| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | - To be edited further | >
> | | | | What is the "thang?" | | | However, I do not believe Ronbinson shares this conventional wisdom. In fact, he distinguishes between “civilization’s pathology” and “pathology of our criminals,” hinting that crimes are not necessarily related to pathological states of individual’s minds. Instead, he seems to suggest that system of criminal law represent pathology of civilization. Another statement that highlights this idea is, “some of the kindest people I’ve ever known are rapists, and some of the most despicable animals on the face of the earth are rapists.” | |
<
< | Then, what is civilization? Robinson describes civilization as “our idealized sense of what makes us human.” Criminal law itsef is an abnormalie of civilization so it means that criminal law system is inconsistent with what makes us human. Civilization here, represents a civilization in the American culture: so the people who we deem do not represent the idealized sense of what makes human are explosive rather than implosive. As we discussed, Japanese people confine themselves. But in American society where inhumanity of one human towards another human is expressed publically, we need to confine them. Criminal law serves a function of confining the people who hurt the notion of what makes us human. As a consequence, it creates a division of those that we feel are fit under our definition of civilization and those who are not: thus, creating a distance and disassociation between us and “them.” Therefore, this ciriminal law almost facilitates the conventional wisdom that there is something distant and different about the criminals and us. | >
> | Then, what is civilization? Robinson describes civilization as “our idealized sense of what makes us human.” Robinson, for this discussion of criminal law as pathology of our civilization, is concerned about “local” civilization: civilization in America culture where the “deviances” are explosive rather than implosive. In contrary to the “implosive” civilization of Japanese culture in which someone who could be a danger to our idealized vision of humanity is hidden, “explosive” civilization of American culture is one of which people who may threaten our ideals are out there, manifesting the threats. In other words, in American society, inhumanity of one human towards another is expressed publically. What this means for criminal law system is that there is a strong need to confine these people out of our idealized society. Therefore, criminal law serves a function of confining those who threaten our idealized notion of civilization. As a consequence, criminal law creates a division of those that we feel are fit under our definition of civilization and those who are not: thus, creating a distance and disassociation between us and “them.” The criminal law, thus, facilitates the conventional wisdom that there is something distant and different about the criminals and us. | | |
Vietnam and "the reconciliation of freedom and the state." | |
<
< | Another clue that could lead us to understanding to the “thang” is Robinson’s experience in Vietnam. When the narrator asks about Robinson’s experience in combat, he responded that it was “the reconcilliaton of freedom and state.” | >
> | Another clue that could lead us to understanding to the “thang” is Robinson’s experience in Vietnam. When the narrator asks about Robinson’s experience in combat, he responded that it was “the reconciliation of freedom and state.” | | | | |
<
< | In combat, solidiers are not only allowed to kill but also ordered to kill. However, there is always an option of non-participation in combat. In spite of this choice, soldiers participate, claiming that it is under their duty to do so. So it’s almost as if the state is removing the inhabitions that the people always had. Relating back to civilization, our idealized vision of what makes us human would not ordering the people to kill or even when ordered, required to show sanctity for human life by nto abodiging by the order. But by under the guise of the state order, people are removing the inhabitions and being contrary to our idealized self. This blurs the line once again, between those who represent civilization and inhumanity of man against another man. | >
> | In combat, soldiers are not only allowed to kill but also ordered to kill. However, there is always an option of non-participation in combat. In spite of this choice, soldiers participate, claiming that it is under their duty to do so. Relating back to civilization, our idealized vision of what makes us human would be, first, not ordering people to kill one another, and second, even when ordered, respecting sanctity for human life by not abiding by the order. But under the guise of the state order, people are acting contrary to our idealized self. Therefore, this war experience blurs the line between those who represent civilization and those who manifest inhumanity of man against another.
Having witnessed this tension, Robinson is trying to dissociate himself with the act of killing by describing his experience as a “reconciliation between the freedom and the state,” almost hinting the notion that he had to compromise his free will for the order of the state. | | | | |
<
< | Having witnessed this tension, Robinson himself is trying to dissociate himself with the act of killing by describing his experience and “reconciliation between the freedom and the state,” almost hinting the notion that he had to compromise his free will for the order of the state. | | |
Other pathways to the “thang”
Kafka
In addition to the text itself, there are other clues that can lead us to discovering what the “thang” is. Robinson mentions “Conversations with Kafka” and a quote well-discussed in class, “I am, after all, a lawyer. I am never far from evil.” I read the segment of the book that contains this quote to explore what Kafka might have meant and what Robinson might have understood from this statement. I want to follow this idea to what Robinson meant by quoting him. | |
<
< | This quote appears when Kafka criticizes the idea of publication when he, himself, is a published author. After blaming his friends for being responsible for publishing his work, he admits that, “I make circumstances stronger than they actually are.” Kafka’s act is not abiding by the his idealized vision of who he is. In his conception, he does not want to be published but in reality he is. And just like we dissociate ourselves from murders, Robinson dissociates himself with the act of killing, Kafka dissociates himself with the act of publishing that he despises. | >
> | This quote appears when Kafka criticizes the idea of publication when he, himself, is a published author. After blaming his friends for being responsible for publishing his work, he admits that, “I make circumstances stronger than they actually are.” Kafka’s act is not abiding by his idealized vision of who he is. And just like we dissociate ourselves from murders and just like Robinson dissociates himself with the act of killing, Kafka dissociates himself with the act of publishing that he despises.
By the phrase, “I am, after all, a lawyer. I am never far from evil” thus signals more than a literal notion that lawyers are around criminals or crimes (evils in society). Robinson, by quoting this phrase from Kafka, wants to communicate that lawyers are never far from evil because they themselves witness blurry lines between civilization and pathology through mystery of man’s inhumanity to man. | | | | |
<
< | By the phrase, “I am, after all , a lawyer. I am never far from evil” thus signals more than a literal notion that lawyers are around criminals or crimes (evils in society). I think Robinson, by quoting this phrase from Kafka, wants to speak to a braoder sense that the lawyers are neve far from evil because they themselves witness the blurry lines between civilization and pathology through the mystery of man’s inhumanity to man, thus meaning in an ironical sense. | | |
Conclusion |
|