Thought I'd give the 'ol writing blog a pinprick in the side to wake it up. Did a bit of re-design a while back and figured that perhaps I should actually post something as well.
This is a short response paper that I wrote (rather hastily) after scratching the surface of Emmanuel Levinas's work in this semester's philosophy class. Given my druthers I could probably flesh this out into something akin to a master's thesis project, but for now, I just need to get to the end of this semester.
So, enjoy. Or not. In any case, at least ya'll know you didn't miss my funeral or anything....
**********************************************************************************
Invisibility: Materialism and Sexuality
Understanding what Emmanuel Levinas had to say about our responsibility to the “Other” – that is, to those who share our existence – leads to a whole new level of what it really means to “love our neighbors as ourselves.” In fact, on this particular Biblical point, which is found in the book of Matthew, Levinas appears to raise the bar by placing the welfare of our neighbors above that of ourselves. This is a fairly broadstroke approach to Levinas’s idea, because his central concept surrounding this concern for others is to hold sacred that essence which makes humankind God’s unique creation – namely, His own likeness that is part of our being.
Simply framed, it is holding the “Other” as infinitely valuable - which is also to be “visible” - that drives Levinas’ concept. To be what he terms as less visible, or even invisible, is essentially to subtract value from the Other. Levinas’ directive is that we must hold the value of the Other above our own sense of personal value. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of ripple effect this would have if everyone were to begin following this directive!
This brand of selflessness just begs the question: in modern American society, where does Levinas’ philosophy of visibility, or “sacredness” of the Other, fit in? How has the culture and what has been determined as “societal norms” warped this idea into something that makes one less visible, or totally invisible, to the Other?
It is important to point out the distinctions between the individual and of society as a whole. Levinas’s “wisdom of love” can be understood, I think, on two different levels: a personal, individual level and a collective, societal level. From what we have studied so far, we have only really seen how Levinas employs his idea on the personal level, but I think it is also necessary to view it from the social level – since society reflects, to a large extent, the influences of the individual. The responsibilities are the same on both levels, but societal influence is what regulates the cultural norm, which in turn shapes the worldview of the individual.
For example, consider the fashion industry. Certain individual trends “catch on” and then expand until they become a cultural phenomenon that determines the taste of the individual – at least of those who pay attention to the whims of popular fashion. And then, just as quickly as it caught on, it goes straight out the back door to make way for the next “hot trend.” What is harmful about this idea is that it encourages people to judge others based on what they wear, especially if one does not adhere to what is considered to be “in fashion.” The whole idea of placing a higher value on someone who wears a certain type or style of clothing (which stems from placing the higher value on one piece of clothing over another) only perpetuates the idea that one cannot “fit in” and is therefore less visible unless that certain style of clothing is worn. The value that is understood is shallow and superficial at best.
This “superficial norm” is apparent almost everywhere one turns. The health and beauty industry, the diet industry, the automobile industry, the sports industry – almost every cultural institution having anything to do with material things, entertainment or “better” ways of being is infected with this superficial virus. It forces us, if we are not vigilant, into competition with each other to always have the best, to always be the best, to always – no matter what – “keep up with the Joneses.” This leads only to one thing – judgment of the Other, which inevitably leads to some degree of invisibility.
A big part of the vicious cycle that promotes materialism as something desirable is the huge gap between those who have and those who do not. The “salary gap” between the lowest-paid, least desirable professions and those of the multi-billionaire CEO’s of many major global conglomerates is staggering. Those “who have”, especially those at or near the top of the earnings hierarchy can almost literally become invisible behind mountains of cash. Many of these people will find it impossible to spend the wealth that they have accumulated, and nearly all eventually discover that money equals power in a capitalist society.
Enmeshed with the relentless search for perfection through materialism is the methodology that is most often used to sell material goods – sex. Human sexuality as portrayed by advertisers and the entertainment industry (who could be construed as among the worst offenders of invisibility in society!) is saturated in superficiality, promoting the idea that one cannot be sexually attractive unless certain physical ideals are obtained and maintained. These ideals are bought and sold by the millions – both in quantity and dollars – on the open market.
On the other hand, this warped ideal of human sexuality is so dominant in the modern culture that it often becomes difficult to ignore the false sexual veneer and see clearly the individual against the backdrop of their infinite nature, as Levinas insists we must do. The Other is effectively reduced to little more than a “beautiful” object whose sole purpose is to satisfy sexually – and in the process, perhaps sell a car or a bottle of perfume or two.
I believe the only thing that will turn the tide of this materialistic and sexual invisibility is a mass rejection of a consumer-centric worldview, an across-the-board denial of advertising access (especially to children) and a grass-roots (i.e. in the home and from a very young age) effort aimed towards healthier sexual values. Perhaps it would require something as radical as the complete dismantling and careful reconstruction of social, public and private economies. How this could possibly all come about is something yet to be discovered.
