Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class is an economic analysis of the social customs of Americans during his era. He analyzes the value of the "leisure class," a class that he observed was present only in American society. Contrary to other economists in his time period that believed leisure was part of human nature, Veblen actually believed that humans inherently took pride in their work. However, as time progressed, he says that the goal of work became not pride, but accumulating wealth in a way that he defines as the "non-productive consumption of time." He views the activities of the leisure class as conspicuous consumption and waste, but the activities reveal one's prosperity as they display extravagant expenditures. His theory states that because the man in the family had to actually do work to provide for the family, the wife performs the man's leisure on his behalf. His theory states that the woman is essentially an instrument used to establish the economic power of the man. In summary, all actions done by a woman are, "…understood as not for herself but for the benefit of someone else, to whom she is economically indebted." Edna effectively breaks these constructions of Veblen's theory in "The Awakening," perhaps to illuminate the restrictions placed on women in society in a way was permissible at the time.
While at the beginning of the book Edna feels oppressed by her husband, but over the course of the novel, she increasingly develops her independence as a woman. She becomes aware of her emotional and sexual desires, making autonomous decisions to satisfy these desires. At a time like that, she was a very radical character, clearly not acting on any influences by her husband. However, I found it interesting that at the beginning of chapter 32 in the novel, her husband, Mr. Pontellier, is worried about similar ideas that Veblen discussed. When he learned of Edna's intention to abandon him, he begged her to stay because of the reactions people might have to her leaving him. Parallel with Veblen, the novel states(don't know the exact point of view), "He was simply thinking of his financial integrity. It might get noised about that the Pontelliers had met with reverses, and were forced to conduct their menage on a humbler scale than heretofore." It is no coincidence that Chopin and Veblen were writing about the same topics in this time period. His desire to keep Edna was specifically for financial purposes. While Edna desires to be a free woman, the same ideologies were still embedded in society. Perhaps Chopin's writing was a way to attack some of these issues in a way that was less aggressive, through her novel.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The Oppression of Females throughout History
Virginia Woolf explains the life of Shakespeare's fictional sister to highlight the limitations on women in that time period. She tells the story of Judith, who is equally as bright and imaginative as Shakespeare. However, she does not go to school like her brother, and is instead forced to tend to household chores. Woolf explains, "She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone reading Horace and Virgil." A girl never had the opportunity to learn in that period, therefore it is not surprising that they were not responsible for the great plays, sonnets, and literature of the time. Woolf in fact argues that if a woman was as gifted as a man, such as Judith was, she would go crazy, or shoot herself. Woolf describes, "For it needs little skill in psychology to be sure that a highly gifted girl who had tried to use her gift for poetry would have been so thwarted and hindered by other people, so tortured and pulled asunder by her own contrary instincts, that she must have lost her health and sanity to a certainty." A female with any talent, aside from their daily chores, was restricted and told to pursue other things. She then may have felt that she was not deserving of success, and would have gone crazy. Edna experiences this same dilemna in "The Awakening."
In "The Awakening" Edna is oppressed by her husband. She is forced to adhere to the stereotypical gender roles, and act as a mother, though she admits she has no passion for it. However, throughout the novel she realizes a certain clarity that allows her to see that she is different than other women. She does not care much for her role as a mother, as Madame Ratignolle does, nor does she care much about pleasing her husband. She wants to develop her independence, much like Judith does when she leaves home to travel to London. To establish her independence, Edna begins gambling and selling her artwork to get an income, and rents her own small house. It appears as if she is successfully asserting her individuality and power. However, society continues to oppress her. Robert ultimately tells her that he loves her, so he cannot be with her, because it is not the right thing to do. Edna finds herself going crazy because she has her independence, but now has nothing to do with it in the absence of Robert's love. Much like Judith, she finds that she cannot make much headway because of society's restrictions, and unfortunately ends her life because of it. Even given independence, women have been oppressed by society into obedience and insanity.
In "The Awakening" Edna is oppressed by her husband. She is forced to adhere to the stereotypical gender roles, and act as a mother, though she admits she has no passion for it. However, throughout the novel she realizes a certain clarity that allows her to see that she is different than other women. She does not care much for her role as a mother, as Madame Ratignolle does, nor does she care much about pleasing her husband. She wants to develop her independence, much like Judith does when she leaves home to travel to London. To establish her independence, Edna begins gambling and selling her artwork to get an income, and rents her own small house. It appears as if she is successfully asserting her individuality and power. However, society continues to oppress her. Robert ultimately tells her that he loves her, so he cannot be with her, because it is not the right thing to do. Edna finds herself going crazy because she has her independence, but now has nothing to do with it in the absence of Robert's love. Much like Judith, she finds that she cannot make much headway because of society's restrictions, and unfortunately ends her life because of it. Even given independence, women have been oppressed by society into obedience and insanity.
Shakespeare's Oppressed Sister
In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf explains the gender binary that is prevalent throughout history, in which the man is the dominant public figure and the woman is the concealed housewife. Woolf uses the word 'deplorable' when she accounts that little is known about women before the eighteenth century. In a testament against those who say that the women of the time did not have the 'genius' of Shakespeare to evidently bring upon such public acclaim, Woolf uses the fictional concept of Shakespeare's sister to strike at what she addresses as ignorance and sexism.
Woolf calls us to imagine a woman named Judith; a "wonderfully gifted sister' of Shakespeare. As a young girl, Judith didn't have the opportunity to be sent to school and learn grammar and logic as well as the works of Horace and Virgil like her brother. Rather, she remained at home despite an adventurous and imaginative spirit equal to that of her male sibling. She was cast away from books and papers as her parents insisted upon her spending her time mending the stockings or cooking, many of the pastimes characteristic of women throughout history.
Reproaching her father, Judith eventually runs away in her teens to avoid a "hateful" marriage that surely awaited her had she remained home. Off to London, Judith takes a keen interest in pursuing theatre once in the city. She had desired to act, yet the men of the theater world disregarded her with a mocking laugh. The opportunity to receive training in the craft was futile as a woman.
Without the ability to pursue her passion, and having been disowned by her family after years of being oppressed, Judith kills herself one night. Realizing all efforts were futile to live a life equivalent to that of her brother, Judith embodies the restrictions women have faced throughout history.
Woolf calls us to imagine a woman named Judith; a "wonderfully gifted sister' of Shakespeare. As a young girl, Judith didn't have the opportunity to be sent to school and learn grammar and logic as well as the works of Horace and Virgil like her brother. Rather, she remained at home despite an adventurous and imaginative spirit equal to that of her male sibling. She was cast away from books and papers as her parents insisted upon her spending her time mending the stockings or cooking, many of the pastimes characteristic of women throughout history.
Reproaching her father, Judith eventually runs away in her teens to avoid a "hateful" marriage that surely awaited her had she remained home. Off to London, Judith takes a keen interest in pursuing theatre once in the city. She had desired to act, yet the men of the theater world disregarded her with a mocking laugh. The opportunity to receive training in the craft was futile as a woman.
Without the ability to pursue her passion, and having been disowned by her family after years of being oppressed, Judith kills herself one night. Realizing all efforts were futile to live a life equivalent to that of her brother, Judith embodies the restrictions women have faced throughout history.
Liberty or Death
Even if you have no experience in analyzing writing, there is one glaring similarity between Virginia Woolf's passage on Shakespeare's sister and The Awakening: in both their respective female protagonists meet their end in a somewhat jarring early death. I, as a reader, am not a big fan of death - especially as the ending to a story. I suppose that this discomfort is the point; the authors want their readers to see the impossibility of the situation. So when I ask myself whether the authors had to go to that extreme, I actually find myself saying yes.
Social critics, in order to be productive, must create work that fosters a sense of urgency while being relatable to what the audience feels - the audience, of course, being citizens of the very society being attacked. Even if the social commentary is expressed just as clearly through lesser techniques, the significance lost by omitting death makes the topic easy to brush aside. There are always plenty of other areas to focus on within our society, not to mention others'. Plenty of these have clear connections to heavy consequences like death without being laid out by a novel, for example. Even more importantly, plenty of other areas-needing-improvement can be addressed with a little to none individual shaming. Changing society without actually feeling bad about my part in it? How ideal.
Death's particular use within feminist text goes beyond the necessity of gravity, however. While the feminist nature of the texts stands in opposition to our culture (quite on purpose), they actually stand quite in line with a prominent Western idea: it would be better to die free than live otherwise. Such a clear display of our own mentality is instantly understandable and almost takes some of the sting off of realizing that sometimes we as individuals are wrong. So is it really fair for me to ask them to turn it down for me? I daresay it would be a disservice to myself.
Social critics, in order to be productive, must create work that fosters a sense of urgency while being relatable to what the audience feels - the audience, of course, being citizens of the very society being attacked. Even if the social commentary is expressed just as clearly through lesser techniques, the significance lost by omitting death makes the topic easy to brush aside. There are always plenty of other areas to focus on within our society, not to mention others'. Plenty of these have clear connections to heavy consequences like death without being laid out by a novel, for example. Even more importantly, plenty of other areas-needing-improvement can be addressed with a little to none individual shaming. Changing society without actually feeling bad about my part in it? How ideal.
Death's particular use within feminist text goes beyond the necessity of gravity, however. While the feminist nature of the texts stands in opposition to our culture (quite on purpose), they actually stand quite in line with a prominent Western idea: it would be better to die free than live otherwise. Such a clear display of our own mentality is instantly understandable and almost takes some of the sting off of realizing that sometimes we as individuals are wrong. So is it really fair for me to ask them to turn it down for me? I daresay it would be a disservice to myself.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Life Lessons From Frankl
I though the parallels between King Lear and A Man's Searching For Meaning powerful yet surprising. Both pieces portray men struggling to find themselves and their power. King Lear is struggling to deal with the fact that he is getting older and his power is vanishing and Frankl describes his experience with a concentration camp. Although the connections between these two individuals are strong, I think Frankl's story deserves all the attention.
After reading his story, I was amazed. Viktor Frankl is incredibly determined and strong willed. He took the worst possible circumstance and still learned from it. I think this is a lesson in itself. Frankl shows that grit and hope can help anyone stay strong through any challenge or setback. Even in the most awful situations, Frankl was able to find things of beauty and I have no doubt that this ability directly attributed to his survival.
If King Lear was a real and alive today, I think he could learn a lot from Frankl. Lear would avoid many of his problems if he approached them with the determination and concentration of Frankl.
After reading his story, I was amazed. Viktor Frankl is incredibly determined and strong willed. He took the worst possible circumstance and still learned from it. I think this is a lesson in itself. Frankl shows that grit and hope can help anyone stay strong through any challenge or setback. Even in the most awful situations, Frankl was able to find things of beauty and I have no doubt that this ability directly attributed to his survival.
If King Lear was a real and alive today, I think he could learn a lot from Frankl. Lear would avoid many of his problems if he approached them with the determination and concentration of Frankl.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Food, water, shelter, and...?
Frankl's recollection of his time spent in concentration camps is one of the more disturbing things we've read for class. It's not even in the graphic imagery of illness or frost bitten toes that gets to the reader, but his description of what the camps did to the soul. He goes through the stages of what it was like to be in such an environment. What got to me was when he illustrated a train ride from one camp to another. He writes that he felt like a dead man returning to where he grew up only to find a ghost town. It's nightmarish to imagine what they looked like physically, being starved and overworked, but mentally, he writes that it was as if he was already dead.
It's very difficult to write an analysis of such a story. Frankl makes the Reader feel his words and be able to see what he saw. Maybe it's not the best thing to compare his very real nightmare to a work of fiction, but there are quite a few comparisons and contractions to be made from Frankl's writing to that of Shakespeare and Camus.
In all three works, the one thing that kept the main characters going was the thought or presence of something they loved. Although Meursault does't profess his love for much, the memory of his apartment and just thinking about physical items burned through his plentiful time in prison. For Lear, who doesn't end up spending much time imprisoned at all, having Cordelia with him changed everything. He explains to her how he believes they'll be very happy, only having each other. Lastly, for Frankl, it's a slightly different story. He, like Lear, has someone who he holds very dear. He does not have the luxury that Meursault has of not having much of a connection to the outside world besides physical pleasures like swimming, smoking or sex. Unlike Lear, he does not have his beloved near him. He doesn't even know where his wife is or if she's alive. However, it is still the thought of her that keeps Frankl going. Throughout being slowly starved to death and tortured daily, Frankl keeps his wife in his thoughts and has conversations with her while working. Love may not be the only thing that keeps people semi-sane in restricting and unlivable environments, as Meursault supposedly only needed a days worth of memories, but it sure doesn't hurt. I'd imagine there were quite a few men there who didn't have wives to think of, but they probably thought of parents, siblings, somebody they saw on the street once whose face they remember, a pet, etc. The thought of something you care about if even just a tiny amount keeps people feeling human.
It's very difficult to write an analysis of such a story. Frankl makes the Reader feel his words and be able to see what he saw. Maybe it's not the best thing to compare his very real nightmare to a work of fiction, but there are quite a few comparisons and contractions to be made from Frankl's writing to that of Shakespeare and Camus.
In all three works, the one thing that kept the main characters going was the thought or presence of something they loved. Although Meursault does't profess his love for much, the memory of his apartment and just thinking about physical items burned through his plentiful time in prison. For Lear, who doesn't end up spending much time imprisoned at all, having Cordelia with him changed everything. He explains to her how he believes they'll be very happy, only having each other. Lastly, for Frankl, it's a slightly different story. He, like Lear, has someone who he holds very dear. He does not have the luxury that Meursault has of not having much of a connection to the outside world besides physical pleasures like swimming, smoking or sex. Unlike Lear, he does not have his beloved near him. He doesn't even know where his wife is or if she's alive. However, it is still the thought of her that keeps Frankl going. Throughout being slowly starved to death and tortured daily, Frankl keeps his wife in his thoughts and has conversations with her while working. Love may not be the only thing that keeps people semi-sane in restricting and unlivable environments, as Meursault supposedly only needed a days worth of memories, but it sure doesn't hurt. I'd imagine there were quite a few men there who didn't have wives to think of, but they probably thought of parents, siblings, somebody they saw on the street once whose face they remember, a pet, etc. The thought of something you care about if even just a tiny amount keeps people feeling human.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Frankl Remains a Human
Despite all of the hardships that Viktor Frankl faced while he was trapped in a concentration camp, he still retained inklings of his humanity. It's easy for a prisoner to be regressed to a state that shuns humanity in the name of survival. Frankl himself was no longer shaken by death, and is even able to continue eating after watching a man that he had recently spoken to die. He and other prisoners scavenge for useful goods off of bodies to boost the odds of their own survival, which would be frowned upon if they were not faced with such dire situation. Clearly the situation has removed all boundaries in the nam of survival, yet Frankl still shows human characteristics and honor at certain points.
Despite the terrible conditions he is in, Frankl still listens to the Capo's life troubles and offers psychotherapeutic advice. While this may only be done as a favor to the Capo in an attempt to get food, Frankl is not obligated to do so. Later, a foreman calls Frankl a pig for taking a short break while working, insulting him and suggesting that he must have been a businessman. Even in the camp, Frankl still had pride, and quickly pointed out that he "was a doctor-a specialist," and "did most of [his] work for no money at all, in clinics for the poor." Instead of submitting to the foreman to survive, Frankl shows a sense of pride in his past work. Frankl shows his maintaining comradeship by assisting a fallen prisoner, breaking the pattern of apathy that he had previously been showing. Even in a dire situation that requires one to ditch all form of humanity, Frankl holds on to pieces of his.
Despite the terrible conditions he is in, Frankl still listens to the Capo's life troubles and offers psychotherapeutic advice. While this may only be done as a favor to the Capo in an attempt to get food, Frankl is not obligated to do so. Later, a foreman calls Frankl a pig for taking a short break while working, insulting him and suggesting that he must have been a businessman. Even in the camp, Frankl still had pride, and quickly pointed out that he "was a doctor-a specialist," and "did most of [his] work for no money at all, in clinics for the poor." Instead of submitting to the foreman to survive, Frankl shows a sense of pride in his past work. Frankl shows his maintaining comradeship by assisting a fallen prisoner, breaking the pattern of apathy that he had previously been showing. Even in a dire situation that requires one to ditch all form of humanity, Frankl holds on to pieces of his.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Sticks and Stones
Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" brings up the topic of dehumanizing people. At a concentration camp during WWII, Frankl talks about his experience. Throughout the story, Frankl brings up how he and the other prisoners are treated like machines. The guards depersonalize the prisoners. By doing this, it says that they aren't equal, they don't deserve respect, they are lower than animals, and they aren't even being treated like prisoners because prisoners are at least treated like human beings while the prisoners at these concentration camps are treated like dirt.
For instance, "For only one moment I paused to get my breath and to lean on my shovel. Unfortunately the guard turned around just then and thought I was loafing. The pain he caused me was not from any insults or any blows. That guard did not think it worth his while to say anything, not even a swear word, to the ragged, emaciated figure standing before him, which probably reminded him only vaguely of a human form. Instead, he playfully picked up a stone and threw it at me. That, to me, seemed the way to attract the attention of a beast, to call a domestic animal back to its job, a creature with which you have so little in common that you do not even punish it." This is just one of the many instances in which the prisoners where dehumanized and treated like machines or animals that are there for the guards benefit.
For instance, "For only one moment I paused to get my breath and to lean on my shovel. Unfortunately the guard turned around just then and thought I was loafing. The pain he caused me was not from any insults or any blows. That guard did not think it worth his while to say anything, not even a swear word, to the ragged, emaciated figure standing before him, which probably reminded him only vaguely of a human form. Instead, he playfully picked up a stone and threw it at me. That, to me, seemed the way to attract the attention of a beast, to call a domestic animal back to its job, a creature with which you have so little in common that you do not even punish it." This is just one of the many instances in which the prisoners where dehumanized and treated like machines or animals that are there for the guards benefit.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Individualists Beware
Frankl's story was beyond powerful, and it provided a valuable insight on psychology as well. I was surprised to hear how easily he took being in the camp at first, and how completely unchanged he was when he was told he was a likely candidate for death very soon. His strength was inspiring, and poses a very nice parallel to the Stranger's Meursault.
Both men seem to lack certain emotions society would deem standard in given situations. In the Stranger, Meursault did not find any reason to feel guilty for his crime, nor any sort of regret or remorse over his mother's death. In Frankl's case, there was a lack of outward fear of impending death, at least initially. I think both case point to a certain philosophy; that it is up to oneself to find meaning in life, to define one's own terms for each emotion one will experience, from happiness to remorse to fear. And though society can greatly influence how one sees the world, it can't define it. However, taken too far, society may cast out what it does not understand.
Be free, but beware.
Both men seem to lack certain emotions society would deem standard in given situations. In the Stranger, Meursault did not find any reason to feel guilty for his crime, nor any sort of regret or remorse over his mother's death. In Frankl's case, there was a lack of outward fear of impending death, at least initially. I think both case point to a certain philosophy; that it is up to oneself to find meaning in life, to define one's own terms for each emotion one will experience, from happiness to remorse to fear. And though society can greatly influence how one sees the world, it can't define it. However, taken too far, society may cast out what it does not understand.
Be free, but beware.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Two Men's Search for Meaning
What struck me the most about Frankl's A Man's Search for Meaning, was his response to the situation in which the SS guard beat him on the head with a stick simply because the man behind him stood slightly to one side of the line. He states that "at such a moment it is not the physical pain which hurts the most (and this applies to adults as much as to punished children); it is the mental agony caused by the injustice, the unreasonableness of it all" (36). In this instance, Frankl is addressing the same irrationality and lack of reason that Meursault speaks of in The Stranger. Although both characters come across this significance in different ways, they address this randomness in pain and suffering and suggest attachment to others as a way to cope with the unreasonableness of it all.
While describing the phases that accompany one's survival at a concentration camp, Frankl notes that "the most painful part of the beatings is the insult which they imply." He adds that the relationship between those in power and those in the concentration camp is that of a domestic animal "with which you have so little in common that you don't even punish it" (36). I think that this take on relation with others and more importantly others' perception of you, is similar to what Meursault would have realized post-epiphany at the end of his life. Meursault lives nearly his entire life with the philosophy that attachment to others is simply a way to cope with life's pain and irrationality and that in order to truly be happy, one must remain unattached from other humans. Towards the end of the book, he begins to value connections to others, understands why his mother took a fiancé at the end of her life, and even states that some recognition of his death (even if hateful) would be better than no recognition at all. While in very different situations at two very different extremes, both characters address the importance of human relationship as a way to cope with the irrationality of life.
While describing the phases that accompany one's survival at a concentration camp, Frankl notes that "the most painful part of the beatings is the insult which they imply." He adds that the relationship between those in power and those in the concentration camp is that of a domestic animal "with which you have so little in common that you don't even punish it" (36). I think that this take on relation with others and more importantly others' perception of you, is similar to what Meursault would have realized post-epiphany at the end of his life. Meursault lives nearly his entire life with the philosophy that attachment to others is simply a way to cope with life's pain and irrationality and that in order to truly be happy, one must remain unattached from other humans. Towards the end of the book, he begins to value connections to others, understands why his mother took a fiancé at the end of her life, and even states that some recognition of his death (even if hateful) would be better than no recognition at all. While in very different situations at two very different extremes, both characters address the importance of human relationship as a way to cope with the irrationality of life.
Is Love all we Really Need?
Frankl’s piece was, undoubtedly, powerful, moving, and profound. His intense descriptions of his experiences in the concentration camp coupled with his revolutionary insights in his search for meaning make for a captivating experience for the reader. However, when he ties together all of his discoveries from his search for meaning, he concludes that it was the thought of his wife that allowed him to accept his suffering as it is and thus keep working as he was supposed to. Now, there is a question to be asked: Does love, or even just the thought of love, help us escape our suffering? The answer might not be as simple as it was for Frankl.
So, while Frankl was working himself beyond his physical limit in the labor camp, he could see and feel the presence of his wife with him. He even uses the phrase “she was there” to describe how he felt in that moment. The thought and sensed presence of his wife brings meaning to his horrible situation. Not to sound blunt, but it’s basically trying to tell us that “all you need is love.”
*Cue John, Paul, George, and Ringo*
I can’t think of a story I’ve come across that doesn’t involve some sort of tacit reference to the concept of love. Moreover, most stories, old and new, incorporate love as the driving force of the meaning of the story; the notion of love is an underlying answer to all problems that must be solved.
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, written several hundred years ago, Lear has a strong emotional attachment to his favorite daughter, Cordelia. Toward the end of the play, Cordelia is the only person Lear loves and truly cares about, and when she dies, he shows immense grief and dies himself shortly afterward. Here, the message is clear: we can’t live without love, we can’t go on. Love works in the same way here as it did for Frankl.
But let us not just focus on fictional stories. Frankl’s situation was real, and thus only real situations can be wholesomely compared to his. Love cannot solve all our problems, nor can it physically take us out of suffering. In our comfortable lives, we require more substance to our day-to-day living in order to truly find meaning. We need success, satisfaction, entertainment, and stimulation in order to discover this meaning. But take away all of our comfort, and what do we get? Well, Frankl already told us what we get. And what’s the only thing left in our lives after all of these constructs have vanished and are completely out of reach? Love, love is all that’s left.
So, realistically, love is (sometimes) all we need. We don’t have to change the lyrics to The Beatles’ song, though.
So, while Frankl was working himself beyond his physical limit in the labor camp, he could see and feel the presence of his wife with him. He even uses the phrase “she was there” to describe how he felt in that moment. The thought and sensed presence of his wife brings meaning to his horrible situation. Not to sound blunt, but it’s basically trying to tell us that “all you need is love.”
*Cue John, Paul, George, and Ringo*
I can’t think of a story I’ve come across that doesn’t involve some sort of tacit reference to the concept of love. Moreover, most stories, old and new, incorporate love as the driving force of the meaning of the story; the notion of love is an underlying answer to all problems that must be solved.
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, written several hundred years ago, Lear has a strong emotional attachment to his favorite daughter, Cordelia. Toward the end of the play, Cordelia is the only person Lear loves and truly cares about, and when she dies, he shows immense grief and dies himself shortly afterward. Here, the message is clear: we can’t live without love, we can’t go on. Love works in the same way here as it did for Frankl.
But let us not just focus on fictional stories. Frankl’s situation was real, and thus only real situations can be wholesomely compared to his. Love cannot solve all our problems, nor can it physically take us out of suffering. In our comfortable lives, we require more substance to our day-to-day living in order to truly find meaning. We need success, satisfaction, entertainment, and stimulation in order to discover this meaning. But take away all of our comfort, and what do we get? Well, Frankl already told us what we get. And what’s the only thing left in our lives after all of these constructs have vanished and are completely out of reach? Love, love is all that’s left.
So, realistically, love is (sometimes) all we need. We don’t have to change the lyrics to The Beatles’ song, though.
:| > :(
Meursault and Frankl have an obvious connection.
Emotions.
Or lack there of.
Frankl has a coping mechanism that provides him with a kind of staleness to the concentration camp he is placed in. A completely justified and understandable mechanism; however, when he is faced with indignation, his true colors show.
Frankl's reaction isn't far from Meursault's. Meursault has an obvious lack of care throughout The Stranger, however when he is faced with anger or a complicated struggle, he often gets heated. Literally and metaphorically hot.
Although, while Meursault has a sense of apathy towards women and relationships, Frankl clings to the memory of his wife and uses her as a guide through his time at the camp. He often questions whether she is alive or dead, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because he has her memory in his heart (a little cliche I apologize).
In King Lear, emotions serve to be the heart of the play. Acting on emotions drive the plot. Lear, in a fit of rage, disowns his daughter, becomes insane, and ultimately the play ends in 5 deaths. With this contrast, a lack of emotion seems to be the preferred coping mechanism, compared to insanity or death.
Emotions.
Or lack there of.
Frankl has a coping mechanism that provides him with a kind of staleness to the concentration camp he is placed in. A completely justified and understandable mechanism; however, when he is faced with indignation, his true colors show.
Frankl's reaction isn't far from Meursault's. Meursault has an obvious lack of care throughout The Stranger, however when he is faced with anger or a complicated struggle, he often gets heated. Literally and metaphorically hot.
Although, while Meursault has a sense of apathy towards women and relationships, Frankl clings to the memory of his wife and uses her as a guide through his time at the camp. He often questions whether she is alive or dead, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because he has her memory in his heart (a little cliche I apologize).
In King Lear, emotions serve to be the heart of the play. Acting on emotions drive the plot. Lear, in a fit of rage, disowns his daughter, becomes insane, and ultimately the play ends in 5 deaths. With this contrast, a lack of emotion seems to be the preferred coping mechanism, compared to insanity or death.
Vae Victis
Frankl's stories were extremely moving. I am in awe of his mental fortitude and remarkable will power. I was looking at other blog posts and everybody is looking for connections between Frankl's article and King Lear or The Stranger. I think that we should step back and take in the beauty of some of the language and the power of Frankl's words.
The first line that really caught my attention was Frankl's quoting of Lessing, "There are thins which must cause you to lose your reason or you have none to lose." And Frankl's phrasing, "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior." Nothing was normal about the concentration camps. When Frankl talks about the stage of apathy I cringe. To lose all emotional response to any stimulation is heartbreaking.
Normal reactions are now completely opposite normal. One example of an abnormal reaction was when one of the inmates had to march with no boots and he found comfort with bread. He actually "munched with absorbed delight." This to me demonstrates the extreme will to survive. Not even being phased by things that would scar people nowadays forever takes great strength.
Not only were the inmates strong, but they all appreciated beauty. They acknowledged the power of love and the natural beauty of the earth. Frankl found that love is as strong as death and that love could keep you alive. One remedy to hopelessness was love. Another was the sunset. Seeing the sunset through the tall Bavarian trees resulted in more of an emotional response then did the death of a comrade.
Frankl's struggles showed me how strong people can be even when everything is lost.
How beautiful the world could be!
The first line that really caught my attention was Frankl's quoting of Lessing, "There are thins which must cause you to lose your reason or you have none to lose." And Frankl's phrasing, "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior." Nothing was normal about the concentration camps. When Frankl talks about the stage of apathy I cringe. To lose all emotional response to any stimulation is heartbreaking.
Normal reactions are now completely opposite normal. One example of an abnormal reaction was when one of the inmates had to march with no boots and he found comfort with bread. He actually "munched with absorbed delight." This to me demonstrates the extreme will to survive. Not even being phased by things that would scar people nowadays forever takes great strength.
Not only were the inmates strong, but they all appreciated beauty. They acknowledged the power of love and the natural beauty of the earth. Frankl found that love is as strong as death and that love could keep you alive. One remedy to hopelessness was love. Another was the sunset. Seeing the sunset through the tall Bavarian trees resulted in more of an emotional response then did the death of a comrade.
Frankl's struggles showed me how strong people can be even when everything is lost.
How beautiful the world could be!
Similar Methods of Enduring
Meursault and Frankl use similar methods to endure their imprisonments. They both use memories to get them through their situation. While in prison Meursault uses his memories to keep him entertained, and to give him hope while he is in prison. Similarly , Frankl used the memory of his wife to give both hope and strength, and endure his current situation, towards the end of the passage he states that "The guard passed by, insulting me, and once again I communed with my beloved. More and more I felt that she was present..." Frankl used the memory of his wife to return to a happier place so he could endure the psychical and mental harm that he was forced to deal with. Meursault uses his memories to help endure mental pain as well.
Camus vs. Frankl
Despite coming from completely different backgrounds and experiences, both Albert Camus and Victor Frankl develop a similar idea: monotony and pain in the present is best combatted through the memories of a happier, more comforting part of the sufferer's past life.
Camus develops this idea in his novel The Stranger, where the protagonist Meursault deals with his prison sentence by recalling every detail of his apartment. Each day he remembers more details, and this allows him to pass the time without much of an issue. He concludes that "a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison". All it takes is some memory, some nostalgia, and the human mind can overcome its hardship.
Frankl developed his version of this idea through his own experiences in the Holocaust. He writes that he was able to survive through his wife, his beloved. By holding imaginary conversations with her and recalling her image in exact, vivid detail Frankl was able to cling to his humanity in the worst of situations. He argues that his memories of his wife and the strength they gave him allowed him to realize that "The salvation of man is through love and love alone".
While both of these ideas may appear to be more similar than dissimilar on the surface, there are a few key details that show that they are actually opposite interpretations of an idea. Meursault's memories are only there to combat boredom -- he has no particular emotional connection to his apartment building. In fact, he doesn't have any particular emotional connection with anything or anyone at that point in the novel. He doesn't care for Marie, who is the closest thing to a beloved he has. Camus, in his classic existential manner, believes memories are a way of averting boredom, of staying sane, of enjoying life while it is there.
Frankl's interpretation is more artistic and emotional. For him, it is about the love that he feels for his wife that keeps him alive. He does not remember her in order to entertain himself or to fulfill any sort of sexual desire, but to rekindle the flame of humanity within his beaten body. He describes his wife as "more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise". Meursault doesn't even bother to describe to the reader any specific part of his room. However, Frankl does share some similarities with Meursault in that he would also think of his past daily life and of the mundane routine he used to go through as a way of coping. This to me seems like something Meursault would do if he were placed in a situation more similar to what Frankl had to experience.
It is impossible to determine who is more "correct", primarily because no one is correct in philosophy. However, it is also hard to truly compare the two because Frankl experienced the Holocaust, which is widely considered to be one of the most horrid experiences in all of human history. So while it might be easy to say something like Frankl's memories of his wife wasn't necessarily true love so much as a prettier way of avoiding the present through the past, or that true love doesn't actually exist because it's a social construct, I feel that would be somewhat insensitive to blog about with the amount of knowledge I have on the subject. I feel like I wouldn't want to declare myself as agreeing more with Camus or Frankl without putting more effort into understanding both sides. Though I also feel it is important to truly consider both of their viewpoints, and to not completely dismiss Camus' ideas simply because Frankl was in the Holocaust.
Camus develops this idea in his novel The Stranger, where the protagonist Meursault deals with his prison sentence by recalling every detail of his apartment. Each day he remembers more details, and this allows him to pass the time without much of an issue. He concludes that "a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison". All it takes is some memory, some nostalgia, and the human mind can overcome its hardship.
Frankl developed his version of this idea through his own experiences in the Holocaust. He writes that he was able to survive through his wife, his beloved. By holding imaginary conversations with her and recalling her image in exact, vivid detail Frankl was able to cling to his humanity in the worst of situations. He argues that his memories of his wife and the strength they gave him allowed him to realize that "The salvation of man is through love and love alone".
While both of these ideas may appear to be more similar than dissimilar on the surface, there are a few key details that show that they are actually opposite interpretations of an idea. Meursault's memories are only there to combat boredom -- he has no particular emotional connection to his apartment building. In fact, he doesn't have any particular emotional connection with anything or anyone at that point in the novel. He doesn't care for Marie, who is the closest thing to a beloved he has. Camus, in his classic existential manner, believes memories are a way of averting boredom, of staying sane, of enjoying life while it is there.
Frankl's interpretation is more artistic and emotional. For him, it is about the love that he feels for his wife that keeps him alive. He does not remember her in order to entertain himself or to fulfill any sort of sexual desire, but to rekindle the flame of humanity within his beaten body. He describes his wife as "more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise". Meursault doesn't even bother to describe to the reader any specific part of his room. However, Frankl does share some similarities with Meursault in that he would also think of his past daily life and of the mundane routine he used to go through as a way of coping. This to me seems like something Meursault would do if he were placed in a situation more similar to what Frankl had to experience.
It is impossible to determine who is more "correct", primarily because no one is correct in philosophy. However, it is also hard to truly compare the two because Frankl experienced the Holocaust, which is widely considered to be one of the most horrid experiences in all of human history. So while it might be easy to say something like Frankl's memories of his wife wasn't necessarily true love so much as a prettier way of avoiding the present through the past, or that true love doesn't actually exist because it's a social construct, I feel that would be somewhat insensitive to blog about with the amount of knowledge I have on the subject. I feel like I wouldn't want to declare myself as agreeing more with Camus or Frankl without putting more effort into understanding both sides. Though I also feel it is important to truly consider both of their viewpoints, and to not completely dismiss Camus' ideas simply because Frankl was in the Holocaust.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
One Thing Is Not the Other
While reading the recent blog posts, I noticed that a few topics suggested comparisons to Frankl's experience with the Holocaust to either King Lear's "journey" or even Meursault's time in prison. I believe that we must be very cautious to avoid making such drastic analyses such that Lear's situation becomes anything analogous to that of Frankl.
Of course, there are thematic parallelisms between the two; there would be no point otherwise in examining the correlations. The motif of a natural state of being and its contrast with society's laws branded in my mind when reading "Man's Search For Meaning." Frankl concluded that his experience at Auschwitz ultimately drained him of his own humanity; the injunctions set in place by the Nazi regime hindered Frankl and millions of others from prospering as human beings. The implications of "King Lear," conclude that society and the rules that follow avail in the downfall of many principle characters (i.e. Cordelia, Kent, Edgar, Lear, Edmund in some aspects). For many characters in "King Lear," the codes of society worked against their favor.
There are many more obvious thematic similarities between Frankl's experience and the story of Lear or that of Meursault already discussed in other posts (mine was a bit stretched). We as knowledgeable individuals, however, must be sure we are not forging similarities between the three. I'll give a little anecdote to express my thoughts:
I once heard an adult try to compare the Holocaust with the stress of high school in front of a Holocaust survivor.
With that being said, let's be sure that we recognize the difference between acknowledging certain aspects or motifs of Frankl's experience and that of Lear/Meursault as opposed to actually claiming that there are legitimate, concrete similarities between what Lear/Meursault went through and what Frankl went through during the Holocaust.
Of course, there are thematic parallelisms between the two; there would be no point otherwise in examining the correlations. The motif of a natural state of being and its contrast with society's laws branded in my mind when reading "Man's Search For Meaning." Frankl concluded that his experience at Auschwitz ultimately drained him of his own humanity; the injunctions set in place by the Nazi regime hindered Frankl and millions of others from prospering as human beings. The implications of "King Lear," conclude that society and the rules that follow avail in the downfall of many principle characters (i.e. Cordelia, Kent, Edgar, Lear, Edmund in some aspects). For many characters in "King Lear," the codes of society worked against their favor.
There are many more obvious thematic similarities between Frankl's experience and the story of Lear or that of Meursault already discussed in other posts (mine was a bit stretched). We as knowledgeable individuals, however, must be sure we are not forging similarities between the three. I'll give a little anecdote to express my thoughts:
I once heard an adult try to compare the Holocaust with the stress of high school in front of a Holocaust survivor.
With that being said, let's be sure that we recognize the difference between acknowledging certain aspects or motifs of Frankl's experience and that of Lear/Meursault as opposed to actually claiming that there are legitimate, concrete similarities between what Lear/Meursault went through and what Frankl went through during the Holocaust.
Theory in Agonizing Practice
When Lear and Cordelia are faced with the fate of being sent to prison, Cordelia breaks down into tears. Lear, however, assures her that prison will be wonderful in each other's company. He brushes away her tears as he describes the beautiful experience awaiting them. That piece of father-daughter sentiment makes for a really feel-good moment as the readers in a play that's soon to end quite the opposite. It almost makes us forget for a moment that we are reading a tragedy. I mean, Lear is talking about prison! That's no light topic. While reading, I couldn't help but think, "Is he maybe being a little naive here?"
Frankl's time in Auschwitz is a real-life tragedy (suspending the fact that he did not prompt his placement there through his own actions). While it's a very extreme example, Frankl's camp was a prison relatable to the prison Lear and Cordelia were bound to. Death was experienced in each. Lear had Cordelia physically, and Frankl had his wife spiritually. In both cases their female counterpart sustained them through hardship. Their individual reactions to the removal of that loved one, however, is key. Lear, after having regained a small bit of lucidness, completely loses it and actually can not continue to live. Frankl, however, was forced to deal with the physical absence of his wife from the very beginning of his imprisonment and furthermore had to deal with the pain of not knowing whether she was dead or alive. Nonetheless, he keeps her memory in his heart and even says that had he known she was dead it would not affect the connection he felt with her!
Lear may have started out with an idealistic viewpoint, but he fails to maintain it when the going actually gets rough. His positive anticipation left him vulnerable to the coming reality. Frankl, however, had no grand expectations and yet was able to achieve that ideal sense of companionship and love that transcended love. It seems that preparation is key - as they say, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Frankl's time in Auschwitz is a real-life tragedy (suspending the fact that he did not prompt his placement there through his own actions). While it's a very extreme example, Frankl's camp was a prison relatable to the prison Lear and Cordelia were bound to. Death was experienced in each. Lear had Cordelia physically, and Frankl had his wife spiritually. In both cases their female counterpart sustained them through hardship. Their individual reactions to the removal of that loved one, however, is key. Lear, after having regained a small bit of lucidness, completely loses it and actually can not continue to live. Frankl, however, was forced to deal with the physical absence of his wife from the very beginning of his imprisonment and furthermore had to deal with the pain of not knowing whether she was dead or alive. Nonetheless, he keeps her memory in his heart and even says that had he known she was dead it would not affect the connection he felt with her!
Lear may have started out with an idealistic viewpoint, but he fails to maintain it when the going actually gets rough. His positive anticipation left him vulnerable to the coming reality. Frankl, however, had no grand expectations and yet was able to achieve that ideal sense of companionship and love that transcended love. It seems that preparation is key - as they say, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)