Does Meursault have Emotions or is He a Sociopath??

A sociopath is a person with a personality disorder that manifests itself as extreme anxiety and a lack of conscience. Throughout The Stranger, Meursault consistently shows little emotion towards the things around him. In the most recent chapters when Meursault goes to prison for murder, he does not seem to feel emotion about it and just wants to pass the time in whatever way he can. Even though he has a serious girlfriend, when she comes to visit, he is happy to see her, but after she is gone, rarely thinks about her. This shows that even though he has these relationships he only sees life as something that he has to get through. Furthermore, unlike the other prisoners, he is able to get used to prison life and almost doesn't understand how bad it is supposed to be. He does not feel extreme misery towards everything and instead thinks that everything is basically normal. He doesn't miss the people in his life outside of prison and seems to leave everything behind, rarely thinking about them. Relating to the definition of sociopath, Meursault has not shown any sadness about being in prison and does not even begin to feel guilt about the murder that he committed. A sociopath shares similar thoughts, almost seeing the world as a black and white place where nothing truly matters.

What Does Meursault feel...Anything?

     In Albert Camus's novel The Stranger, he begins to discuss the death of the main character, Meursault's, mother. "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: "Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours." "That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.  Immediately, the reader is able to see that Meursault does not show a particular emotion towards the death of his mother. He just thinks about how he has to go to the funeral, but shows no discomfort and doesn't even bother to figure out what day she died. However, in the end of part I, he discusses the weather to a great extent. Meursault states, "The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped over my eyelids at once and covered them with a warm, thick film"(59). Meursault spends a few sentences describing the feeling that the intense sun, but only uses about a sentence and a half to talk about his mother's death. The reaction was almost robotic. This shows that he feels very little connection to the people around them and maybe lives in a world that is more focused on himself. When Marie asks him to marry him, he says that he does not love her, but if she wants to get married then they could. He shows very little emotion towards her and is not excited by the idea of human relationships.

Welcome!

Welcome to the weblog for our AP Literature class  -- the place where we will be continuing conversations from class and starting new ones. We'll be discussing and debating literary conundrums, the meaning of life, and so much more. We might even see a little poetry.

So, what's a blog? And how will we be using it class? For information on blogging and how to join and post to our blog, see "All About Blogging."

We're looking forward to a great year.

Make sure you check your e-mail for your invitation to join the blog. Also – and this is very important – the first step you should take after you accept the invitation is to edit your user profile so that you control how your identity and your communication preferences.  Click on the pull-down menu next to your name in the upper right corner of the browser and click on “Blogger Profile.” Then click on “Edit Profile.”

You can fill out as much of it as you want, but the only requirement is -- under “Identity” -- make sure your “Display name” is your first name and last initial only -- so we provide some anonymity while still allowing your classmates and teacher to be able to identity who you are. For example, change “Bernie Heidkamp” to “Bernie H.”

Orientalism

In today's society an orientalist mindset is common. I think that the binary and power dynamic of Us vs them is natural no matter where you live. It is natural to consider your social group the superior one. Thus, without a good understanding of the "east" or the "other" in any instance-without mutual recognition- misunderstanding, even injustice, takes place. For instance, I have never been east of the east coast of the United States and for most Americans the "east" isn't as popular a travel destination as Europe or other states. This allows the media to take advantage of people's lack of knowledge and create entertainment that feeds off of people's willingness to believe that they are the "normal" or the "civilized." Movies such as Aladdin and Doctor Strange present the "east" as a mystery, as a place with unique powers only used for good when a western hero arrives.

I think that "The God of Small Things" is written for a "western" audience to create mutual recognition and empathy with the experiences of those of a different culture. However, I think that it also emphasizes the injustices that people everywhere are familiar with. Issues of social class, police brutality, and domestic abuse force the reader to consider classism, racism and sexism, mostly from the innocent point of view of children. Roy says in the "The God of Small Things", "[the violence of the police was] impelled by feelings that were primal yet paradoxically impersonal. Feelings of contempt born of inchoate, unacknowledged fear- civilization's fear of nature, men's fear of women, power's fear of powerlessness." These fears are seen in every society, but manifest themselves in different ways. I think by understanding this we can take a step away from the orientalist mindset.

Money...Morality...Mutual Recognition?

Peter Singer, in his article, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" proposes a radical solution to poverty. He argues that instead of indulging on the the many spoils in life such as fancy clothes, cars, and vacations, we should give our non-essential income to those less fortunate. Singer gives an example of two people, Bob and Dora, who choose to enjoy a luxury rather than help a poor stranger. I thought they were being selfish, but according to Singer I am just like Bob and Dora. He explains that those of us with excess money are faced with the same type of decision everyday and we choose ourselves by not giving to charity. Singer's grand solution is to make giving all unnecessary income to charitable organizations and those living in poverty a moral obligation. 

Defining redistribution of wealth as a moral obligation raises many problems. First, Singer's argument is more homogeneous in a socialist society rather than a capitalist one. Second, "moral obligations" are tricky. I think unless enforced by law, it won't happen. For example, I would like to think people wouldn't kill one other because it's morally the right thing to do, but without a law forbidding it, would there still be less murder? It's a negative view of human nature but it's just a thought. 

In addition, the article made me think of mutual recognition. Many people have commented on the fact that it's human nature to not be close to strangers and be unwilling (at first) to give money. I agree. Giving money to unseen people fourteen hours away does not seem as fulfilling. Although giving a large portion of your earnings is a start to a more even "playing field", the action is not mutual recognition. Our society has an attitude of it's a "burden" for "us" to give to this "other". Until you change people's minds about what kind of world they want to live in, Singer's solution won't work. I wish for a day the world will achieve mutual recognition, but I can't envision the road map to get there. 

Overall, Singer has an over-arching idea right: Some have more than they need and others don't have basic needs fulfilled. Excess should be redistributed. But what is excess? When does one stop giving? If I were to make a six figure salary I would try to give as much as I can, but easier said than done. Similar to discussions about gender and racial equality, violence, and more, the discussion on morality and poverty does not end in one class period or one article. 

Is the World Truly Worst?

So far, I'm really enjoying Citizen. Maybe it's because Claudia Rankine doesn't write like Shakespeare, or the fact that it isn't your typical poetry novel. One line that really struck me was:

"From the start many made it clear Serena would have done better struggling to survive in the two-dimensional of a Millet painting, rather than on their tennis court-better to put all that strength to work in their fantasy of her working the land, rather than be caught up in the turbulence of our ancient dramas, like a ship fighting a storm in a Turner seascape." - Claudia Rankine, p.26

To me, the quote means that Serena would be better "working the land" as a slave than be playing on the tennis court. The line caught my attention because it almost sounds like Rankine is saying that nothing has really changed since slavery. And the references to art are also really powerful. When Rankine references "a Millet painting," she is referring to painter Jean-Francois Millet, an artist known for his paintings of French peasants working the field. As for the "Turner seascape," Rankine refers to another painter by the name of J.M.W Turner. In his work, Turner painted a lot of seascapes, some focusing on storm-caught ships.

I think Rankine's insight over Serena's tennis experience is very provocative. There is still this double standard for African Americans in this country, but her position that Serena would be better off working the fields, I don't really agree with. But I also may be bias because I am an Asian American woman.

 

Jean-Francois Millet, The Gleaners, 1857

J.M.W Turner, The Wreck of a Transport Ship, 1810

"It was not a story to pass on"... until 2015

I was really surprised by the ending of Beloved. Within the last three chapters of the book I would have never expected Beloved to be gone. Beloved got bigger and ran the house while Sethe got physically smaller and was placed in the "child" role.

The novel starts with a distant voice that narrates the lives of Baby Suggs, Sethe, and Denver, and ends with a distant voice hinting about the larger purpose of the book. The line "It was not a story to pass on," (323) was repeated twice followed by the line, "This is not a story to pass on" (324). For me this was not only a change in wording, but was also a hint that the story actually should be passed on: a fictious, yet realistic and historical story about life post slavery.

The story should be passed on because some of the topics in the book are present in 2015. One potent example is the WHITE/black binary and the role of the community. In Beloved there are many examples of the binary such as slavery in Sweet Home, specifically school teacher. The community at first disowns Baby Suggs and her family because of their lavish dinner, but then come together at the end to see if Beloved is hurting Sethe. Present day there is still the WHITE/black binary and pride has divided some families and communities.

This binary, along with others, should be acknowledged and can start to be dissolved through mutual recognition. However, the ending of the novel also seems to suggest that the past should be left behind to move forward to the present. This suggestion comes through Paul D comforting Sethe after Beloved leaves. I think the only way to really move forward is to remember the past, see how the present compares, and fix what you don't like. It's easier said than done.

Beloved's ending was definitely open for interpretation but I think one thing is for sure: this is a story to pass on.

HOD 2015: Aladdin and Said

In Conrad's Heart of Darkness, the darkness in the story is the Congo. In 2015, our Heart of Darkness can be found in the Middle East. In the novel, lack of mutual recognition between the European imperialists and the Congolese is very similar to the idea of "orientalism." In Edward Said's Orientalism, Said defines the term as " a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S" According to the idea of orientalism, these differences are seen as exotic, uncivilized and backward.

In the story, as Marlow observes the Congolese, he makes the remark that he must remember that they too are human. The fact that Marlow even had to comment on such a thing reflects how there is no mutual recognition at all unless you force yourself to see it. An example of orientalism that is more close to home can be found subtly in Disney's Aladdin. 

At the beginning of the movie thru when Aladdin is steals the bread in the market place, orientalism is everywhere! I've seen Aladdin about 100 times in my life and I never really noticed all the orientalism until Mr. Goldberg pointed it out to me. The movie opens to a man who is trying to sell you low-quality crap and is wearing a huge turban. And as the movie progresses into the song "One Jump Ahead," the viewer sees a lot of exotic (and stereotypical) things about the Middle East such as someone eating fire, a man laying on a board of needles, and another man taking a nap on what looks like to be coals.

Aladdin exaggerates the differences of the Middle East and makes it look exotic. Because of movies like Aladdin, people across different cultures will never achieve mutual recognition nor cultural understanding; something I believe is a serious loss in our ever-globalized society.

Time to Level the Playing Field

Nancy Chodorow's argument is unique and especially applicable in today's time. Chodorow made several compelling arguments in her essay but the one that struck me the most was the one she made about the relationship between societal expectations and gender. Although improvements have certainly been made, women are still expected to make self sacrifices to take care of their families. Personally, I think that this expectation sets women back greatly. Often times, women are looked down upon if they decide to pursue a career instead of a family. Men are also looked down upon if they decide to raise a family instead of pursue a career. These expectations are toxic in today's society. They turn parenting into a competition instead of an experience based on wholehearted love.

Although these expectations are bad for society, society has mad substantial progress. 100 years ago it was practically unheard of for a woman to have a high profile job and a man was viewed as a bum if he chose to stay home with his family. Now, I know men who take work off to raise their infant children so their wives can go back to their job. Women are encouraged to pursue the career they want and they are encouraged to consider fields that are typically dominated by men. The playing field is becoming much more level. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. In order to change the traditional and outdated parenting narrative, our society must move past the stereotypes and expectations that have shut us down in the past.

I Cannot Heave My Heart Into My Mouth

After analyzing the first act of King Lear in class, one section really stood out to me:

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty
According to my bond; no more nor less.

Cordelia said this when her father, King Lear, demanded that all of his daughters tell him how much they love him while he was deciding how he wanted to divide up his inheritance. While Goneril and Regan showered their father with meaningless compliments, Cordelia actually spoke her mind. Cordelia said that she loves her father "according to my bond".

I admire Cordelia's ability to speak her mind even when it is best for her to just lie to get what she wants. Her honesty shows that she respects herself and her father. She refuses to "heave her heart into her mouth" because that is simply dishonest. Her integrity prevents her from making false statements. Cordelia is incredibly empowering through how she handles this situation, but Lear's response shows the downsides that can come from speaking your mind.

Lear takes Cordelia's unwillingness to explicitly proclaim her love as an insult even though it is exactly the opposite. This error of judgement appears to be detrimental for Cordelia even though her actions had the best intentions.

I think this interaction outlines the struggle that many people face when they decide what to say in difficult situations. Saying something with the sole purpose of pleasing a person is a short term solution for what can be a long term problem.

The Circle of Life (and Camus)

“Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition” (Camus 3).

Okay perhaps this is a stretch but bear with me here. I’m going to take us back to Benjamin and then go full circle.

Benjamin talked about two major concepts: binaries and mutual recognition. I believe that our discussion of what gives life meaning today in class, Camus’ theory of Sisyphus, and Meursault of The Stranger himself all tie back to mutual recognition, particularly self-recognition, and a key binary: authority versus the individual. As an initial clarification, the authority in this binary is not necessarily a government or physical entity, but rather some higher power enacting conditions on an individual’s fate.

Today during class, we reached the conclusion that what gives life meaning is life itself. This, to me, refers to the actions we make as individuals; everyone has a responsibility for anything they do that causes any sort of change, be it seemingly insignificant and temporary such as planting a flower, or one with more weight. It’s those actions, generally speaking, that give our lives any sort of meaning. How we live our lives and value what we do results in the meaning we believe our lives possess.

A counterexample to that kind of thinking is Meursault. He chooses to ignore his own actions, for the most part, and act purely on physical desire; anything that ties him to an action that would spur a change, significant or otherwise, he avoids like the plague. Marriage? Love? Job opportunities? All useless agents of change that he treats with a cavalier wave of his hand. The only catalyst that sparks any wavering in his existentialist lifestyle is death, which is a rather inevitable cause of change. He follows a general philosophy that “[t]o stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing” (57). Refusing change is Meursault’s way of avoiding individualism altogether, but removing his life of meaning.

Which leads to Camus’ philosophy of Sisyphus, the poor mythological rock-pusher. Most would think his incessant task of pushing a rock up a hill repeatedly for eternity would be a punishment, but Camus, among other points, argues that Sisyphus is happy because he is aware of himself and his past experiences, as well as his contribution to his own fate. He may be pushing the rock, but he is pushing the rock because of his own actions, not because the gods have put him there. This turns his fate into not a punishment, but a choice, where he has triumphed.

He has triumphed over the authority versus individual binary by utilizing self-recognition.

It’s really a matter of perception, of thinking about one’s own life in terms of oneself instead of in terms of being a subject, but it’s enough to allow him freedom from one of the most difficult binaries there is. The gods did not choose his fate; he did, and he recognizes that he did via his own actions. This agency is essential in the escape from the binary and the possession of meaning in life.

Our in-class discussion concluded that actions, in other words, the agency of the individual, give life meaning. Sisyphus’ life, although seemingly the most pointless struggle known to man or god, has meaning. All lives have meaning, but in order to escape the binary and realize it, we must recognize ourselves as agents of change for our own lives. Sisyphus succeeded; Meursault has found a cheap way out. He chooses to completely avoid the binary altogether by not even attempting to be an individual. The only agent of change brought on by whatever higher power life brings that can force him into the mercy of the authority portion of the binary is death, but other than that Meursault has managed to avoid acknowledging any consequences or effects of his actions whatsoever. Denying change gives no reason to contemplate a cause for said change, leaving the authority and the individual obliterated from any significance, thus eliminating the binary.

As for us, well, we will have to abide by Benjamin’s philosophy and struggle to see ourselves as individuals, realize our own agency and give our lives meaning, and break free of the authority grip of the binary. Unless being like Meursault seems like a good idea, but I would wait until we find out his fate in Part 2 of the book before choosing his path.

Am I abusing my dog?

When we were discussing Benjamin's thoughts about binaries I thought of the relationships in my life that I value, and whether or not they were a harmful binary. I thought about my relationship with my parents, which is definitely questionable, but that is an entirely different post. I thought about my relationships with my friends, which for the most part I think we at least try to mutually recognize each other. But then I thought about somebody who is very valuable to me, and yet is probably the worst relationship I have, by Benjamin's standards. That somebody is my dog, Tucker. He is a 3-4 year old borador whom I love very much.

Maybe our relationships with our pets do not have to follow the same standards as our relationships with people. Obviously, since I am not a vegetarian, I can't really preach too much about animal rights. However, sitting here with Tucker at my feet, I can't help but think I'm mistreating him when I don't think of him as an equal. Even though an owner/pet relationship already suggests a domination in the name, I think it's possible to have that while having mutual recognition. Similarly to a parent/child or teacher/student, someone can have the upper hand while still respecting the other. When I ignore my dog's pleas for attention in an attempt to teach him not to whine when he wants something, I can't explain to him that I would give him a belly rub if he would just calm down for a second. Or when I pull on his leash when he's taking a long time to sniff a pole because I'm in a hurry, I am blatantly prioritizing my needs over his. I always feel guilty, as Benjamin expressed, after I dominate my beloved pup like that. At the same time, although such occasions are much more rare, he feels guilty when he eats my food or vomits on the carpet. Although we have a very beneficial relationship to both sides, I think it is ME/him, and I am trying to change that. However I'm also trying to change that in my head my relationship with my dog is more valuable sometimes than with humans. Do you feel you treat your pet as an equal, or even that you should?

Mutual Recognition? Could it be the work of aliens?

Today, along with a couple fellow football players, our wonderful classmate Patrick Flanagan and I got extremely philosophical. We pondered what life after death would be like as well as what "nothingness" would be like. Eventually we landed on the topic of aliens after having a laugh about the absurd show, "Ancient Aliens." Obviously I believe that aliens and other life-forms exist, but the question is how do they live? Do they mutually recognize each other as Jessica Benjamin would hope? Or do they life in a world of submission and dominance?

Somewhat along the lines of nothingness, I believe that it is impossible to fathom a utopia where there is 100% mutual recognition. Since we live in a world where binaries define how we live it is almost impossible to imagine how the dynamics of society would flow with 100% mutual recognition. A government would nearly be impossible to form if no one could dominate another person. Maybe one day we will discover a planet where the natives live under mutual recognition but for now we are stuck wondering.

Dominance of Men in "The Language of Men"

It does not surprise me that Norman Mailer is notoriously sexist. In "The Language of Men," he establishes a sexist and rather stereotypical MALE/female binary. The protagonist Carter struggles to fit into the social environment of the army until he discovers his niche as an army cook. As Carter takes on the traditionally feminine role of working in the kitchen, Mailer creates a contrast between Carter, who is characterized as sensitive and feminine, and his tough, masculine peers. He references stereotypical gender roles when Carter mutters "the age old laments of the housewife" as his confidence is shaken by the soldiers' lack of acknowledgment of his hard work. The MASCULINE/feminine binary is exemplified when Taylor, the epitome of a masculine soldier, attacks Carter's stereotypically feminine vulnerabilities, particularly his sensitivity to how much others appreciate his work.

This supposedly feminine weakness of Carter's invokes Jessica Benjamin's concept of mutual recognition. Carter yearns for recognition and is hurt when the other soldiers fail to recognize him for his work. In this scenario, Carter is the object in the SUBJECT/object binary. By defining his self worth by how much others appreciate him, he allows himself to be dominated by the soldiers.

Carter becomes a man when he forbids Taylor and the other soldiers from taking oil from the kitchen and attempts to fight one soldier in order to prove his subjectivity. By demonstrating his ability to dominate as a subject, he becomes a man by Mailer's definition. Although the story does not necessarily promote the ambiguous and somewhat combative "language of men," it implies a MALE SUBJECT/female object binary that is inherently sexist.

The Secret Subject

At the end of "The Secret Woman" by Colette, the husband experiences "consternation" when he witnesses his wife's casual promiscuity at the Opera ball. In class, I expressed the view that he's freaked out by the fact that the anonymity of wearing a mask "restored" Irene to her natural state and that the reserved, well-mannered woman he is accustomed to is merely a facade. While the husband feels betrayed and confused by his wife's behavior, he approaches Jessica Benjamin's concept of mutual recognition by viewing Irene as a subject at the end of the story.

When her husband follows the disguised Irene into the chaos of the ball, she is initially described as being "seized" by one man and being "imprisoned" by several arms (pg. 330). This diction implies that the husband interprets what he sees to be other guests dominating Irene. Not only is she literally the object of the verbs in these sentences, but she is also the object in the SUBJECT/object binary.

However, as the story progresses, Irene becomes the subject. She grabs one woman, causing her to cry out (pg. 331). Likewise, she "disdainfully" holds and kisses a faint young man who has collapsed on the floor (pg. 331). In both of these scenarios, she clearly dominates the recipient of her actions as both the grammatical and theoretical subject.

This change in verb usage parallels the transformation that the husband's image of Irene undergoes over the course of the story. Although he is shaken and troubled by the mystery of Irene's nature, by accepting that she is voluntarily taking part in the ball's activities, he recognizes her as a subject and sexual being. In doing so, he takes a large step towards Benjamin's idea of mutual recognition.

Benjamin: on Eber's Imbalance

In George Saunders' Tenth of December, short story 'Tenth of December' shines a new light on Jessica Benjamin theory of Subjectivity and Power. Benjamin writes that if one is to reach "mutual recognition"--the idealistic state of equality among humans-- one must see the other as a full human being, ripe with desires, dreams, flaws, and the peculiarities that make one distinctively human. In essence, one must recognize others as subjects (we're all in the same boat). Once one recognizes the other's subjectivity, domination becomes a bleak prospect.

'Tenth of December' is a story of a Eber, a terminally ill man who ventures out into ten-degree wilderness to spare his wife and children from the pain of caring for him. Robin, a young boy, is wandering the same path Eber takes, imagining that his attractive classmate has been abducted by the 'Nethers' and he is on a quest to save her. Their fates are intertwined from the beginning. Robin spots Eber climbing through icy snow and ventures across a frozen pond to help the poor man. While Eber dreamily awaits for hypothermia to set in and liberate him from the pain and guilt that torment his every though, Robin falls through the ice. Suddenly Eber is torn into the present, and throws himself down the icy hill towards Robin. The two are badly hurt but Robin is able to move, and with a rush of adrenaline sprints home. Having given Robin his clothes, Eber lays on the bank of the pond unable to move, tinting blue from hypothermia when Robin's mother returns. She drags him to her home and nurses Robin and Eber until Eber's wife Molly arrives.

When Eber is on the icy slope, counting minutes, waiting for numbness to overtake his limbs, he takes refuge in the knowledge that "Then it would be done. He would have prevented all future debasement. All his fears about the coming months would be mute. Moot." Eber's inability to internalize his condition as part of himself, and accept himself as an equal could stem from his childhood. His stepfather was also terminally ill and although he seemed to be at peace with himself, Eber recognized the agony with which he performed even the simplest of tasks. By a somewhat Freudian analysis of Eber's psyche, I'm led to think he looks down on his own condition in the same manner in which he recognized his stepfather's condition as pitiful. 

Jessica Benjamin's theory of Subjectivity states that one will either recognize their own subjectivity, or willingly submit themselves to a loving authority in hope of fulfillment or the order that comes with hierarchy. Eber recognizes himself as a subject, yet knows he's at times an object in his family's eyes-- a gross chore that eats up their time and livelihood with his unconscious outbursts of rage. He remembers "MollyTommyJodi huddling in the kitchen filled with pity/loathing. MollyTommyJodi recoiling at something cruel he's said". The disease Eber can't control, controls his status. He sees himself as a subject, but recognizes that in the eyes of his family, he is an object. He knows they will go to great lengths to care for him, yet have ceased to see him as their father-- a subject with authority. When a subject is reduced to object in the eyes of others, yet remains a subject in his own eyes, life in intolerable. Once Eber understands the imbalance, he sees no other way out but to free Molly and the children from the burden of his mercurial company and tedious care. 

Mutual Recognition: Can relationships truly be equal?

Jessica Benjamin, an American psychoanalyst and feminist commentator, analyzes the idea of mutual recognition within a myriad of social contexts in her book, The Bonds of Love. Benjamin questions the structure of binaries that exist today, including the father-son relationship and the male-female relationship, as a means of interpreting more encompassing relationships in the world, such as country-country relationships.


Benjamin first recognizes the power disparity that is evident between a child and his/her parent. She uses the word, "domination", to express her understanding of how the two interact on a daily basis. As a feminist commentator, she relates this relationship to the male-female dynamic that exists today in which men have traditionally occupied the dominant position. Following Benjamin's recognition of such a situation, she notes the ever-popular suggested solutions from the past in which the power scale that the relationship exists on must shift in favor of the undervalued individual. She explains that a shift like that is not the solution, rather a more toxic option. This is evident in Saunders' Victory Lap when Kyle's rebellion against his parents results in him nearly killing a man.


Instead, Benjamin suggests another alternative: mutual recognition. This concept requires a kind of compassion and understanding on both sides of the relationship, in which both individuals can be viewed as separate entities with their own intentions however they are connected by "bonds of love". Although Benjamin understands this idea to be the best solution, she understands it is not completely realistic and she concludes with questions about how a truly equal relationship functions. Is mutual recognition even possible? And if so, is it worth all the extra effort?