Reviewing the responses for the week, I've noticed that the class is quite tuned in to the problem of apathy in the novel. This is a great observation, but also keep in mind that *feeling* is not quite the negation of apathy. Moreover, emotional responses do not simply resolve major issues.
I was speaking with a student in Office Hours and used this analogy:
"I feel so bad about the Haiti earthquake. I feel quite sad for those people who suffer there. I feel so lucky that the United States has different resources available to those who live here."
Well, okay. So what? Having an emotional response in itself does not resolve the centuries of racialized exploitation, global capitalism's systematic forms of re-oppression & structural poverty, internal political turmoil etc etc that probably underscore Haiti's inability to confront such a disaster. I can *feel* as much as I want, but this does not simply translate into salvation for anyone. For that matter, I can also *feel* bad for a few moments...and then, simply go about my privileged life.
Return to the first lecture and Masao Miyoshi's criticism on why disengagement is problematic. Consider also that the novel is saturated with references to historical violence. What is the relationship posed here? From emotion (or non-emotion), where do we go?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment