Nate Gifford wrote:
>I remember when I read The Lottery ... it was in one of my college English
>texts, but not required. I read it in order to chase down a half-remembered
>reference to it. At the time I was reading H.P. Lovecraft for fun. I
>remember thinking that I thought Shirley Jackson was just another one of
>those smug, self-satisfied, English teachers manipulating the class to think
>inside the box. I certainly wasn't attracted by the family in the story ...
>nor was I repulsed by them ... I was essentially bored by them and thought
>that Mom's come-uppance was too long in coming.
>
It all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it?
(snip)
>
>So what is the difference between the town killing the mother and our
>willingness to let people starve because they "Don't want to work?"
...or the medical establishment, operating under the aegis of the state,
sending a patient home to die because he hasn't the money to pay them.
What's the difference? There is no philosophical or practical difference.
You didn't withhold your taxes from this "callous and immoral" state, you
paid them. You don't operate underground, you work at a job that directly
or indirectly supports the varied infrastructure upon which the state
relies. You haven't practiced daily civil disobedience, you obeyed the
law enforcement arm that backs up the decisions of the state with
physical force. Tacitly or overtly, directly or indirectly, you participate
in doing the exact same thing. You can /say/ you don't approve, but talk
is cheap, isn't it? Besides, your pitching arm ain't what it used to be.
(snip)
>
>I see the reaction of Kay Haugaard's students as a positive one. In fact, I
>wonder how much the conservative revolution has to do with their laissez
>faire attitude? We know the hippie mysticism of the sixties was a pile of
>shit for some people, and we know the hedonism of the seventies was a pile
>of shit for some people, and we know the consumerism of the eighties was a
>pile of shit for some people. Where Ms. Haugaard sees moral apathy I see
>moral chameleonism. I contend that Ms. Haugaard's students make moral
>judgements based on expediency rather than absolute right and wrong. Their
>apathy is only important in that Ms. Haugaard might lower their grades ...
>and then they'll have to go to the dean to convince her that Ms. Haugaard
>is insane. After all the story WAS pretty boring except for the end ... not
>as good as Stephen King or Dean Koontz ...
"Moral chameleonism", "moral judgements" and "laissez-faire" imply /some/
contemplation along moral lines, and I sensed none of that in the essay.
The only impression I got regarding the reactions of the students was
brain-stem, knee-jerk regurgitation of some variation of the current PC
paradigm, which includes cultural relativism.
The teacher, while thinking about morality and ethics, let a negative
visceral reaction, which was a product of her upbringing, shape her
conclusions; she didn't think things /through/. The students, on the other
hand, didn't seem to think at all. Ill-considered and unconsidered.
>I wonder if anyone reacts as I did: I don't mind if you try to manipulate
>me, just don't bore me.
I hope someone reacted as I did: I don't mind if you try to manipulate me.
I don't even mind if you bore me. Just don't vote.
Dan