It was Jim Morrison who wrote and sung, "People are strange, when you're a stranger. Faces look ugly when your alone. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted. Streets are uneven when you're down."
It is a fantastic song and one of The Doors best loved. Again, it is an example of how language can marshall behaviours and dampen creativity. These lyrics also seem to be a response to something that is probably instilled within all cultures.
I once got a school report in which my English teacher commented, "Glenn is a unique and interesting individual." Which is a kind of nice way of saying that I was weird!
It doesn't have the same effect though. I was proud of this comment and it helped build my confidence in myself. I have certain ways of dealing with people and seeing the world and that is okay!
Of course, there are huge presures to fit in. Sometimes people need say nothing. Someone just has to give a look and you know that they disapprove. It can therefore take a lot of guts and determination to remain creative. Creative people by defination don't always fit in. They more than likely stand out for they don't think and behave in ways that are expected. In such circumstances, you can also be ignored because people don't know how to deal with you.
Returning to The Doors song one notices that there is a double bind with feeling out of place. The world can become strange too. One can have a sense of anomie and the desire can then become an overpowering one of wanting to belong. That this song actually exists gives one another answer. The song still manages to communicate without there being such a desire to fit in. It has a 'take me or leave me' attitude. More in fact- there is an empathy with this way of communicating. It is a song that is concerned with other human beings. It is saying- don't judge me because I am different or not like you. I can understand your desire to judge but there is no need! I am different but the same.
Showing posts with label human beings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human beings. Show all posts
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Intimacy and Contrariness
Aristotle famously defined human beings as "rational animals." With this, humanity was easily distinguished from the rest of the animal world. Within the history of western thought, it also helped forge certain allegiences. When Christian writers wanted to illustrate the uniqueness of humanity, the rational facility became associated with the concept of soul. (St. Thomas is largely credited with reintroducing Aristole as a respectable presence within the western academy.) Indeed, the German word 'Geist' means both Mind and Spirit!
There is however an arbitariness with such a defination. We can understand human beings in many different ways. One can, for instance, see the capacity of intimacy that human beings display as something distinguishable by degree. True, we can see the capacity for intimacy with Elephants and Dolphens. Yet, such intimacy is expressed physically. In human beings, it can be displayed in a manifold manner.
Before getting ahead of ourselves it is worth reflecting upon what we mean by this word. First, intimacy is generally understood to imply closeness. This is easy enough understood when discribing the kind of physical proximity between lovers. We can also be intimate with friends in a non-sexual way. We may share our concerns with a friend, confiding desires, hopes, diasappointments etc. We still may be considered close to such a friend but this 'closeness' is understood by way of analogy. Second, there comes with this intimacy, whether physical or intellectual, a measure of trust. We choose those people who we wish to be intimate with. As individuals, we do not always allow the public complete excess to our body and soul. Sometimes, we have learnt not to trust certain thoughts and feelings through bitter experience. The friend who laughs when a desire is expressed can quickly become a stranger. Such pain can also help build a wall around that which we consider most sacred.
Already we can see how different this is to the notion that human beings are 'rational animals'. Rationality is something non-personal, objective and open to public view. Intimacy, on the otherhand, is something different from the public persona, something beyond dialogues of Truth and Falsehood. It is for this reason that intimacy can have such an subversive effect.
When one thinks of Romeo and Juliette, we see the lovers rebelling against the wishes of two waring families. In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith tries to get beyond the eyes of Big Brother, seeking privacy in order to become intimate with a secret lover. Such intimacy is an act of contrariness, a subversive action beyond the control of the offical dialogues of history, state, meaning and purpose. The desire to become intimate is something entirely human but not in the Aristotlian sense.
There is however an arbitariness with such a defination. We can understand human beings in many different ways. One can, for instance, see the capacity of intimacy that human beings display as something distinguishable by degree. True, we can see the capacity for intimacy with Elephants and Dolphens. Yet, such intimacy is expressed physically. In human beings, it can be displayed in a manifold manner.
Before getting ahead of ourselves it is worth reflecting upon what we mean by this word. First, intimacy is generally understood to imply closeness. This is easy enough understood when discribing the kind of physical proximity between lovers. We can also be intimate with friends in a non-sexual way. We may share our concerns with a friend, confiding desires, hopes, diasappointments etc. We still may be considered close to such a friend but this 'closeness' is understood by way of analogy. Second, there comes with this intimacy, whether physical or intellectual, a measure of trust. We choose those people who we wish to be intimate with. As individuals, we do not always allow the public complete excess to our body and soul. Sometimes, we have learnt not to trust certain thoughts and feelings through bitter experience. The friend who laughs when a desire is expressed can quickly become a stranger. Such pain can also help build a wall around that which we consider most sacred.
Already we can see how different this is to the notion that human beings are 'rational animals'. Rationality is something non-personal, objective and open to public view. Intimacy, on the otherhand, is something different from the public persona, something beyond dialogues of Truth and Falsehood. It is for this reason that intimacy can have such an subversive effect.
When one thinks of Romeo and Juliette, we see the lovers rebelling against the wishes of two waring families. In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith tries to get beyond the eyes of Big Brother, seeking privacy in order to become intimate with a secret lover. Such intimacy is an act of contrariness, a subversive action beyond the control of the offical dialogues of history, state, meaning and purpose. The desire to become intimate is something entirely human but not in the Aristotlian sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)