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.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기