[I recently finished reading Walter Abish's fantastic How German Is It for a second time. It is a book that deals with the issues of a country 30 years past WWII attempting to embrace a new attitude while still retaining something that is altogether German. Of course, there are problems with this, and Abish masterfully deals with exploring these inconsistencies, unavoidable Germanisms, and those things that aren't specific to any culture, but, at times, considered "German" or "American" or "x-ian". The following are some thoughts that I had while and after reading the book.]
-Nationalism is an idea used out of both pride and convenience. Something may be declared "German" when there is a group of people wanting to share in something. That is, when one is considered timely or precise, it is often times considered a distinctly German characteristic. But cannot another be as precise as a German engineer? Surely, these national characteristics are often times complicated by those who embrace them because they enjoy seeing themselves as exactly that. Convenience also becomes a simple way to explain things nationally that may not be done in more complex terms. It is a simple way of not thinking: "Why precision is a German trait!"
Nationalism is a difficult idea because many people subscribe to it on these blind terms that may be misleading. More and more, people in our contemporary society are seeing themselves this way, that, nationally, people act a certain way, that it is written into their DNA. This eliminates deviation and embraces stereotype, a difficult and dangerous notion. Also, anyone of any power can manipulate this idea of nationalism, hence, the way this novel ends with a hypnotism.
-Capitalism and democracy are two conflicting ideas that need to work together idealistically, but never do. The working force, responsible for daily labor and helping our country run, never exist in a visible manner until their voices are combined. Those that are in more vocal and powerful positions, of course, are more wealthy and always have the benifit of being heard. Therefore, democracy is essentially not in effect, capitalism is. (This is not to say I think its wrong. It just exists this way.)
-The nature of a thing: what is it composed of?:
"...What is omitted?
What is distorted?
What is clarified?
What is sensed?..."
-Nationalism is an idea used out of both pride and convenience. Something may be declared "German" when there is a group of people wanting to share in something. That is, when one is considered timely or precise, it is often times considered a distinctly German characteristic. But cannot another be as precise as a German engineer? Surely, these national characteristics are often times complicated by those who embrace them because they enjoy seeing themselves as exactly that. Convenience also becomes a simple way to explain things nationally that may not be done in more complex terms. It is a simple way of not thinking: "Why precision is a German trait!"
Nationalism is a difficult idea because many people subscribe to it on these blind terms that may be misleading. More and more, people in our contemporary society are seeing themselves this way, that, nationally, people act a certain way, that it is written into their DNA. This eliminates deviation and embraces stereotype, a difficult and dangerous notion. Also, anyone of any power can manipulate this idea of nationalism, hence, the way this novel ends with a hypnotism.
-Capitalism and democracy are two conflicting ideas that need to work together idealistically, but never do. The working force, responsible for daily labor and helping our country run, never exist in a visible manner until their voices are combined. Those that are in more vocal and powerful positions, of course, are more wealthy and always have the benifit of being heard. Therefore, democracy is essentially not in effect, capitalism is. (This is not to say I think its wrong. It just exists this way.)
-The nature of a thing: what is it composed of?:
"...What is omitted?
What is distorted?
What is clarified?
What is sensed?..."
Seemingly, all these things (plus many more) tend to comprise the actual make-up of something. But usually, something will remain left out, misunderstood, not comprehended, etc.:
"The passer-by took it for granted that Ulrich spoke German. He also, Ulrick assumed, took it for granted that what he had just witnessed was an accident, just as Ulrich took it for granted that it was not."
"The passer-by took it for granted that Ulrich spoke German. He also, Ulrick assumed, took it for granted that what he had just witnessed was an accident, just as Ulrich took it for granted that it was not."
This miscommunication of sorts leads me to believe an absolute existence of something may not be true. How may we know of something if not everyone agrees, when there are multiple angles to view, when no one can be correct?
Now, there must be some absolutes. But are there? Is not a car a automobile, a lump of metal, a sculpture, and many other things? So particularly, with notions of personality, such as nationality, how can one be labeled German when they may, in fact, be American, but act stereotypically German, or be a German ex-pat? This labelization is not proven effective or necessary. This shows the limits of an imperfect language--the only possiblity is to encounter all possibilities, which, of course, is impossible.
Now, there must be some absolutes. But are there? Is not a car a automobile, a lump of metal, a sculpture, and many other things? So particularly, with notions of personality, such as nationality, how can one be labeled German when they may, in fact, be American, but act stereotypically German, or be a German ex-pat? This labelization is not proven effective or necessary. This shows the limits of an imperfect language--the only possiblity is to encounter all possibilities, which, of course, is impossible.
1 comment:
"Capitalism and democracy are two conflicting ideas that need to work together idealistically, but never do. The working force, responsible for daily labor and helping our country run, never exist in a visible manner until their voices are combined. Those that are in more vocal and powerful positions, of course, are more wealthy and always have the benifit of being heard. Therefore, democracy is essentially not in effect, capitalism is."
In response to this I would like to add that, while I totally agree this characterization of the conflictual relationship which exists between capitalism and democracy, it is essentionally un-democratic to assume that one person's voice, because they make more money and are more powerful, carries more "weight" than a poorer, less powerful citizen's voice. This is, however, is essential for our society to run as it does-which poses the question of whether "the American dream" has its basis in pure democracy or pure capitalism because it obviously cannot have a root in both.
Post a Comment