As the "Historical Notes" of The Handmaid's Tale suggests, "If I may be permitted an editorial aside, allow me to say that in my opinion we must be cautious about passing moral judgment upon the Gil-eadeans. Surely we have learned by now that such judgments are of necessity culture-specific. Also, Gileadean society was under a good deal of pressure, demographic and otherwise, and was subject to factors from which we ourselves are happily more free. Our job is not to censure but to understand." We attempted to ask if we can in fact censure Gilead and Gileadian societies or if we are to attempt to understand them. We noted how we can often impose our own sense of morality in just and unjust ways. I want you to take this opportunity to answer the question: Should we censure or understand? Provide examples from our text or from our world. Provide links, engage each other in debate, and keep it professional.
I believe that censuring does nothing in comparison to understanding. For example, it's easy for everyone to censure the recent spike in school shootings, but it doesn't do anything. We can say that these school shootings are unfortunate and tragic, which they are, but we need to understand why it happens. Obama believes in a stricter gun control policy, but anything can be turned into or used as a weapon. Take away the guns, it could descend to school stabbing or ascend to school bombings. Recently, there was a school shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Washington (http://news.yahoo.com/washington-state-teen-shooters-family-living-nightmare-010722563.html). Like in nearly all the other school shootings, the student killed several, injured many, and then turned the gun on himself. My interpretation of the situation was that the student had never suffered rejection before and it came to him as a hard blow. He showed all the signs of depression (his posts on Facebook or Twitter) but didn't receive notice. Once people understand that these shootings are not spontaneous decisions but slowly built up from a lot of negative emotions, they can start fixing the problems from the foundation. If you see someone down, help them. Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteIt's so easy for us to say slavery was wrong, the Crusades were barbaric, and the massacre of Native Americans was immoral. But this is such a garbage way of thinking that if anything, it ruins our perception of history rather than help it. We are walking hypocrites because we judge the past as if we are the high point of civilization. We think we have the strongest moral character history has ever seen but this is simply untrue. Every generation before us has thought the same in the past and future generations will look at us as if they are superior, and we were barbaric. Invasion of the Middle East? Outsourcing jobs to poor laborers in the Philippines making $0.75 a day? Yeah, we really are the "high point" of civilization. We are no one to judge the past because we do not live in the past. There were many factors that played into slavery, the Crusades, and the deaths of countless Native Americans. People of those times were faced with difficulties, adversities, and tough choices that had to be made. Using Wilson's example above, we have to make tough decisions about gun control and future generations shouldn't judge us as if our decisions were easy. It's not easy to control the current of history as we live through it, but it sure is easy to look back in retrospect and point out how easy it could have been. Our judgements are wrong, hypocritical, and very dangerous for the way history is viewed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we are an imperfect society and that we are vulnerable to making the wrong assumptions when looking at history, but I feel that it is important that we try to first understand the past and then use that knowledge to censure it, to decide what is right or wrong, and then learn from it to not fall for the same conditions that lead to the same undesirable results again.
DeleteOur judgments and priorities may change. What we recognize as good now may be bad in the future, but while we are still in the present, I feel that it is necessary to pass judgment on a historical event, deem what is positive to our society as it interprets it now and add that to our society if we are currently missing it, and likewise deem what is negative and then hopefully eradicate it if similar issues exist in our society.
It is unnerving how much weight the Supreme Court's decisions may hold, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-means-for-america.html?_r=0
I'll let you guys to give your own comments about this case if you'd like, but I do want to point out that what we decide has consequences. Sometimes the aftermath and implications of a ruling can be more of an impact than itself.
Overall, I feel that we should treat history like we treat our own experiences. It is more dangerous to not learn from our experiences than to make the leap, mark what is deemed unfavorable (recognize the mistakes, though we can always be wrong), and then act on it when a similar situation may arise in the future.
Wait. Why bring up Hobby Lobby? Explain your rationale.
DeleteShould we censure? Should we understand? Here's a better one: Must we be limited to one or the other? I think that is the most important question. To choose one or the other is to miss a key part of the situation. In fact, I think that they are not just related but inextricably intertwined; any attempt to divorce them fundamentally changes the reality and in fact, inhibits the goal of understanding.
ReplyDeleteI've studied the rise of fascism, communism, and totalitarianism substantially. I know that those who are suffering the most are the ones most likely to accept these ideologies. And indeed I think that trying to ignore their circumstances is simply ignorant, and even dangerous. But I believe that to take the morality away is to limit the subject's dimensions. The discussion of morality should not obscure understanding, but in fact, it is necessary to understand that we are allowed to condemn. We can explore eugenics, but trying to limit discussion of why eugenics is bad, and how, limits our own understanding of it as a whole.
Trying to take morality away, an attempt to keep human emotions from distorting things, creates a sterilized view of history where nothing is ever bad or good, one that discusses a perfectly grey landscape, and one that is itself, wrong. And if we cannot remove morality, we cannot remove judgement: for if we can agree there is a right and wrong, surely we can agree that some things are much more wrong then others. We can, and should, note how and why something is bad, and even explore more; we are not robots whose job it is to note merely the facts. We must interpret the past to understand. And if interpretation leads to condemnation it is a necessary part, though, and this is the important bit, not the *only* part. Judgement is not an end. It is a means.
Finally, if we cannot condemn the past, we cannot condemn the present for the same reasons; the need to understand, or condemn, does not change simply because fewer of the facts are in. We can understand the motivations of the poor man who steals money, but would we say we can't judge him? And if we cannot condemn the present, we cannot condemn anything at all and are forced to look upon all goods and evils as equal; and this seems hardly an enlightened path.
Judgement strengthens understanding, and understanding allows and reinforces judgement. I understand the motivations of those who say otherwise, but judgement must be passed when necessary. Sanctimonious judgement, which I feel some are attacking, is wrong. Judgement ignorant of motives is wrong. But Judgement is not wrong.
I don't think judging and understanding events should be separated because I don't think they can be separated.
ReplyDeleteWithout judgment, evaluations are just a series of facts. These series of facts can't do anything on their own. They hold no practical application. It is commonly accepted that we study history and evaluate present conditions as a means to creating a better future. Inherent in that is establishing an understanding of what constitutes "better." Without that subjective judgment, there is no purpose to the facts.
Judgment is also a prerequisite for understanding a situation fully. If you tried to merely "understand" the events that occur in The Handmaid's Tale, you would miss Atwood's point. You would have a passable description of the dystopian world she creates, but that isn't all Atwood intends the reader to discern. Atwood wants the reader to connect on an emotional level with Offred. She wants the reader to hate Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia. Part of knowing what the dystopian world would be like is to feel the same emotions that the Offred feels. Only then can you contextualize the facts. Similarly, if you tried to merely "understand" historic tragedies like 9/11, you would also miss the point. An inherent part of understanding our country's response to 9/11 involves casting judgment on the terrorists who flew the planes and whatever other people were responsible.
Often our judgments can be pejorative and harmful. “Good” and “evil” are subjective notions, and often people from different cultures find that their definitions of these notions don’t line up. Competing value systems can lead to disagreements, and often people wrongly assert that their perspective is the only right one. However, there are some simple things everyone can agree on. Benefits and harms are only subjective to a certain extent. Even in some cases where people may disagree (like if someone thinks equal rights for all is bad), there are certain truths that transcend consensus. It is okay to censure when it comes to these immutably true values. There is no excuse for certain injustices. The Handmaid’s Tale presents a world where it’s okay for us to censure. It is clear that Gilead is unjust. Any person who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong.
I think we should both censure and understand, but with an emphasis on understanding. Without criticism, we cannot determine what is or isn't just. We need judgment in order to figure out what needs to be learned and encouraged, and what needs to be changed and discouraged. In order to learn from our mistakes, we cannot solely criticize because this would simply ostracize certain topics. Instead of discussing these things, we'd be condemning them and pushing them away(Kind of like how street harassment is a topic that isn't talked about, although everyone recognizes it as wrong). It's more important to learn from the past than to criticize because we can only move forward if we look ahead with the knowledge of what went wrong. It's more beneficial to understand what to avoid than to remain in the past pointing out every mistake. Judgment won't make change happen, but learning and understanding will.
ReplyDeleteI also think that morality is very much subjective, making it a bit difficult and inappropriate for us to judge. Changing times call for changes in society's perception of right and wrong. It wasn't so long ago that it was okay to think that a black man is worth 3/5 of a white man or that a woman's place was only in the house. Ultimately, I do think criticism is needed, but we should be more aware that our practices today are not more "ethical" or "just" than those of the past, and even those of the future. (Perhaps a century in the future people will be criticizing us for our treatment of the environment).
We need to understand much more than we need to censure. Passing moral judgement on a society or an action is dangerous. Our moral tendencies are not an absolute standard by which we can measure things. Morality is not bound to one truth and our system of morality will change in future generations. It is our job, therefore, to understand events and present the truths behind them. This will help humanity in the future to understand the past with a clear, unbiased lens.
ReplyDeleteForcing our morals onto a historical event allows us to cloud our judgement and prevent the truth from coming out. Think about how many writings were destroyed throughout history by those who sought to impose their own moral system. We've lost so many texts which could have been hugely important, but now we will never know. If we truly want to understand, we must preserve all sides of an event, not just the ones that agree with what we believe today.