We tend to take on the burdens of those we love. Seeing someone you care about suffer can trigger a visceral emotional response, even if the source of the suffering couldn't be further removed from you. It seems only logical then to help out whenever one can, even if it means putting yourself in a similarly painful position. Enduring the pain yourself is manageable. You know how exactly how bad it feels and you can force yourself to cope, whereas watching a friend suffer creates a great feeling of hopelessness. We like being "in control" of the pain. Perhaps this willingness to suffer in place of a loved one is central to our humanity even.
This raises the obvious question, what about Frankl? Clearly he relied on his fellow prisoners for comfort, yet none were in any state to help each other. Rarely does any Holocaust story involve a selfless sharing of bread or bold assistance in an escape attempt. Quite frankly, doing so would be a death sentence. Instead Frankl and the others are forced to silently suffer together, unable to ease the burden of the man next to him in any tangible way. How does one stay sane in such conditions, forced to watch their compatriots go through endless turmoil? The cynical interpretation may be that the men simply "shut down" mentally or entered a sort of "survival mode", acting only towards the primal goal of self preservation. I'd hope there's something more to it then that.
It seems every Holocaust unit involves at least one well intended but ultimately naive rant about how "I just can't understand how such a horrible thing could've happened!" when there are in fact very definite reasons why, reasons the individual may be afraid to accept. I instead find myself grappling the question not of why 12 million were killed, but of how the remainder survived. The ending of Frankl's passage gave some small insight, specifically in the descriptions of prisoners calling out the beautiful scenery to one another. Watching the sun set while being worked to death provides no physical relief, yet it seems this may be a case of "it's the thought that counts". The simple act shows the prisoners that at least one among them cares enough to make some small effort at giving them momentary happiness. This leads back to my earlier statement about the desire to help the fellow man. I'd like to think that maybe we can help each other by simply showing one another that we care and that we're in this together, regardless of whether it truly changes the situation. Perhaps this gives much needed confirmation that even when reduced to subhuman conditions, we are still more than animals. The desire to help one another in even the most insubstantial ways shows an inherent good in all of us.
This is an interesting point. The survivor stories I have heard often mention one naive person who tries to share and dies because of it. I wonder how that fits in to your comment.
ReplyDelete