroic.

             But even before such rite of passage, Ozzie already shows signs of an outlier. His name bears a special meaning, which has an origin as “divine power.” Not only that, he fits the description of the violent, the divine by Heidegger in Introduction to Metaphysics. In the Introduction of Metaphysics, the violent creator is described as one who shouts out loud in the silenced sphere with creative insight. Ozzie is the one in the story who raises uncomfortable questions and threatens the set authority. His friends indicate him as “a real one” for opening his “mouth in the first place.” Immaculate Conception and status of Christ in Jewish theology are both disturbing topics to discuss, especially when it is from an innocent child. Ozzie is the only one in class who raises such questions and demands for an answer.

             The decisive trait of Ozzie that qualifies him as a divine being of his community is what he does at the end of the short story. According to Contributions to Philosophy, a god is a divine catalyst who initiates a culturally transformational phenomenon and forces others to perceive its divine state. In the very beginning part of the story, A Jewish student identifies the Jewish by stating “They believe in Jesus Christ, that he’s God.” The essence, or the endowed meaning of the Jewish is the trait of not believing in Jesus Christ, and that he was not born by Immaculate Conception. Then at the end of the story, Ozzie forces everyone to admit that God “can make a child without intercourse” and make them say that “they believed in Jesus Christ.” This is clearly destruction in the essence of a community, qualifying Ozzie as a cultural catalyst.

             Not only that, Ozzie shows a significant influence over the action of the mass. Everyone obeys when he commands: “Everybody kneel” This alludes to “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” (NIV, John 10:27) Ozzie’s mother call Ozzie “A martyr I have”, for he is no longer student Ozzie, but a representation of a large enough entity of students, who are “his people”. This is shown by Rabbi Binder’s transe-like statement “He’s doing it for them. He won’t listen to me. It’s them.” It is not very ambiguous of what “It” in the statement is signifying; it cannot be the students, and it must be Ozzie. Ozzie is the incarnation of the group, not an individual, when he stood high. Ozzie proves himself as a divine being, and leads his people to approve it. 

American Literature#8/ The Lottery/ The Outsider Within

The Outsider Within

        It may seem shocking that there is a great deviation between the companionship towards fellowmen and outsiders. Would it not be difficult for an average, morally-consistent individual to kill a child during his working hours, return home and sing a lullaby to his own child? How absurd is it, UN “peace-keeping” force gun down rogue state soldiers because the soldiers were, uh, rogue. This deviation is more apparent when considering the war crime trials of Nazi officers. The officer’s family and neighbors testified that the officers (after killing hundreds of Jews daily) came back home every night with small toys for their children. How can the sense of compassion and companionship go along with sense of ostracism and hostility?

             Although seemingly ironical, such deviation is what maintains our “civilized, caring” society. A more accurate question would be: How could there be companionship when there is no fear, no outsider and no villain? The concepts of union and companionship within our societies have necessitated the concept of ostracism. Because there cannot be “us” without “them”, we had to imagine and therefore create the presence of the absolute other, the neighbor, the outsider and the stranger. During the Middle age it was the nomads, these days it is the foreigners, immigrants and so called human-rights-violating rogue states.

             It is us who have created our arch-enemies to sustain our companionship and sense of unity. Those villains are not congenitally evil. The power of endowing signification is the listeners’. We endow them the identity of villains, and put ardent efforts to fight against them. This is the point where Jackson’s blazing insight in “The Lottery” comes in. We’re not fighting against a Real-enemy lurking outside the castle walls. Unless there is an entity that threatens us within the walls, in the Real, inside our lives, the enemy is world-less (Weltlosigkeit), and therefore meaningless.

             Then who are we exactly fighting against, and what does Shirley Jackson have to say about it? There is a need for a Lacanian analysis in answering this question. Let’s reflect it on our lives. On the Real, we have our civilized lives: bustling streets full of businessmen, rush-hour traffic, well-being organic yogurt cups—just name anything around you. We don’t have Muslim terrorists raiding our subways, Kim Jong-Il leading a socialist march or illegal immigrants plundering Manhattan apartments.

             On the Symbolic, there are newspapers, broadcast stations (not to mention FOX) that employ stereotypical patriotic rhetoric that keeps citizens in constant fear. Yes, fear is what sustains the violent essence of the “terrorist” existence. Without it, there is no room for the imaginary hostility to exist. In a world-less world with no meaning, no ideology to fight against or fight for, fear is the only motivation that we have to create companionship and feel threat. As Heidegger points out, the languages of patriotism rhetoric are the “house of being” for the existence of rogue states, terrorists and illegal immigrants. The rhetoric creates enemies, the enemy creates fear, and fear makes companionship. Actually, fear is the only motivation we have to move our fat ass out of the couch and care for the community, for there is no ideology to protect these days.

             The observation of the Imaginary answers the question raised: “Who are we actually fighting against?” If we’re fighting against the images created by newspapers and broadcasts, are we fighting nothing? We are fighting the images of our utmost fear; we are fighting against ourselves. Jackson’s human sacrifice in the Lottery sharply picks on this notion that we are fighting the hostile-self, or “the Outsider within.” The villagers stone a woman who was definitely an insider just a few minutes before the ceremony.

             But of course, there is always a room for refutation. There are two points of contention. First is that the time “The Lottery” was published was when Cold War, the war of ideologies, was present. Would not the analysis of the need for fear become unnecessary? Second is that the woman was initially part of the group, and that the group was definitely aware of it.

             The Cold War. I assume that most Americans hated communists during the late 40’s and 50’s. But was there any reason we hated communism in particular. How many veterans knew what communism meant? How many Americans were able to criticize communism based on logical and political analysis? Communism itself is not important; it is just a common us-them boundary that creates fear. How can ideology to fight against exist when there is no sign of a counterpart in daily lives? War and the decadent lives of 50’s were separated from each other. For other wars, the notion on the need for unconditional hostility might not work, but this one does.

             The second point of refutation raises a more intricate question. Surely, the townsmen know that the woman is victimized for no particular reason. They saw the process, yet they still respect the randomness of the ritual. Creation of us-them boundary seems to be challenging in such a situation. But that is exactly what we are doing in the status quo. We already know that Israel is an illegal occupation on Palestinian land. We already know that a vast majority of Israelis are atheists. And we still listen to their claim based on the Holy Bible. We all are very aware of the mysterious absence of bio-chemical weapons in Iraq. Nonetheless we keep on the global warfare. Maybe there are writers who write, criticize and satisfy themselves. We all go on knowingly. We already know that much of these us-them boundaries are mirages, by we go on nonetheless. This is another support for Jackson’s insight in “the Lottery”.

*Many points made during the passage are related to Slavoj Zizek's Violence

Comments

Park Jungmin: I definitely agree with you on the point that we're basically trying to create the absolute villains or enemies to feel security and united. It's like the society in Animal Farm. Even right now, government/ media of the countries around the world are creating rumors, enemies that we must fight against. I actually thought of this phenomenon similar to what happens in "the Lottery". But now I wonder if there is any difference because the enemy for the sake of security and the sacrificed for the sake of pleasure. They seem to be the same thing, but it's still frustrating to find any connections between them. Overall I sincerely agree what you have written here. 

Lee Hyejoon: Don't you think it is queer that we humans have always needed the presence of "them". As far as I know, living things struggle to preserve their own species. Some people say that it is the ultimate reason exist, to extend their lives through their off-springs. Why would people develop a sense of hatred and rivalry within themselves? That doesn't seem to be beneficial for the survival of our species. I also believe that cruelty is human nature but now can the desire for the species' survival and desire for others' pain coexist?

Lee Hyunseok: Great use of language, philosophical analysis with an individual sense and opinion. Maybe difficult to interpret. 

American Literature#7/The Garden Lodge/Tragedy of the Common

Tragedy of the Common

What makes a person gifted? There have been many attempts to define genius (and therefore include oneself). According to Schopenhauer, the common easily loses interest in what surrounds him; after grabbing a hasty understanding of the world, they live off busily, socializing with people of their kind. However, gifted people are never satisfied with the status quo. They are never comforted, for they don’t accept the essence of the world; they create one.

Caroline in this story is clearly a common woman. She is in an objective position of agreeing, following and relying on. She is the recipient of structural violence that the society provides her, while being emotionally exploited by an opera singer. She is not violent. But what kinds of people are violent? A violent person is a creative person, intruding the territory of unspoken. He is never cautious, nice or persuadable. Materialistic success does not sway him. Catastrophes and daily sorrows is what make him produce more, more and more. The society may attempt to oppress him; but it will fail, for the violent fights back with art and literature that disarrays the symbolic structure of the society.

From such perspective, Caroline is never a winner. She does not understand the importance of intangible yet important values, and just calls them “distant, intangible and unattainable.” She does not appreciate Schopenhauer, or talking about him. Ironically, her attitude quite fits what has been proposed as bane by Schopenhauer: the common keeps focus on distant present and tries to rely on the repeating reality. Many parts of the story allude to the expressions used in Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation. The allusions come to describe the conflict between the exceptional and the bane lives of Caroline, trying to make her as one of its kind.

Caroline “never permitted herself to look further than a step ahead, and set herself with all strength of her will to see things as they are and meet them squarely in broad day.” According to Schopenhauer, the common is always stuck to the representation of the world. They are obsessed with their own will that never makes them happy, but just striving to move on forward. She rejects poetry or painting, which are also what Schopenhauer believed as liberation from the blind will.

However, there is a way out from banality that Caroline craves for, at least for a while. She falls in an emotional relationship with the opera singer who performs Wagner’s music. As well known, Wagner is a composer who utilizes much of his work to Schopenhauer. However, such efforts of being freed from common by art is also thrashed by Caroline’s own will.

Comments

Lee Hyunseok: Good to see your opinions, not just analyzing the story or talking about what was said in class. However, your idea is coming in too abstract way, which can be seen as superficial and hard to communicate. Anyway, great english.


Kim Nuri: Hi Chong. I liked your deep thoughts related to this story, but it was hard for me to understand the link between some parts and this story. Maybe writing a bit less abstractly will help me understand.