Where is there a tension between Gregor claiming his humanity and surrendering his humanity? In his family’s willingness/reluctance to recognize his humanity?
One of the central tensions between Gregor maintaining and relinquishing his humanity can be found in the passage detailing his mother's and sister's attempt to remove furniture from his room. Gregor is struggling to maintain his sanity, and these familiar objects keep him tied to the rationality of the human mind in these unending weeks of isolation and encroaching madness. However, the removal of the furniture would allow the family to dispose of it to their benefit, while more importantly increasing the room Gregor has in which to move. Thus going along or resisting the removal of the furniture is a contest between embracing humanity or insectitude. Obviously Gregor's rabid defense of his picture reflects this tense desire to claim his humanity for himself.
Meanwhile, the tension with his family members may be seen throughout this part as his sister after a month still cannot stand the sight of him, his mother is entirely avoidant, and his father only holds back from killing him due to the effeminate pleas of his only sympathizer. They are instinctively afraid of this unknown and grotesque situation; thus we are brought into the classic theme of human behavior under the influence of primal fear. Human sympathies, love, and even family connections dissolve when one is truly mad with fear. It would be one thing to have one's life threatened under normal circumstances, but the abnormality and uncertainty of the predicament bring about an unhampered fight or flight reaction in Gergory's family members.
---
Question about being Human:
To what degree do our social relationships define us as human beings?
I could write extensively about the question on relationships existing with reciprocity in the context of human perception, denial, delusion, Plato's Allegory of the cave, et cetera, however I have elected to respond to this question as I feel my thoughts are not as developed on this subject as I would like.
Humans are an innately social species. There seems to be something inherent to us which makes us require other human beings for our existence. It is a rare and often alienated individual who is able to exist and function entirely on his own without human support. As a species of two separate genders, the human system is only "living" with respect to potential mating pairs under the scientific definition of life, "Sustained chemical systems capable of Darwinian evolution." We are a group creature which evolved in its own small tribes, much like packs of wolves or more appropriately, bands of chimpanzees. WE develop in such a way to protect ourselves and our own offspring or otherwise assist the group around us. Indeed, much of who we are, despite genetic programming, is built from neural connection made through our interactions with other people.
From a more Humanistic perspective, people tend to define themselves based on their accomplishments and approval by others. There is a delicate equilibrium, as many have noticed, between a person drawing confidence and identity from the self, and taking these things from the input of other people. Too much of the former leads to arrogance and inability to function among others, even if it permits limited self-sufficiency. The latter in abnormal amounts leads to dependency and inability to function on one's own, as often one is.
While it is generally accepted that a person much be self-driven and self confident, there is a taboo against social isolation. This taboo is inherent to human group behavior, stemming from our fear of the unknown and outsiders. However, there has been quite a history of monks finding fulfillment outside of human contact. Who is to say that these people are less than human? They may or may not have contributed something to society. The doctrine of science, the doctrine of piety, and the doctrine of whatever-you-come-up-with all have distinctly different values. Ultimately it is up to the human to decide how much relationships define him.
No comments:
Post a Comment