"To me, Yassi was the real rebel. She did not join any political group or organization."
Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran
Thinking about who is the villain led me to understanding the words I read in this book - Nafisi describing the villain being a person without ability of compassion. The person who can only see one way and then digs and throws bombs without ever thinking it over.
I first started thinking about the villain not so long ago when I asked myself how can some people be so stubborn. Remembering how many times I was called this way, I saw that there is a difference to the ways stubbornness can be performed.
Let me go this way. Originally I would call one stubborn when one is not giving up on the idea no matter how much others try to change one's opinion. Then I dug a bit deeper and asked myself why would one want to push his way so much.
Next thing I conclude that basically there are two possibilities.
Firstly (and more often) one has an idea or a stand. Let's say one is fighting for more floor work classes. He or she at this point can only see that he or she is not satisfied with the amount of the given classes that are on the schedule and he or she is really firm in trying to change this. He or she goes off and starts fighting. He or she does not react on feedback and is only protecting his stand when challenged. The arguments tend to be simple and they tend to illustrate one's one point of view.
Secondly one has an idea or a stand. Let's say one is fighting for more floor work classes. He or she at this point think about the reasons he or she is interested in having to spend more hours being on the floor, he or she is considering how floor work is influencing the physicality of oneself and what kind of influence it will have on one's body considering one's spending more time on his feet at the moment. He or she will consider what is the greater influence of the floor work on one's, for example, career. After all this consideration one is going to consider the say of the institution appointing the classes to him or her, he or she will consider then is the institution the right institution for oneself (maybe there are other places in the world appointing more floor work by default) and then he or she might even think about writing he before she every time they are mentioned. Lastly she or he will even consider that the classes that are holding the majority on the schedule at the moment actually have a say in the floor work department and make more sense considering the floor that the actual floor work itself.
Having said all this - I think I made my point and will move into adding the First and the Second the notion of Power.
I mean, I understand that when you have power you have to make choices that concern a lot of people, in the institution, for example. And that hopefully you gained power by experience, hard work and knowledge. (And love.) This way of gaining power would make me have trust in the person, institution responsible for making the decisions.
OK, now I also see different combination's - the First being in power, but the First being the follower (and getting the idea - trying to gain power?) and the Second being in power, and the Second being the follower - and the different combination's of them together.
In the ideal world all would be the Second but in the real world how do we deal when encountering the First.
Simple situation - a group of people working of a common goal. They talk, they consider, they move forward until one decides that the group in not moving in the direction he (or she) finds worthy - here we get to the point of conflict.
We have the First that is looking forward to gaining power over the group (for whatever reasons - that's another story) and the Group, the combination of weaker Firsts and Seconds - and a stronger Second that might already have a bit of Power (since more experience, knowledge -or love- could have made the group instinctivly give him more say in the matters of moving forward). Basically the conflict is between the First, the Second - and the Group supporting an opinion over the other.
Politics.
Why I find this interesting in because the First tends to start fighting because it is less Democrativ, less Compromising
and has less possibility of Compassion to see that the common goal is Common goal and the one making the decisions is the Group instead of the individual - he seeks of Power - and this is maybe actually a text on Power instead of Compassion. But to get back to the Compassion.
One of the reasons why I see the Second being trusted by the Group is because the Second can think for the Group. He values different opinions and is able to consider them all, pick the most suitable one and then point it out - which would possibly be recognized by the Group and would lead into this whole mess because the First would get jealous because the Power is not in his garden. Because of the lack of more than one thing, the First starts to fight and he starts to build his Power with repression. What he counts on (or not, because he can't see it) (or she) is that the more Liberal Second is going to give in to the argument for it does NOT benefit the Group's moving forward. The Second's Compassion, Liberalism makes him weaker in the face of the Hammer Power.
Which finally leads me to the point of the Second finding it's way (to settle the gender argument) to Power and Lead.
Nafisi is describing countless moments of women fighting for their rights, Women against the Veil.
But the one in Power is the First, it is the Villain. It is the one pushing his own ways and the one with no Compassion - even as much to consider the fact that our sex organ does not give us more Power - unless me make it that way -
which in the end leads me back to the notion of Gender.
But Gender is here ( in my mind) all the time, so let's finish the Power of the First and Second.
Hopefully I will now go back to something I might have mentioned before.
At the moment the Second can ether adapt to the ways of the First and fight the fuck back
OR
it has to consider another way, a way much harder to deal with, for it implies all of us taking our own responsibility for ourselves. One can come and make a revolution for a better world but the First's will still exist in 50 years if we don't teach the notion of Responsibility.
Because even if the First would consider the ways of both the First and the Second - and then consciously choose the ways of the First - I could live with that because it would mean that I could make my own choice and move away - if I wouldn't like being with a First.
But somehow I feel that if all would be able to see both and make a choice - that all would choose the Second. Which would inevitably lead to a better world. A world where people make choices and answer to them, being good or bad. And of course not all can make good choices all the time but then the bad choices would be more clear with teaching us something - the one who makes a bad choice and bravely takes the effects of it and another who witnesses the process and can make a conclusion.
And wouldn't that possibly be, not necessarily an ideal world, but a better world for all of us to live in?!
P.
No comments:
Post a Comment