Three choices:
- Option 1: Choose one of the analytical lenses I've talked about in class -- psychological, feminist, social/political, or genre theory -- and interpret one of these stories through that lens.
- Option 2: Analyze Hawthorne's "The Birth Mark" by comparing it to Never Let Me Go. How are the two messages about scientific advancement similar? How are they different? What's your personal position in this debate about scientific progress?
- Option 3: Open response -- choose either story and interpret it according to what interests you.
12 comments:
Michelle Mahone
The Issue of Right and Wrong
Both Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark” and Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go deals with the sensitive subject of the progression of science. I find it interesting that both of these stories somehow have readers question the same issues, yet they were written in such different times.
Both of these stories basically send the message that the progression of science, no matter how innocent it begins, can become dangerous and inhumane. Hawthorne’s main character, Aylmer, is so wrapped up in the thought of being able to remove the mole from his wife’s face that his experiments eventually lead to her untimely death. Paralleled with this, Ishiguro’s main character Kathy has been created to donate her organs to others, which will eventually lead to her untimely death.
Both authors are asking the question through their writings “How far is too far?” Both of these stories have good intentions. Kathy H., Tommy, and Ruth in Never Let Me Go were created to help save lives. If we never knew these characters, we would think this is a valiant effort in the field of science to help save lives. Aylmer wants to remove his wife’s mole to make the “perfect specimen”. Although this seems a little shallow, how many women in this day and age would do anything to become perfect? Plastic surgery, lotions, creams, and drugs are just a few things women put in their body. Aylmer would have received incredible praise if his experiment had indeed worked without the deterioration of his wife.
Although there is both questionable science occurring in these stories, Hawthorne is much more forward in discussing this subject than Ishiguro. Ishiguro lets readers discover that they are reading about clones on their own. The entire movement is very hush, hush. This gives readers a feeling that this shouldn’t be discussed or explored further. Hawthorne, however, creates a character that is very open about his discoveries and advancements in the field of science. Readers know right away what Aylmer wants to accomplish, and you can see the drive through the text. For example, Aylmer assures Georgina that he is “convinced of the perfect practicability of its removal”. Aylmer is not ashamed about what he wants to do, but excited.
Science has never been something that has truly interested me. But as advancements continue and get more personal, it’s something that I have to question in my own personal life. I am personally a religious person, and I am also a person who likes to see the good in everyone. Therefore, I see both sides of the issue dealing with the experimentation of life. Should there be advancements in medicine to help people who are suffering? My answer to this is of course. Should human life be put on the line for the sake of the advancement in medicine? My answer to this is absolutely not. So what is my position? I really don’t know. I know that I don’t believe in abortion, I know that I believe a human is a human when he/she is conceived as well. But I don’t think scientists who are trying to make huge advancements are bad people. Therefore, I think these decisions really have to be made to the individual. I am a believer of choice. I would never donate my eggs to be examined, but if someone else wants to do it then I believe they should have this choice.
I think when you are dealing with issues like this, you have to come with an open mind. Some people believe very strongly on one issue, while others could care less. I believe in respecting people and their opinions, and to hear everyone out. Who is to say what is right or wrong? That is a question, as we see through these two stories, that has been asked for centuries.
Callie R.
The Search for Perfection
It is human nature to search for ways to improve life. Technology has improved immensely in the past century to better humanity. Perfection is an ideal that can drive a person to do immoral things and can never be achieved.
In The Birthmark by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Aylmer is a scientist whose love for science “rivaled the love of woman in its depth and absorbing energy.” It seems like his want to conquer the mysteries of nature did overpower the love for his wife. He wanted to know if he could fix something and make it perfect when Mother Nature could not. Once his wife agrees to let him attempt to remove the birthmark, he does not tell her the danger that is involved because it seems he would rather see if he had the power to remove the mark rather than just live with his “imperfect” wife. As she lay in front of him unconscious, he watched her wife the eyes of a scientists, longing to know if he had succeeded, rather than the eyes of a worried husband.
Georgiana never had a problem with her birthmark. Under the conditions that her husband put her through, any woman would have become self-conscious. How could she not learn to hate the mark when her husband shuddered every time he looked at her? She wanted to be perfect for her husband, but she should never have to change herself to make someone love her. She was brainwashed into believing that one little birthmark, devalued her as a person because “not even Aylmer hated it so much as she did.” By the end she didn’t even care if she died as long as she tried to fix her “problem”.
Most of Georgina’s lovers admired her birthmark. She was extremely beautiful and she was told that the mark was a token of magic endowments left to her by a fairy. Aylmer’s assistant even said, “If she were my wife, I’d never part with that birthmark.” This just goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that everyone’s idea of perfection is different.
Since the beginning of time, people have been trying to live up to the standards of beauty of the time period. In today’s modern world, people go to dangerous extremes to achieve perfection. Women, most of all, feel the pressure to be perfect. One could almost compare Georgiana’s situation to someone having plastic surgery. Her husband made her obsessed with removing a mark that many people did not notice or even liked. Most people who have plastic surgery have it on an “imperfection” that other people may not even notice. In Georgiana and these people’s minds, fixing their problem will make their lives better. Georgiana and people who have plastic surgery risk their lives to rid themselves of their flaws and become perfect.
Humans will always be searching for ways to better their physical appearance. No matter what technology comes about people will never be happy and perfection will never be achieved.
When looking at the story The Torturer’s Apprentice by John Biguenet, I begin to see a common psychological theme throughout and I see a strong juxtaposition when you look Guillem’s lifestyle and his emotions with a common man verse his emotions with his apprentice. I want to focus in on the scene with his apprentice Alain being tortured. Many would say that a job such as being a torture was one that could only be done by someone who had a hard lifestyle growing up usually someone who was abused and has no way of defending themselves while they were young so in adulthood they choose a profession that inflicts pain on the people who have done wrong. From a psychological standpoint, in the beginning of the story you would take the role of Guillem and his choice of careers as a displacement theory. This was his way of getting retribution for the pain he endured while young. Many would paint him in this light and the author does give us a strong view into this when on page 85 he mentions how until Alian showed up Guillem never recognized the dull ache of loneliness that throbbed in this heart. We realize upon the entering of Alian that Guillem starts to realize he still has a heart.
This leads us up to the ending scene when we see that Guillem is forced to participate in the agony and cruelty of his own apprentice he is the entire source of the pain. At this time the author then shows us another side of Guillem and this is the turning point that most psychologists look for in recovering the pain that has been caused. Guillem shows his compassion and mercy fist when he teaches his apprentice early on if he is ever put in that position how to lessen the pain and then he shows an even higher level of compassion when he goes ahead and directly loosens up the bonds of the strappado. According to Wikipedia it is the strappado is a form of torture in which a victim is suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to his hands which are tied behind his back. Weights may be added to the body. A variant of strappado (the medieval inquisition name), is also known as reverse hanging. So it is not surprising that in this method the bones of the young man are breaking. What I find interesting in that this method is called the reverse hanging and this is the one thing that seemed to reverse the feelings of the heart of Guillem. It seemed as if this particular type of torture has a symbolic meaning to the story and that all of the accused are suppose to reverse their plea of not guilty so I find the particular naming of this instrument of torture to be interesting. Alian seems to not have a strong voice but in his final execution scene he shows his honesty and his uprightness and how despite the fact that he has been accused of such heinous crimes he would still rather go ahead and face the pain and be an upright man. Which also seems to juxtapose his occupation because he was such a noble man it seems yet he was put into a profession where his entire existence circled around being the bearer of justice upon the condemned. The main theme within this story is juxtaposition and how the mind makes you think one thing but always turns out a complete other way.
After reading Bigunet’s “I Am Not A Jew,” I came to a few conclusions about the story. I completely understand why Anderson said what he said. If I were in his situation, I would have to say I would definitely have said the same exact thing and acted exactly the same. It’s a very scary thing to be ganged up on especially against four intimidating Nazis. I would do virtually anything not to become a victim of their brutal mentality. I do see where the wife was coming from. Anderson said he was not a Jew, and to Anderson, he was simply saying he was something other than a Jew. The wife feels that the Nazis are so headstrong and discriminating that their entire world is simply made up of only Jew and Nazis. They spend all of their time with Nazis and all they do is hate on Jews. In their demented world, everyone is either good or bad, Jew or Nazi respectively; and Anderson’s wife understands this. She feels that he wronged the Jews and even himself as he claimed not to be a Jew. She feels that he sided with the Nazis. He right away knew why they wanted to harm him, because he was in a Jewish cemetery, therefore, he must be Jewish. By saying he was not a Jew, he was also saying that they must be after a Jew for all the “evil” they have done in the past. His wife feels that he sided with the Nazis in a very indirect way, and therefore discriminated against the Jews himself.
Carly Erwin
2025-02
“The Birth Mark”
In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story, “The Birth Mark,” the theme of love is present throughout the story. At times, it is more of a lack of love rather than true love. The fact that Aylmer can not accept his wife for her only flaw is very troubling. The more that I read this story, the more angry I became with Aylmer. The one thing about love is that you accept that person for each and every one of their flaws; that is what sets them apart from everyone else. “…he found this one defect grow more and more intolerable with every moment of their united lives” (pg 90). Although he claims that Georgiana is the love of his life, he can not get passed the little birth mark that is on her cheek. Georgiana loves her birth mark and feel that it is a part of her. She tells her husband, “To tell you the truth it has been so often called a charm that I was simple enough to imagine it might be so” (pg 89). She feel that nothing is wrong with her mark, but is wiling to have it removed simply to make her husband happy. It is amazing how one sided their relationship appears to be. Georgiana is considered the most beautiful woman in the town, and Aylmer can not be proud of his wife. Instead, finds fault in her one flaw. I am positive that Aylmer has flaws that annoy Georgiana but her love for him allows her to be able to get past that. Even Aylmer’s lab assistant says, “If she were my wife, I’d never part with that birthmark” (pg 93). Aylmer still feels that his science can get rid of her mark and make her beauty complete. Although she loves that her birth mark, she puts her trust in him and decides to get rid of her “flaw”. As she goes into his laboratory, she is baffled by the strange concoctions that she sees but she never questions him. He shows her how his concoction worked on a spotted plant and she is convinced. Actually she did not even need to see that because she trust her husband with all her heart and would do anything to please him. After she drinks the position, Aylmer become more pleased with each passing moment that the birth mark disappears. Soon his pleasure is replaced with disgust as he realizes that his wife is dieing. That guilt that he must feel for trying to make his perfect and essentially killing her must be a powerful emotion that is hard to deal with.
This story shows how far a person’s physical appearance can take them. Georgiana is the most beautiful woman but is forced to question her beauty as her husband becomes disgusted with her appearance. This should show her his true feelings for her and allow her to move on with her life. If the person you are with cannot accept you for each of your flaws, you are better off without him.
The Infinite Imperfection
I found that “The Birth Mark” and Never Let Me Go were in more ways similar than different. “The Birth Mark” is similar to Never Let Me Go in that science has advanced in such a way to enhance or perfect human life. In the story by Hawthorne, Aylmer was obsessively concerned with the idea of infinity. He was also deeply absorbed in the imperfection on his wife’s face. I think that Aylmer’s disgust with his wife’s birthmark proposes the idea that science has become more important than the acceptance of true human life and that it is the ultimate drug towards creating life without imperfection and death. As Georgina’s birthmark becomes less and less visible, her life becomes more at risk. In conclusion, she dies as a result of ingesting this scientific “breakthrough.” Both stories are also involved in the isolation of certain persons in order to produce a certain “purity” among them. In Never Let Me Go, the students grow up in an institutionalized atmosphere under surveillance where they are taught not to challenge or question their inevitability; therefore, keeping their minds free from change. In “The Birth Mark,” Georgina is subject to a drug created to cure physical imperfections. Both stories raise questions about the seriousness surrounding scientific advancement.
Despite all of these similarities, I did find the two stories to be quite different. In “The Birth Mark,” Georgina questions her husband’s scientific abilities and feels that his thoughts and ambitions are wrong. In Never Let Me Go, the students are unaware of these feelings. They were taught that their lives had only purpose and didn’t have the opportunity to realize that they were born at the expense of scientific research.
I, personally, am questionably scared of scientific advancements. As we discussed in class, there are a vast variety of aspects of scientific technologies that must be taken into consideration. I believe that change is good, if it’s for the good of all people. Change is inevitable and so it boils down to how we use this change for the betterment of human life. Science is a very powerful tool and my fear stems from the idea that this power could end up in the hands of someone who does not know how to handle it.
I honestly have not really looked into and questioned the issues surrounding the scientific advancements we have discussed in class. I do believe though that creating life or even ending life in unnatural ways is wrong. I think that this fate is not up to us. This has become a harder thing to think about because I do see the benefits of cloning or even stem cell research. I see that with cloning, medical patients in need of organs are given a higher chance of survival. I also learned in class that stem cells can be used to find cures to the devastating sicknesses and diseases we face today. I feel that scientific research should be taken very seriously. It initiates an extreme power that could be negatively influential on humans. This power is a scary thing to think about, but it’s something that we should continue to question and observe because the value of human life is constantly at risk.
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Birthmark and Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go both talk about the use of science in our world. Science is a great tool and can be used for many great things in the world today. At times like in these two stories science can be harmful and deadly. The use of science is totally different in the two stories in the sense that Aylmer is using it in order to have perfection in his wife while Ishiguro uses it to help others.
The only similarity in the stories is the use of science; other than that the stories are very different in the way science is used. The use of science does not play a huge role in Never Let Me Go, meaning that the only scientific part in the novel is that they cloned people. Ishiguro makes his story a little more interesting by making the reader discover the cloning, whereas Hawthorne gets right to the point. We can obviously see that the two stories take part in totally different generations. The scientific knowledge in Never Let Me Go is substantially better that of The Birthmark. It is understandable the way Aylmer used science because he was trying to fix something and do something he has never done before. I am sure back then people were very curious and wanted to do new things. The only thing I do not like is that Aylmer really pushed his wife to do this. She was not uncomfortable with her birthmark. I would have no problem with him doing that if she really wanted to but he pushed her. We live in an imperfect world and that is okay. We should look for the true beauty inside and in my eyes that is all that maters.
I am not crazy about the way Ishiguro uses science in Never Let Me Go. My emotions are tossed up about our current scientific status. I do not support the idea of cloning humans because it may lead to bad things. There may be someone out there who wants to create a supper human by cloning someone who is very gifted athletically or intellectually. I do not like the idea of cloning humans to donate their organs because they are people also. They may have been created in a laboratory and thy have feelings and emotions. It is hard for me to deal with creating someone only to stop them from living sooner or later. I believe creating a human being is between a man and woman. It is almost like we are trying to play God. I think that would be crossing the line. On the other hand, I am in favor of stem cell research. I believe that this research will give us hope in one day curing diseases and maybe helping someone one day walk or cur Alzheimer’s disease. I think that God would want us to use this information to help others. It seems to be almost un-Christian like to not do so. God wants us to use our knowledge and skill to the best of our abilities and one day help the world. If we have the tools to help others than I am all for it; but if it is at the expense of another human being that I think it is wrong.
Callie said it best, “people will never be happy and perfection will never be achieved.” This is so true because we were all created with flaws and we will have to live with that. Flaws and imperfections are what make us human beings. What would we be like if everyone was perfect? I think the world would be chaos. But there are people out in the world that are fortunate as most people in the sense that they have a disease or they cannot walk or see. If we have the knowledge and tools in front of our faces to cure things of that nature than I am one hundred percent for I it, as long as it is not at the expense of another human being.
Perception
In John Biguenet’s short story “I Am Not a Jew”, he puts us in a character’s shoes with no qualms about being politically correct. The character Mr. Anderson, is continually bothered by the instance in the graveyard, but does not quite understand why until the end. As I see him going over the events of that night in his mind over and over again, I really can’t help but feel that I would not have done anything different. In identifying with him, it is also easy to see why, until it is brought to his attention, he sees nothing wrong with his actions. We follow him through the story as he goes through several levels of moral realization. In the story I see how he first views himself, how others view him, and then finally when he notices how he is perceived by everyone else.
Mr. Anderson tries unconvincingly to justify what he said in the cemetery to himself over and over again. He seems to be in a kind of denial about whether what he said was morally right or wrong. When he is discussing the event with Mr. Ziegler it seems as though he feels the need to be validated in his reaction. By saying, “Yes, who? I’m not a Jew. Is that my fault,” it seems that Mr. Anderson is obviously having an inner struggle accepting himself for what he said in the situation. It seems like he needs to say it aloud so that the lie he is trying to convince himself of becomes more believable in his mind. He definitely seems to know that on some level, without anyone saying anything to him, that he was wrong; he just does not yet understand why it was wrong.
The other characters in the story, namely Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Anderson’s wife Ellen see this as morally wrong straight away. Mr. Ziegler, to me, seems to view Mr. Anderson as wrong in what he said. He never comes straight out to say it, but I get the feeling of disapproval. When Mr. Zeigler kept saying, “who could blame you”, it seemed as if he was trying to convince himself not to blame Mr. Anderson for his reaction, or that there was a speck of sarcasm. Ellen on the other hand was more open about how she felt saying, “We are all Jews…But one way or another, you wound up on the wrong side.” She obviously disapproves of how he acted. From what I gather, it seems that she is saying to the men that confronted him there are two sides, the Nazis or the Jews, and by saying he was not a Jew he sided with the Nazis. Putting myself in Ellen’s shoes to me it would seem like to those “hooligans” it was a small victory to see somebody basically denounce the Jewish people out of fear. Morally she views her husband as being in the wrong entirely.
While having an inner struggle throughout the story about whether he did the right or wrong thing morally, Mr. Anderson in the end seems to understand he took the wrong stance. He finally sees himself from everyone else’s perspective, and does not like who he sees. He is shamed by this realization yet still puzzled, “So what should I have done?” I think this shows that he knows for a fact now that he should not have uttered the words “I am not a Jew’ just to save himself; when those very words could have saved so many others in the past yet they were bold enough not to utter them. I think by seeing the situation from the point of view of other people, he probably ends the story feeling weak, but with a greater appreciation of the magnitude of what those 5 little words meant to everyone involved; I think he realizes that though it seemed personal, it was anything but.
In the end, Mr. Anderson comes around and sees himself through the eyes of everyone else, and stops trying to convince himself of no wrongdoing. The end brings an understanding of him from all the different perspectives, resulting in self-realization. He is no longer morally in denial, due to the varied viewpoints.
As we read Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark”, many similarities arise with that of Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go. We also find many differences as we compare the two stories. Both authors do not really portray a strong standing in terms of “for or against” the idea of technological, science development, but instead leave it open and up to the reader to form their own opinion on the matter.
Both stories let the idea of scientific advancement be seen as something with good intentions, but unsuccessful therefore resulting in a fatal ending. In Never Let Me Go, All of the children at Hailsham are only in the world to be donors, which will eventually lead to nothing other than their death. The normalcies of being a child are not given to the children at this school, because they are not “real”, but replicates of other children; clones. The guardians try to avoid telling them the truth about who they are, as a way of protection. But is this really helpful? Or harmful? How would you feel if someone told you that you weren’t who you thought for over 15 years?
Georgiana, Aylmer’s wife in “The Birthmark” chooses love over life as she removes a part of herself and “who she is” to be perfect for her husband, which inevitably causes her death. She doesn’t want to remove it because no one else has ever commented on it, yet alone “shutter at the sight of it”. Aylmer completely convinced her that she would be better off without it, and more beautiful in the end. But it didn’t happen that way. He was not intentionally trying to harm her, or kill her, but his enthusiasm and obsession with perfection got to his head, consequentially with her death. But was it all that necessary? Of course not.
In my opinion, advancement in science such as the cure of cancer, aids, etc. is necessary and I am completely supportive, but I think a lot of technology outside of medicine has been harmful to the human body. For example, most medicines have side affects. A lot are just small like nausea and fatigue but others go as serious as heart failure and death! That is ridiculous! Other examples outside of science are such as the automobile, the remote control, and fast food. All of these things are great to the eye, but eventually in many cases can lead to obesity because the world has become LAZY!! My point here is that when we first learn of new advancements, they all appear to be helpful
First off (and this has nothing much to do with the response), what’s up with Nathaniel Hawthorne’s preoccupation with physical representations of one’s inner self. First, Dimmsdale and the Scarlet Letter, now this and the Crimson birth mark. The only thing he changed was the shade of red. If Hawthorne were alive today, I bet he’d be covered in tattoos. Anyway, I’m being facetious.
At each stories’ roots, Never Let Me Go and “The Birth Mark” both cause us to question the progression of science. Never Let Me Go does this through its mundane, creepiness regarding the currently controversial subject of cloning and donating organs, and all of the euphemistic phrases that go along with it. “The Birth-Mark” makes us question the progression of science by also causing us to question futility of perfection or attempting to reach infinity. Aylmer’s revulsion of imperfection and need for “something that was beyond the scope of the instant before” make us question the current aims, albeit in a 19th century setting. It is interesting though that Hawthorne says “She (nature) permits us, indeed, to mar, but seldom to mend, and, like a jealous patentee, on no account to make.” Well, it turns out on some account…
Never Let Me Go takes a humanistic approach towards molding our thoughts about scientific advancement. By giving a detailed picture of each of the students, he assures us that each student contains one soul. Unfortunately, its current setting and lack of scientific proof left its message about the dangers of cloning a little diffused.
“The Birth-Mark” also seems to deal with this idea of a soul, or whatever you want to call it, this separation between the physical and spiritual worlds. Throughout the story, we are constantly reminded that life is not without imperfections. “It was the fatal flaw of humanity which Nature…stamps ineffaceably on all her productions, either to imply that they are temporary and finite, or that their perfection must be wrought by toil and pain.” Aminadab represents this physical world. In order to be a functioning part of this world, Hawthorne states that we must be willing and patient to live in this “half-developed” world. Aminadab understands this, saying, “If she were my wife, I’d never part with that birthmark.” If Aminadab were her wife, she’d also not be dead.
On the other hand, Aylmer represents the spiritual, intellectual side of the world, perhaps even transcending from another world (I’m reluctant to say that he represents perfection in case I’m missing an important feminist interpretation of this story). Aylmer, if he is not perfect, is at stuck in this world where he doesn’t belong. His different views of perfection differ from those of the other characters, and his aspirations toward infinity always end with seeing his “diamonds” as the “merest pebbles.”
Ultimately, I think Hawthorne says that scientific advancement will never be reach perfection, and even trying to get close will result in a lot of problems. He implies at the end of the story that only once you are dead are you perfect. Aylmer proclaims, “You are perfect!” Well, Aymler, she’s also dead. Good one…
In John Biguenet’s, “I Am Not A Jew,” the main character, Peter Anderson, illustrates how an individual can desert their values to escape danger, resulting in lasting psychological trauma brought on by the feeling of humiliation. When Peter encounters four Nazi men in a Jewish graveyard one evening they assume he is a Jew. Afraid that they will harm him, Peter shouts the phrase, “ich bin nicht Juden … I am not a Jew” (p 103). The impact of this experience is brought home to the reader initially when Peter urinates on himself and by his subsequent attempts to deal with his shameful rejection of the Jewish race.
When Peter returns from the cemetery, he and the hotel owner engage in a casual discussion of favorite beers and the owner’s late wife until Peter’s story “spill[s] out” (p 105). Peter is ashamed of the way he cowardly expressed that he was not a Jew as if being a Jew is an awful quality. Peter denounced the Jewish people to be spared by these Nazi men. The hotel owner assures Peter that he could not have done anything else, and after the hotel owner’s suggestion, Peter repeats the phrase as if it were a “formula” to live by, “what else could I do?” (P 105) Through the hotel owner Biguenet provides Peter with the tool of rationalization, allowing Peter to smile and request another beer. Peter latches onto a temporary fix for his guilt, but over time those harbored feelings only worsen.
Peter cannot simply forget the incident and “that childish mortification of wetting his pants” (p 106). Even though he tries to believe he had no other choice than to say what he said, Peter knows in the back of his mind that he will never forgive himself. The beating he would have received from the Nazis may have been worth not carrying the embarrassment of his words. Whereas initially “what should I have done” is sufficient explanation for his actions, soon enough, the incident becomes “like a lump beneath the skin one pretends to ignore, the terror of that encounter called attention to itself with greater and greater insistence the more he tried to forget” (p 105). Peter carries the haunting shame with him until he turns to his wife.
Peter finally tells his wife about the events in the cemetery a few weeks later; she is upset that he had not told her before, and she questions Peter pointedly about that evening. She informs Peter, “you lied, you know” (p 107), referring to Peter’s assertion that he was not a Jew. Peter’s wife, acting as his conscience, forces him to confront his denial of the Jews. She makes it clear that every human being should identify with the Jewish people and stand with them, stating out loud the belief Peter has buried within his psyche. However, instead of acknowledging that she is right and that his response was cowardly, Peter quickly reverts to his formula, “what else could I do?” (p 106)
In the end Peter’s wife leaves him pondering the same question “what should I have done” in a different way. Peter “lay[s] awake, rehearsing in his memory those few minutes of terror he had endured on the darkening German hilltop of skulls and bones, refining the little drama with each rendition until his own role was reduced to the simple formula that had saved him” (p 107). In a first step toward healing, he abandons rationalizing his cowardly response in the graveyard, ”wait[ing] in vain for the solution to offer itself” (p107). The reader senses Peter will plead for an answer or maybe even forgiveness.
“I Am Not A Jew” studies the psychological responses that result from a cowardly action. All attempts by Peter to minimize the importance of what happened fail. His conscience refuses to let him off the hook through rationalization or minimization. In the end, the reader realizes that Peter’s conscience triumphs over his attempt to forget his words, and he is left with great psychological damage from his refusal to follow his beliefs. Only by honest examination of the reasons for his cowardice will he begin the process of rebuilding his psyche.
John Biguenet’s short story I Am Not a Jew provides a perfect analysis of the persecution of different races and ethnicities. More specifically, I Am Not a Jew explores the unconscious and almost instinctive prejudice we possess, although sometimes to our surprise. Biguenet’s story presents his readers with a situation in which having a connection with and sympathy for the main character, Anderson, also means sharing the guilt of his actions.
When first reading the scene in the graveyard, I know I personally was very tense and begging for the “hooligans” to understand Anderson’s broken German and the fact that he wasn’t Jewish. Here he is in a foreign country where he feels that he about to be a victim of a hate crime, and knows exactly what to do to prevent it. I never once questioned his actions because, like Anderson says, what else could he do. I must admit, that placed in this precise situation, I most likely would have said the same thing. However, as his wife points out him later, “In the cemetery that night, they split the world into Jews and Nazis. And you weren’t a Jew.” By claiming that he wasn’t a Jew, demanding that he was not one of that hated people, that because he was an American he had the right to live, he is participating in the persecution of the Jews. There is good and there is evil. If you aren’t willing to stand up for the good, then you are consequently letting evil win the battle. That is what Anderson’s wife is trying to explain to him. Why is it that we find it okay to avoid negative treatment by proving that we are, in fact, not of the race or ethnicity that is being persecuted? We are proud, even relieved, to be able to claim that we are not one of “that kind”. Anderson rationalizes this by convincing himself that anyone in his situation would have done the same thing, and I agree that many people would. However, when you think about it, would a Jew deny his ethnicity just because he was frightened of the consequences? This is why Anderson’s wife also states that, after Hitler, we must all be Jews. We must all stand up for what is right and be willing to say that yes, we are Jewish, because, if not, we are turning our backs on every race, every religion, and every ethnicity that fought for the right to be accepted. After hacing the knowledge of what happened in the Holocaust, how can you deny that you are a Jew? How can you let the Nazis win again? By initially completely agreeing with Anderson and sympathizing with his situation, I, too, felt like his wife was reprimanding me for my actions. I definitely felt a little guilty and ashamed because I do agree with what she is trying to explain to Anderson. It is strange how underlying prejudice can go without recognition, and I think many of us are in denial about the prejudices we do hold, even if they are hidden.
Through Biguenet’s story, I gained a greater understanding of not only unconscious prejudices but also our role in standing up for all those persecuted presently and in the past. We must be willing to join their side, because, if not, we are simply joining sides with their enemy. We can’t be afraid of the consequences we may face. To do so would be to turn your back on someone in need. We must all be Jews.
Post a Comment