What it means to be a person

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: What it means to be a person

In the prologue to the book, Arendt traces the English word person back to its Latin roots in person, and I think her discussion points usefully towards the ideas that still "sound through" our use of the term:

Why · Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject:

Following this line of mask-wearing through Arendt's own theory, she says "actions cannot be justified for their own sake, but only in light of their public recognition and the shared rules of a political community." But, in contradiction to the idea that we are wearing masks, she says "It is through action as speech that individuals come to disclose their distinctive identity"

So which is it? How can you be distinctly individual if you are speaking or acting for the sake of public recognition?

What may clarify the use of the mask is her theory of labor being that which satisfies necessity, and work being that which satisfies our society. Her opinion that the rise of the latter threatens extinction of the former would perpetuate the need for the individual to have a less distinct or individual/unique persona, but to have many selves which correspond to many different societal expectations or requirements or ambitions.

But I could be completely out in left field.

What I do find compelling is that the more we "work" the less we are free and the more we are, perhaps, false. The freedom, or more precisely the illusion of freedom which has become acceptable in our society, that we believe we are "working" towards every day, is the very thing that is diminishing our freedom.

But again....I could be wrong....and this could have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion as you had in mind. But, my point would be that individuality and true self is dependent upon freedom.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject:

All the world's indeed a stage... .. . Arendt leaves out the role of the script in determining the lines and dialogue on the stage: determining who says what and when. Unless the entire process is impromptu and improvisational, someone has already transcribed the action, plot, and knows how it all will end. Actually, unlike real life, all the performers know the ending of the play (as well as everyone else's lines): and if it is something the audience is familiar with, they will know it too. The mask displayed the pathos of the character and prompted an emotional response from the audience: pay attention to my performance and learn something about your own, all of our, tragic fate. Its affect inspires an emotional reaction in those attuned to its pathos.

Thus the sounding through of an individual, undisquised voice is not entirely accurate: it forgets that the words spoken are the result of the imagination of the playwrite...as are each performers places on stage, their entrances and exits, and when the final curtain is drawn.

Still, I think Arendt is on to something if we focus on improvisation and impromptu performance; or if we understand the play as the creation of the entire acting troop: with each member bringing something to an organically developing and participatory process of building a script in action. This requires a certain kind of flexibility and trust in the troop, and the audience. No one really knows how it will unfold or end: what holds it together is the appropriate interaction of pathos between characters...a believable sequence of emotional exchanges that tell a captivating story.

I think this relates to something she asserts in Responsibility and Dictatorship (and Mad points to as well): good judgment is not the result of clearly determined rules and moral systems...but is instead a certain kind of personal act that arises from an internal response to what it means to live with oneself. The desire to be a certain kind of person who does the right thing, coupled with a self-loathing that results from doing the wrong thing: this desire, this wanting, this emotional attachment to a way of acting in the world...seems similar to the cultivation of virtues. A virtue being the emotional drive that spurs one to do the right thing: it is cultivated and tested and prompted into becoming a full-fledged component of one's character. So much so, that one no longer requires a list of rules or duties: one simply responds to a given situation according to the demands of virtue.

Just like the actors in our anarchic troop without a script: they have practiced the art of performance so often, embraced its discipline as a way of life, that they can spontaneously and freely produce lines and action in proper accord of the pathos between characters.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT