Monthly Archives: October 2019

Shattered Beyond Repair

Posted on by

0

How much would you be willing to sacrifice for the greater good? Your hope? Your sanity? Your own life?

 

According to the utilitarianism principle, you should be willing to sacrifice just less than what is gained; this concept can span from giving up an extra jacket to a homeless person who needs it more to confessing to a crime you didn’t commit and risk life in prison to save a culprit who is the sole supporter of a family. Utilitarianism is the mindset of maximizing pleasure, so as long as an action would create more joy than despair, then you should do it.

 

The apparent simplicity and merit of such a philosophy begin to fall apart when you consider extreme but no less real dilemmas in life. Over 100,000 people in the United States alone are on the organ transplant list with a new name being added every ten minutes. If you are healthy, by this model, shouldn’t you be willing to give your life to help save some of theirs? By donating all five of your vital organs you would save five lives at the cost of only one–your own. Though we all have altruistic cores, unnecessarily giving your life for strangers’ seems absurd straight from the get-go and doesn’t require much thought. Most of us wouldn’t even have the non-fatal surgery of giving up a kidney to an outsider, for goodness’ sake!

 

But how would the situation change if those five people were your friends–your family? This is the principal concern in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “All The King’s Horses.” The title is derived from the commonly known children’s rhyme, Humpty Dumpty, but the rest of the story does not follow such a light, juvenile tone. The piece chronicles American Colonel Bryan Kelly, his wife, two young sons, and his platoon’s time as Russian Pi Ying’s prisoners of war. In a sadistic bout of boredom seeking entertainment, Ying challenges Kelly to a game of chess–a game wherein the sixteen Americans are the chess pieces (versus the Russian’s wooden ones) in a fight for their lives because capture means execution. 

 

The absurdity of the situation is reflected in Kelly’s inability to properly strategize and grasp the weight of the situation. Simply put, the stakes are the same as in war, but Kelly is being forced to acknowledge the unreliability of his actions and face the loss of humanity he caused in a way he never had before. He cannot shirk responsibility for his actions onto the enemy or hide under the name of duty as the dehumanization he usually requires to continue fades away. Even I, despite being exposed to this unfamiliar atrocity in such a condensed period, became somewhat desensitized to the violence of the situation and repeated executions over time.

 

Pi Ying, despite his megalomaniacal lunacy, does raise a somewhat valid point (he’s definitely proving it in the wrong way, but a valid point nonetheless): what is the difference between the game of strategy being played here and the one of senseless killings on the battleground?  As Colonel, with every decision he makes in the field, he is gambling the lives of his soldiers in a fight to survive/win. As the Chessmaster, isn’t he doing the same? Yes, the circumstance of “normalcy,” advantage, and consent differ, but not much else strays from expectation.

 

Written during the midst of the Cold War, Vonnegut is making a point about the vicious, almost dystopian rhetoric (read: propaganda) America consistently uses to tear down our enemies in tandem with our inability to see the cruelty of our actions until they are reflected back upon us. According to researcher Stanley Milgram, “Systematic devaluation of the victim provides a measure of psychological justification for brutal treatment of the victim and has been the constant accompaniment of massacres, pogroms, and wars.” The desensitization we require of our soldiers and the social disenfranchisement we consistently employ upon those we perceive to be related to our enemies (McCarthyism, Japanese internment camps, the war on terror) allows us not only to win the war but to destroy everything outsiders once held dear.

 

I find this idea particularly striking (and horrifying) as we can still see similar tactics going on today. It’s easy to think of historical events such as the Cold War or World War II as so far removed that they could never happen today, yet you could argue similar things are happening in Syria and North Korea. History is not behind, rather happening all around us and it’s important that we have our eyes open wide enough to leave a legacy we can be proud of. 

 

Simply put, America is an absolute powerhouse, both economically and defensively, which has been able to proceed virtually unchecked since its birth; barring the Vietnam War, we have never lost any major battle due to our willingness to use brute force and place victory above any morals. Pi Ying, through all his insanity, is the perfect symbol and general foil to the trademark sadism we take on during a war. The thousands of nuclear warheads the United States has amassed, and even more tragically the ones that have been used, as Ying agrees, simply show our hubris and disregard for external human life, killing more innocent civilians than soldiers. By initiating such a game of chess, Ying is trying to emphasize a greater point that people, no matter their backgrounds, are not just pawns to be thrown away; in the end, we’re more than just physical bodies we can utilitarian-ly throw away for others’ worth, but human beings with so much inherent work that cannot be replaced. The price of war and hating each other is never worth the price.

 

Though I’m still very unsure of whether I liked the ending or not, for the majority of the story, I was on the edge of my seat, waiting anxiously in fascination for the next move. Ying’s craze yet safeness contrasted with Kelly’s stoicism and vulnerability provide an amazing stage for spiraling the reader into deep thought along with a side of existential crisis. I believe Vonnegut’s personal experience in war allowed him to question the validity of having helpless pawns fight someone removed’s war and how everything can change when we just talk to each other. Though it’s a cheesy conclusion to draw, on a scale of the global superpowers, it’s a necessary one. I’d really recommend this story to lovers of history and anyone willing to relook their perspective on reality (and especially urge it for those who aren’t).

 

So, the next time you find yourself so adamantly hating something, try to talk to your opponents and reconsider what is really the greater good instead of demonizing them on the word of others. Don’t tear them down or initiate a game of death chess, simply communicate. You may be surprised by what you find.

Fifteen Minutes of Fame and (Mis)Fortune

Posted on by

0

FLINT, MICHIGAN. THE SUDANESE GENOCIDE. THE AMAZON RAINFOREST FIRES. ABORTION BANS. BLACK LIVES MATTER. HURRICANE MARIA.

These are some of the many tragic stories which, for some reason or another, rose above the hundreds of tragedies reported every day and captured the public’s attention. The recognition quickly garnered monetary support and rallied the momentum of change. Countless posts were made to spread awareness, dozens of petitions were signed to demand government intervention, thousands of profile pictures changed, millions of dollars were raised to provide adequate support; but after awhile, the world began to forget. The mobs which cried out from the injustice moved on to newer, more tantalizing issues–no matter if they were more important or not. Like children presented with a shiny, new toy, we abandoned our old friends we vowed to protect and left to fend for themselves. Without the contestation of thousands or the scrutiny of the public eye, corruption and disinterest stall any progress the media fought so hard to bring.

You’ve likely heard of every last one of these aforementioned issues, yet despite their damages persisting, you probably have not thought about them or what you can do to help since that original online frenzy. This realization should not bring feelings of impotence, rather those of reflection which begs the question of why you cared in the first place–and even further, why it stopped. The type of change these movements covet requires as much dedicated energy as a full-time job and presupposes that you are okay with ignoring the dozens of other tragedies reported every day. What good is all of this attention if nothing ever gets done? It’s incredibly easy to forget when the industries which supply our information profit off of redirecting our attention as often as possible. 

In a world where we are constantly bombarded with negative information detailing the pitfalls of humanity, it is not hard to feel distraught and wonder if anything we are doing truly makes a difference; afterall, the brief “feel-good” stories which finalize the news don’t really do much dissuade the thirty minutes of abject horror they follow. So what can we honestly do? If those few seconds of posts and changes and donations just aren’t nearly enough to create meaningful change, is there anything within our power than can? When our little gifts of empathy aren’t enough, what is?

Well, my conclusion is neither simple nor pretty–I cannot, in good conscious, espouse the typical “you can do anything!” narrative of most blogs–it will take concerted time, effort, and the acknowledgement that you cannot do it all. But you can legitimately make a difference if you follow a few simple steps.

    1. Pick and issue and stick with it. Although it may be easy to allow yourself to be swept up in the chaos of social media and fixate on the next issue du jour, you cannot accomplish anything if you are trying to accomplish everything. There will always be another tragedy that demands uproar
    2. Figure out what others are already doing. In your quest to make a difference, it is all too simple to put aside altruism in the name or recognition and approval. Joining a project someone else has already begun will not garner as much praise or feelings of importance so you may initially set their ideas aside; however, be honest with yourself and ask: can something I come up with genuinely make more of a positive impact than something already tried, established, and proven? If the answer is you, you know how to proceed.
    3. Don’t allow others to become bored or forget. In recognizing how many of the catastrophic events people have so easily forgotten, you may be quick to try and shove your issue down everyone’s throats and demand acknowledgement; what this approach fails to consider is that overexposure forces desensitization and an ambivalence just as strong as ignorance.
    4. Know that your little actions are meaningful. It is not realist to believe that you can and will eliminate every problem you encounter. Some are so much bigger than you are, but that does not mean you can’t knock them down a peg and make it easier for the next person to tackle.

Living amongst seven billion people, it is easy to feel that one person cannot make a difference. But we are not alone. While its may feel like every action is a mere drop in comparison to an ocean, these little drops continue to accumulate until, eventually, we have an ocean of our own. Our ocean of action may not be as big or as powerful as its opposition, but if we can make a difference for even one person, won’t it all have been worth it?

The double-edged sword of social media’s attention brings with it both hope in accountability and toxicity with mob mentality; but it is possible to twist both to your advantage. By choosing to focus on what really matters to you and refusing to allow yourself to be drowned out by the noise of negativity, you can help make the news just a little bit happier.

Please consider my light-box that contains several successful images in the “STYLE” that I have developed.http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.phpaction=file&lightboxID=7644037A grungy, grainy black and white collage made up of newspaper clippings pertaining to topic of the December 2012 School shooting massacre in Newtown Conn.