Emma invoking Buber

Thinking back to our discussions about Emma, I remember us grappling with the idea of subject and object in reference to the narratorial techniques and the relationship between the characters. I could not help but think about Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher, who wrote I And Thou which is all about human relationships and the importance of not exploiting another in a relationship. When there is a subject and an object, the subject can objectify the object, or there can be an equal and understanding relationship between the two. Buber's ideas extend beyond human relationships to human relationships with everything in the world. In Buber's description of the "I and thou" relationship there is no objectifying between the two people or things and both sides must reach a holistic understanding of the other.

Buber wrote in the early 20th century which was after a large spurt in modern times with industrialization at full force. Buber's ideas directly counter the impersonal nature of industrialization. While in factories, workers' tasks became mechanized as they were responsible for only one step in the creation of an item. Buber's analysis of the human situation is very helpful for people who are feeling alienated from their work, the people around them, or their lives.

Adolphe

I did not enjoy reading this novel at all because I have an intense dislike for Adolphe. I guess I pity him a little when he is unable to walk away from his unproductive life with Ellanore, but that pity does not last for long and is soon replaced with utter dissatisfaction and disapproval. A few times throughout the book he decides that he is going to take a stand and leave her so that he can get on with his life. But as soon as he tries to tell her this, he at once reneges his resolution and declares his undying love for Ellanore. He has no resolve and cannot hold his own in her presence. When these encounters happen, it is not as if Adolphe comes to realize that he loves Ellanore once again but instead that he feels so bad that he would make her unhappy that he cannot bare to tell her the truth.

In general I would admire Adolphe for looking out for the happiness of someone he cares about, but when it comes at the expense of his own happiness, her place in society, her children, and his own decisions about his personal life, I cannot stand that he continues to do it. It is not as if he has been oppressed by society and is unable to overcome this oppression due to things that are out of his control. Instead he is being held back by his own inability to do what he knows is right.

So, why does he do it? The first chapter of the book which describes Adolphe's father and their relationship would suggest that Adolphe should be capable of letting women down, because his father so casually suggests that to do so does not harm the women and it is fun for the men. I have been unable to find any evidence that would shed light onto Adolphe's inability to stand up for himself. I do not think I would like him even if there were evidence showing that he was socialized to do this to himself, because it is his responsibility to bring himself out of that state. Sure, others could support him in that effort but it is he that must initiate that change.

This summer I visited the Art Institute of Chicago where there was an exhibit of photography, including the works of Sarah Hobbs. I found this photograph, entitled "Untitled (Indecisiveness)," which screams a theme of modernity. In this photograph, there are hundreds of paint chips on the wall, and the chair is empty, possibly representing that anyone (or everyone) could be sitting in this chair and struggling with all the available options. Modern times include the rise of industrialization which increased the varieties and availability of goods. Many other factors have come together to increase options we have to the point where people become overwhelmed with the choices presented to them.

Rousseau and Freedom

Reading Rousseau last week and during our discussion I came to think about something of Erich Fromm's I read awhile ago. Fromm wrote, in his Escape From Freedom, about two different sorts of freedom that exist: freedom from and freedom to. Fromm's idea of "freedom to" is a sort of freedom by which a previously oppressed individual is in "active solidarity with all men and ... spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties but as a free and independent individual." This is contrasted with the "freedom from" which is "a negative" freedom in which the individual may be freed from bondage but will remain "to a large extent ... tied to the world from which he emerged."

I really like Fromm's idea of "freedom to" because it puts power into individuals to escape oppressive forces in their life. Even though Fromm may think it is very hard to achieve "freedom to," he offers it as an option to human society. Rousseau does not seem to offer this option to modern society, and I think he would only agree that "freedom from" exists. If all technology and art in human society has resulted in inequality and oppression and no one can escape this reality because it is ingrained in everyone's lives, then "freedom to" can not exist. Ideally, I would like to agree with Fromm about "freedom to," but it is hard to escape Rousseau's all-encompassing explanation of society.

Clarification

I realize that I did not specify any of the works I was referring to in my post about Locke. The first one I refer to is an excerpt from Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, in which he discusses language acquisition, experiential education, and the formation of concepts. The second excerpt to which I refer is from Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government in which he discusses property, and how humans turn unowned objects into owned ones.

Important

Ros: What was the last thing I said before we wandered off?

Guil: When was that?

Ros: I can't remember.

Guil: What a shambles! We're just not getting anywhere.

Ros: Not even England. I don't believe in it anyway.

Guil: What?

Ros: England.

Guil: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, you mean?

Ros: I mean I don't believe it! I have no image. I try to picture us arriving, a little harbor perhaps... roads... inhabitants to point the way... horses on the road... riding for a day or a fortnight and then a palace and the English king... That would be the logical kind of thing... But my mind remains a blank. No. We're slipping off the map.


Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Tom Stoppard (1967)

John Locke Intersecting with Himself

I found the two excerpts from Locke to both be very interesting, especially when the ideas of both are compared. The first excerpt centers around a theme of knowledge acquisition being dependent on external forces and the second excerpt centers around a theme of the power and value of personal labor. One may read these two separate pieces and be convinced that they were written by different people because of the conflicting ideas.

The first one seems to deny people the possibility to create truths for their own lives because truths are "not innate, but acquired... by external things." Locke does acknowledge the incredible critical thinking capacity of humans when information is gathered, stored, analyzed, recalled, and compared with other knowledge. However, the whole reason this process is started, according to him, is due to external forces and not from forces within the person, thereby taking the power of one's life out of the hands of the person. This differs from the view of the second excerpt in which Locke states that a person's body is rightfully theirs, and using that power of property, people can turn unowned items into one's personal property. This idea puts all the power in the people and does not seem to fit with the previous notion that people innately know no truths. For Locke, in his second excerpt, is in fact stating a truth that he has decided upon, which, if we cycle that back into his first excerpt, means that Locke came to this truth because of external factors which he analyzed.

If humans were born with no absolute knowledge of any truths and all values and knowledge exist due to outside forces, how could these outside forces have began? There have to be some sort of value set innate in people, even if their values differ - there has to be some sort of set of them. Is this a modern idea?