The more idealistic side of myself likes to believe that despite any outer categorization (culture, race, ethnicity, gender, religion), people truly are equals in their most basic capacity to feel and think. In fact, the simple act of believing in this philosophy of inherent equality has made it easy for me to live with the same compassion and empathy that I believe every human is capable of. However, my quest to live by this philosophy of 'indifference toward difference' has also made it incredibly easy for me to immediately notice a sense of differences in almost all of my interactions.
Whenever I sense a disconnect I usually ask myself "why is there difference" instead of "what is the difference." Asking "why" enables me to look beyond sociocultural categories and brings me closer to discovering the true perpetrator of 'difference' that we've all sensed in our encounters. Essentially, I am trying to find a way to personally overcome the obstacle of difference by examining where and how we mentally draw lines of difference. After sensing the difference and asking myself why, I can wonder: is it language or ineffective translation? Is it an experience or a memory that captured the other persons attention and rendered them bias towards the topic at hand? Is is a memory or experience that reminds them to categorize me as a white, American, woman instead of the person that I am despite these attributes? I don't know... depends on the circumstance I suppose.
Let me draw you a mental roadmap to how I arrived at these thoughts.
(A Personal Memory)
After a day of walking in the heat, the afternoon was settling into the old city in the form of cool, crisp, coastal breezes. My parents and I stopped in a popular plaza to drink Sangria and relax some more after a long leisurely walk through the city. As is a custom in the holt family (namely me and dad's dinner/drinks custom) we began a conversation about our thoughts reflections- this time on the Naval museum and the city in general. I started explaining to my dad what I thought about the rich history of the city and how the cramped European layout mixed with the afro-caribbean tropical setting mustered up a uniquely mysterious and poetic, yet humble and distinctly latin american vibe. I said to him that I could imagine why Gabriel Garcia Marquez was "inspired" by Cartagena and its history. He disagreed- and thus began our conversation about where writers gather their inspiration and stories.
Although my dad initially disagreed with the notion that places can be a source of inspiration or act as a muse to a writer, as we continued our discussion I figured out that it wasn't the IDEA that he disagreed with... it was literally the word "inspire." When I initially used the word "inspire" to express the idea, dad disagreed. BUT, whenever I rephrased it, he decided that he did agree. He and I both grew up traveling, we're both writers, we both like to reflect on our experiences, all the short stories he's ever written were heavily place-based... I saw all the similarities and expected him to immediately agree with me. When he felt a difference between us it was only because of his adversity to the fluffy, idealistic approach to art that he associates with the word "inspire." Our characters are judged and differences are drawn by the words we use, even by the people who know us better than anyone else.
(Bell Hooks Excerpt from Voices and Visions)
"Writers are reluctant to speak about this subject because literary elitism engenders a fear that if we describe 'unseen forces' shaping our vision and the structure of our writing we will not be taken seriously. Women writers have been more willing than their male counterparts to speak of visions that serve as a catalyst for the imaginative process. When describing the process of writing The Color Purple, Alice Walker spoke of images appearing in her dreams, of voices, of spirits calling to her."
- Bell Hooks
The other difference we may have experienced according to Bell Hooks' assumption is one between men and women writers. Could it be that my dad was less likely to respond to the word 'inspire' for the same reasons Bell Hooks believes men are less likely to use visions, dreams and surrealism as a source of artistic inspiration? I don't know... is there a biological difference between men and women that really does effect how a man or woman is moved or inspired by something? Or... is this difference we detect simply a result of a generation of men and women taught to believe and act according to socially derived gender roles? See what I'm saying here?
In my dad's case... I don't believe it's biological. I believe his adversity to this writers "fluff" (lets call it) is a result of his experiences in life. Period.
I know this entry has dragged on with my intricate ramblings but one more thought for the road: (also inspired by Voices and Visions)
If we think about writers in the past and where they drew their inspiration and the subject or nature of their stories/poems... I keep drawing a comparison... What really is the between the Romantic writers, the Beat poets, and the New Age writers (besides the obvious time period)? In a sense, they are all 'romantic' writers. The rise of the Romantic period in literature with poets like Shelley, Keats, and Byron was literally a reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of rationality and science. These writers turned to nature as inspiration and wrote epic poems about the spiritual, emotional experience of pure, untamed nature. The beat movement was also a type of renaissance regarding liberty, spontaneous creativity and non-conformity. It was about creating a new vision or counterculture in response to the structured, over rationalized culture that "beat" them down.
Now... Bell Hooks is claiming: "new age writing describes circumstances where writers receive ideas mysteriously, rarely does anyone talk about the sustained link between spiritual practice and writing."
I just find it interesting is all. The evolution of literature... writing... writers. The differences, the similarities....
More thoughts later.
Adios,
-Anika
When I sense a disconnection or sometimes conflict with others, I usually end up asking myself "what is the difference between us?" instead of why.
ReplyDeleteIf I ask myself why, I feel like I aready know the answer which would be ...because they are different than me and anyone else I may or may have known. If I were to talk to a man who wished for the world to end, I would find it hard to relate and end with some intellectual compromise if I ask myself, "Why does this person want to end the world?" but I can begin if I ask "What are the reasons for this man wanting to end the world?"
I find that most people base their opinions or statements off from past experiences or influences that I probably don't initially understand because the roads I've traveled upon are not the same roads they've traveled upon. Sometimes time itself is factor which is one I secretly dislike especially with stubborn people.
If I ask myself "what are the differences?", I can try to form a mutual understanding of why this person thinks the way they do which allows me to accept their opinion despite it conflicting with mine. Kind of like imagining myself "walking in their shoes" so to speak. I feel that asking "why" or "what" will lead to the same destination or generally at least. Just different ways of processing towards the end result.
Well see, there lies the difference between why and what. On one level yes, you get the same outcome- but the assumption you make by asking "what" is-like you said- assuming that there is an intrinsic difference between you and the other person.
ReplyDeleteI think people can disagree with each other but in terms of intrinsic differences I like to think everyone is equal. Disagreements are just thought forms derived by experience or sociocultural differences. Intrinsic differences is beyond the layers of enculturation and is more of a psychological, metaphysical, or philosophical (however you want to say it) examination of human. I think asking "why" makes it easier for me to think on that level rather than acknowledge the layers of difference that the social/personal narrative landscape imposes on us.