"If sharks were people," his landlady's little daughter asked Mr. K, "would they be nicer to the little fish?" "Of course," he said, "if sharks were people, they would have strong boxes built in the sea for little fish. There they would put in all sorts of food plants and little animals, too. They would see to it that the boxes always had fresh water, and they would take absolutely every sort of sanitary measure. When, for example, a little fish would injure his fin, it would be immediately bandaged so that he would not die on the sharks before his time had come. In order that the little fish would never be sad, there would be big water parties from time to time; for happy fish taste better than sad ones.
Of course, there would be schools in the big boxes as well. There the little fish would learn how to swim into the mouths of the sharks. They would need, for example, geography so that they could find the sharks, lazing around somewhere. The main subject would naturally be the moral education of the little fish. They would be taught that the grandest, most beautiful thing is for a little fish to offer himself happily, and that they must all believe in the sharks, above all when they say that they will provide for a beautiful future. One would let the little fish know that this future is only assured when they learn obedience....
If sharks were people, there would of course be arts as well. There would he beautiful pictures of sharks' teeth, all in magnificent colours, of their mouths and throats as pure playgrounds where one can tumble and play. The theatres on the bottom of the sea would offer plays showing heroic little fish swimming enthusiastically down the throats of the sharks.... There would certainly be religion. It would teach that true life begins in the sharks' bellies... In short, there could only be culture in the sea if sharks were people."
From 'Kalendergeschichten' by Bertolt Brecht.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Society organises itself and plays itself out in ways that cannot be pinned down to the conscious and deterministic actions of its members.
Yet, the only real form of social activism available to us is to work on society through its members.
And since social activists are members themselves, it does seem that we are in a zero-sum game.
Have seen you often refer to 'society' as something distinct and differentiable from individuals who comprise society. Am trying to understand this and frankly it bothers me, this distinction. I think we should not disassociate the two; then like you say any activism will be a zero-sum game and we will feel compelled (I would say tempted) to maintain status quo.
The abstraction you refer to as society is created from collective reactions and behaviors of the population right? Then when the behavior of a majority changes, we say society has changed. Like Indian society today is significantly different from what it was even a decade ago.
The free market and consumerist brigade seem to have demonstrated that there are 'controllable and manipulatable' forces that manage to influence the population at large. can we then say that it is possible to reverse this influence?what is it that makes these mass scale changes palatable and even popular? (I think I have almost answered my question...but want to hear yours).
The distinction between society and its constituents is important to grasp. For instance, millions of brain cells come together to create a super-system, the brain, which has characteristics and potentialities that cannot be inferred from either the individual cells or the logic of their organisation. Or the distinction between ants and ant colonies. Similarly, I sense a collective social mind that is different from the individual mind.
What you see as controlled social change (such as the free market), I see as illusion. The fundamentals underlying society - hegemony, gods (mythical or scientific), exploitation and conflict, poor human understanding, etc. - do not seem to have changed much in the last couple of centuries. What seem like changes, I feel, are largely superficial.
This medium is limiting for dialogue. Mail me if you wish to continue this discussion.
Post a Comment