Monday, April 5, 2010
locus of value-what is inherently human?
Though I am not far along in the novel, our class discussion today shed light on what is going to come. The first passage, end of tape 1, Animal shouts "no one is as happy as they have a right to be." I think what is intended by this, has little (in one sense) to do with political rights as such, but is an inquiry into human nature. That we have an a priori right to happiness, the pursuit of our liberty and fulfillment as beings, and that because of what we have created, our laws redefining what is human (who to protect/why...our long brutal history) in the socially constructed sense, still do not provide for this innate right of realization. Beauty and functionality have also already been introduced into this, and reminded of the Platonic ideal and how we judge what is not beautiful or exemplary of perfection so cruelly, even as Animal judges himself as well as internalizes society's mistreatment/ostracization of him. We are always in conflict with an idea of that which is inherently good must reflect this, in some natural way, an upright, beautiful, strong exterior, manifesting an inner and outer harmony, that seldom correlates in reality with such simplistic ease.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"No one is as happy as they have a right to be," whispers modernity from the constructed cracks in Sinha's novel. I find your reading of this line to be closely aligned with my understanding of the exclamation's significance. However, where my reading strays from the conveyances of your post is in the Lockean amalgamation of rights and happiness. There is definitely a correlation implied between these two concepts within Sihna's narrative. The latent joys of human experience are visibly fuddled by the constricting structures (mental and tangible) that modern society engenders. However, I find this to be a problem grounded in society's inability to cope with the all-too-swift (micro) evolutions of modernity. We could call this post-modernity, but I'd rather not. I am not referring to modernity in the literary sense, but in the word's larger context: the ongoing transformation of tomorrow. I find there is no legal system capable of reintroducing humanity to a reality free from expectations and comparative living. The velocity of inequity has surpassed current sociopolitical systems and their accompanying laws/rights. Laws can be used to approach an image of equality, but just as our rigidly defined sense of normality, everyone envies that unattainable illusion. That picture is always in the near distance. Forever. As for now, happiness is able to be experienced at its most visceral, and even then one's perceptions must be drastically refined.
ReplyDeleteThe entitlement for happiness rests on an ideal of human nature implied here, and I agree is inextricably connected with legal rights. These ideals are barely manifested (ie. Hobbes and our sacrifice of liberty for security).From the sense of the novel so far I am assuming none of the Eastern philosophies that would deem this whole perspective a kind of avidya or even hubris will come into play. I think Dryden's poem may apply regardless:
ReplyDeleteI am as free as nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran.