Thursday, January 20, 2011

Julio Cortázar

When the word “hypocrisy” is brought up, there is this immediate aversive reaction. No one wants to be accused of being a hypocrite. However, in our daily lives it seems to be everywhere. When one asks the question “How are you?” the typically acceptable response is “I’m good.” We do not simply say the words “I’m good,” we put on a smile and force ourselves to fake-it-till-it’s-real, or at least convincing. For some strange reason it is no longer acceptable to be real. Not to say that we should wear our emotions on our sleeves or tell everyone we meet of all our troubles. However, what is wrong with saying “Eh. I’m having a rough day.”? Nothing more must be said, no details are required to be given and the other person need not feel awkward, as if the answering party just shared in confidence with them some deep, dark secret. They need only to share a sincere smile or some encouraging word, to let the other know that they care enough to try and make their day better, even if only in some small way. Instead, we give the acceptable answer and move on to talk about something as emotionless and mundane as the weather. Faking the desire to actually care about another individual has become the norm.

In Julio Cortázar’s short story “Our Demeanor at Wakes,” he depicts a family who does just this. They are tired of the hypocrisy around them, so they decide to “fake it” better than everyone else. They attend a funeral and are so convincing in their mourning that they completely take over the funeral. Not only do they fool everyone around them, but at times it seems they themselves are so caught up in it, that they begin to believe the lie they have started to spin. In the end, they walk off silently and emotionless, not caring about the possible repercussions of their actions. The longer they faked it, the harder it became to discern between what was real and what was simply made up.

The story “The Continuity of Parks,” is an excellent example of “creating my own reality.” There seems to be this need for the man, in this story, to finish his novel. He becomes so absorbed in it that he does not see striking the similarities to his own life. One can’t say for certain, but maybe his wife was having an affair. Perhaps he knew and was trying to escape from his own reality with the book.

The imagination is a very powerful thing. It allows us, for a brief moment, to escape into an alternate reality; one where we do not have to think about or deal with the mundane or demanding reality we live in. This is not always a bad thing, having a mental break from life can be very beneficial for an individual’s sanity. However, when that alternate reality that we dive into starts to become our reality, is when there is a problem; saying it so “black and white” makes it sound so ridiculous and unrealistic. Yet, it is so easy to do. Our fake-it-till-it’s-real or at least convincing life style is very conducive to running away from our reality.

On the flip side is the story “Axolotl,” by Julio Cortázar. There is a man, who becomes obsessed and very passionate about suffering of the axolotl at the aquarium. He says “they were suffering, every fiber of my body reached toward that stifled pain, that stiff torment at the bottom of the tank. They were lying in wait for something; a remote dominion destroyed an age of liberty when the world had been that of the axolotls. Not possible that such a terrible expression which was attaining the overthrow of that forced blankness on their stone faces should carry any message other than one of pain, proof of that eternal sentence, of that liquid hell they were undergoing.” There is an element of empathy this man feels for the axolotl, but he does nothing for them. He does not seek to alleviate any of their suffering, nor does he try to change himself.

All in all, I would say these three stories can give a rather depressing view of our human condition. We are hypocritical and lie to each other and ourselves. Sometimes we try to see or feel things from another’s point of view, but really we are just creating our own little worlds that fit with what makes “me” feel better. Yes. That is a very depressing view on humans. However, there is also the idea that these can be taken as warnings. People can change. Empathy is a good place to start, but we cannot change our hypocritical behaviors and become real, unless we are first willing to do something.

2 comments:

  1. What a great argument you make for authenticity! In my ESL classes, we certainly do teach that there is only one response to "How are you?" and that is "Fine." In other countries, they look at Americans as too forcibly cheerful, and they perceive this to mean that Americans are child-like and shallow. Oh well. I think authenticity always wins in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hahaha!!! Yes, from my days of teaching English in Taiwan, there is only one response to "How are you?" ;]
    Forcibly cheerful... maybe so, but it sure beats the alternative!

    ReplyDelete