I'm finishing up some loose ends and packing before I head to a class on Faith Health and Economics in Appalachia - so my blog will probably be silent for a few days. But before I get too busy, I wanted to try to keep my weekly commitment to writing.
Last night we watched the movie Crash. Aside from the drama of so much happening to so few people in two days' time, much of what the film depicted seemed to highlight the attitudes and experiences of ordinary people living in the US. While the action may have been heightened, the attitudes were recognizable to me. I was particularly struck by the illusions that the characters operated under - or maybe I'd call them delusions about themselves and prejudiced stereotypes they had about others. The police officer played by Ryan Phillipe for example, saw himself as a 'good guy' savior type, and he reacted angrily when he wasn't given the accolades he believed he deserved. Or the auto thief played by Chris Bridges/Ludacris, who gets oppression on a theoretical level but doesn't necessarily see his own place in the mix - and who 'liberates' refugees without really grasping how to do so effectively. I was also deeply struck by the way pain was passed around - I wanted to draw a diagram of how bad treatment by one gets translated into badly treating someone else - a classic cycle of violence where victimhood and perpetration feed each other. Of course I particularly noticed the attitudes, language, and reasoning of the white characters - who seemed to acknowledge racism and injustice with one side of their mouths but twisting the logic and reality of oppression into token opportunities for advancement without restructuring the social frameworks and attitudes that lead to it. Like my friend Emily said yesterday - a particular brand of amnesia that white people use to forget about our history of racism. Last of all, I was thinking about salvation and redemption: it was a hard question, and I think the larger message is that the universe randomly assigns opportunities and dead ends. But individually, there were moments (of high drama, yes) that seemed to catalyze new realizations - but I wondered how much the were realizations rather than new illusions. Sandra Bullock's character, for example, realizes "I am angry all the time," and then sees her housekeeper as "my only real friend," re-caricature-ing but not liberating her relationship with her employee. In relation to this, I consider the theme: maybe we just crash into each other seeking human touch and human interaction. The message I took was that even when we crash into each other - unless it is violent enough to knock us into a new sense of the world - we fail to touch because our illusions (about ourselves and each other) bounce off each other like beach balls. Even religion and ideology (as tokens and words) cannot fully disrupt the cycle. It leaves me wondering what can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wade-errific:
I'm working to comment on the reflections you left recently on my blog post about strategies for dissent. However, I need to respond to the post here, especially this line:
"The message I took was that even when we crash into each other - unless it is violent enough to knock us into a new sense of the world - we fail to touch because our illusions (about ourselves and each other) bounce off each other like beach balls."
I think the Buddhists might tell us that the distinction between self and other, itself, is an illusion/delusion. Some people can take that spiritual maxim and run with it. I, however, cannot at this time because I'm just beginning to take responsibility for the way my (and my people's) self-hood and other-ing have manifested historically and continue manifesting in the present in ways that cause pain and suffering. It seems like a quick dismissal to pull on the constructed nature of Otherness as a white liberal trying to look realistically at and confront (however unsuccessfully) racism. Is there merit to meditating with non-Otherness? Of course. All the time? Not for me, and especially not if it shuts down exploration of my participation (and my people's participation) in injustice. This is my issue with rich & middle class white (Western) people appropriating Buddhism just to dis-engage from the often times uncomfortable realities before us. Seems mis-used to me. I have too, of course, appropriated all kinds of things (alcohol, sex, other people, theory) in order to escape (uncomfortable) reality. It's quite normal, but mostly futile in the long haul. Having said all that...
The bouncing of illusions likened to beach balls--that's brilliant writing, Wade. It gives me concrete imagery for contemplative exercises. You're onto something. Perhaps the bouncing, as opposed to the touching, originally became through the construct of Otherness. Perhaps. But perhaps illusions are part of the game, not something we can drop like hot coals, but rather something we learn to recognize and manage over time. (And let's be real: there's an upside to illusion/delusion. Denial and skewed perception save people as much as they destroy people.) This work of recognition and managing makes the work of relational justice slow moving, so those of us who struggle with impatience (with ourselves, others and progressive movements) might not get the quick fix we're looking for. The sluggish nature does not though mean we are totally stuck without hope. It reminds me a lot of what your Rev. E said about the baby being born.
All I know: each of us, in our own way(s), has work to do. Bouncing may be (necessarily?) part of what's going on, but we all need touch. To the extent that we can recognize, manage and transform the way we (as individuals and peoples together)keep bouncing delusionally instead of touching lovingly, the better off we will be.
I for one am trying to give up the illusion that being "right" all the time brings strength.
Post a Comment