Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a British comedy film starring and written by the comedy group Monty Python.The film tells the story of Brian Cohen. A young Jewish- Roman man who is born on the same day as—and next door to—Jesus and is subsequently mistaken for the Messiah.

Against his intensions he acquires a wide support of followers. This even continues when he calls his followers to go home and leave him alone. He tries to encourage them to stop following him by appealing to their individuality, when he says “You are all individuals”, whereupon they answer unanimous “Yes, we’re all individuals.” The only individual answers “I am not.”  In this film, people’s tendency to follow and worship a chosen one blindly is magnified on a hilarious way.

Within Christianity, the believer is supposed to follow Jesus as the son of god. During institutionalizing the Christian faith, multiple synods were held in order to form a perspective on the nature of Jesus. The question whether Jesus is both human and divine plays a very important role. From the orthodox doctrine and in response to multiple heterodoxies is determined that Jesus is the son of god and thus both human and divine. In the gospel of John, Jesus says”:” The father and I are one.” [1] Does that mean that he is the son of god or a son of god? This essay deals with this question.

After saying this, the Jews want to stone him because in their eyes Jesus is guilty of blasphemy. [2] Jesus replays: “Isn’t it written in your laws: “I have said that you are gods? [3] Jesus might refer to Psalms 82:6 which states “U are gods. Sons of the highest.” [4] This might mean that every person god talks to is a god. Jesus says that the father is in him and he is in the father. [5] He also asks why is accused of blasphemy when he states to be son of god. [6] After all, in this statement it isn’t clear whether he is the only son of god or that this can bestow everyone.

The question is whether Jesus must be seen as the son of god or a son of god. The biblical texts mentioned here are all secondary. This means they are prone to multiple interpretations. At the same time, the difference between the and a seems to have considerable consequences. After all, when Jesus is the son of god, as is decided in the synods throughout time, the idea of following Jesus as the example of life fits the foundation of the Christian religion. However, when Jesus is a son of god, every person (in potency) is a son of god.

In the gospel of Matthew, it’s written that Jesus wanted to be baptized by John, but John refused at first. However, he baptized Jesus when Jesus explained that the baptism was needed to let justice come to full fulfilment. Then, heaven opened up to Jesus and the spirit of god descended on him. A divine voice said that Jesus is his beloved son. [7]

Again, there seems to be a possibility for multiple interpretations, since these texts also are secondary. Jesus seems to have received divine wisdom through the baptism. The question is again whether this is only reserved for Jesus.

Gnosticism responds this question with the call to turn inwards because divine wisdom lives there. In other words, every human being carries a divine spark deep inside and can therefore be called a god. In the Gospel of Thomas, it is written that one has to know oneself in order to discover whether one is a son of god.[8] In Gnosticism self-knowledge and divine knowledge converges. He who knows the reality of earth and is conscious of his own divine nature, has self-knowledge. He who knows himself this way, also knows god and he who knows god, knows himself.

Plato’s theory of Forms, that can be find in several of his dialogues, also refers to the inner world.[9] Plato assumes that the soul was in the world of forms before human birth. In that world the soul had pure knowledge of the Ideas. To get back in that perfect world of Forms she has to be able to remember that world. In order for the soul to remember, man has to go inside himself and behold the world within. But, return to the beholding of the divine world is only possible by handling the rational part in the soul. Therefore, only the philosophers are able to have knowledge of the divine Ideas, and only in that case one can speak of true gnosis (true knowledge). Others only can speak of doxa, which means opinion.[10]

The saying of Jesus: “I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the father than by me.”, can be interpreted in two ways.[11] One can see these words as the message that only Jesus is the son of god. But, the I in this statement could be translated to the divine in every human being. One could interpret the I as the Christ consciousness in every person. It could be connected to the Hebrew saying Ruach Adonia, which means god’s breath.

The question in this essay seems to show the opposite outside versus inside, and so it can be interpreted twofold. One can chose to focus on Jesus as the divine component outside oneself or inside oneself. This means that the question, whether Jesus is the son or a son of god, remains unanswered. This also means that the impossibility to answer the question one sided, brings Jesus and Brian closer together. Brian could metaphorically be seen as the Jesus within, because he appeals to the individuality. And so, Jesus and Brian can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

 

Literature

Nederlands-Vlaams Bijbelgenootschap. 2021. Bijbel. Translated by het Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap. Haarlem/Antwerpen: Nederlands-Vlaams Bijbelgenootschap.

Plato. The State, in, Verzameld werk III, Vertaald door Xaveer de Win. Kapellen: uitgeverij Pelckmans, 1999.

Slavenburg, Jacob. Het Thomas-Evangelie. Deventer: Ankh-Hermes, 2001.

[1] John 10: 30.

[2] Ibid, 31-33.

[3] Ibid, 34,

[4] Psalms 82:6.

[5] John 10: 38.

[6] Ibid, 36.

[7] Matthew 3: 13-18.

[8] Jacob Slavenberg, Evangelie van Thomas, (Deventer: Ankh-Hermes, 2001, 3.

[9] Het woord Idee in deze context is direct afkomstig van het Griekse woord idea, dat gestalte, aanblik betekent.

[10] Plato, De State, 1A-621D.

[11] John 14:6.

 

 

In the US prison system it seems that there exist two different species, namely human beings (everyone who is not incarcerated) and Inmates. These Inmates are stripped from their human characteristics and objectified. Once they are no longer seen as human they can be tortured, suppressed and destroyed. This happens on a daily bases in the prisons. Because the Inmates are not killed en masse, the power can flow. Because for as long life is not dead, power can triumph over life. Once it is killed the power is gone. Objectifying life is devastating but it is a way to keep power over human life.

Whether it is a human being, an animal, a tree or the moon… in all cases it is the Being inside that living form, the true nature, that gets attacked and destroyed. The Being could be called the Inner sanctuary. The inner sanctuary is Divine. It is sacred. In my perspective it is part of Divine Energy. Some call it, God, I call it Divine Energy. I love the word in Hinduism, The Brahman. And the Hindu’s call the inner sanctuary in each living form, The Atman. Destroying the Being inside a life-form = destroying the Atman which is an Evil deed to do. This destruction of the inner sanctuary can only happen when the living Being in a life form is turned into an object. Because once we see that other life as an object we can cross lines of dignity, value and respect in order to surrender this life to us.

There was the tree in the backyard of my neighbors. The tree is not an object. It is a living form with its own function and meaning. It has a Being inside, not a human Being, but a natural Being. A tree has its own inner sanctuary. But the neighbors turned that tree into an object. After that they could cut the tree, even while it was spring and the tree housed a lot of nests with birds. The neighbors only cut the tree because the roots of the trees made the terrace tiles come up. Its inner sanctuary was denied.

Bio industry shows the same evil pattern of destruction of sacred life. The pigs in these huge stables, the chickens and the cows. They all cannot live according their own nature anymore. Because in these mega stables that is simply impossible. So, the inner nature, the Divine Being, the inner sanctuary is destroyed in order for the food industry to make money and for the consumers to eat as much meat as cheap as possible. To me, this is the evil in the world. Killing the inner sanctuary in a life form is also an attack on God, because the inner sanctuary is part of Divine Energy. The Atman is the Brahman in life forms.

Last year I watched the film ‘Seven years in Tibet’. About a friendship between an American man and the Dalai Lama in a period where China conquers Tibet. The Dalai Lama in the film is a very young boy, who is curious about the world. The American man teaches him about the modern world and the boy teaches the man about true values of life. A beautiful scene where both perspectives came together was when the boy wished a cinema to see movies. So, the American man was willing to build one for the boy. He went with workers outside to start. But then he was told he had to stop again. Because on precisely that spot there were a lot of worms. And in Hinduism no life is allowed to be killed, because the Hindu believes in reincarnation, and those worms might be ancestors. So, in the scene you see everyone with buckets taking the worms out of the ground very carefully and put them in another piece of the ground.

Although I don’t know what to think about reincarnation, the thought in the scene is wonderful, because it makes all life equal. It expresses the honor to other life. And it matches the way I experience and approach life myself. I am not a Hindu, or maybe I am for a bit. I just don’t care what label this approach carries. I believe in the equality of all life forms from the virus and bacteria to the solar systems. I realize that life is in itself. And it is all connected by this Sacred Energy that flows through it. it is all One Energy. Life cannot be possessed and acting as if we can possess it, is an evil thought and an evil action. Life in me is not my possession. I can die tomorrow and the fact that I don’t know when I die shows that I don’t own my own life. I am surrendered to it, it is not surrendered to me. Interfering with Sacred life goes against Divinity.

We go to church and pray for all kinds of things, while at the same time we harm the One we honor. We pray and harm the Divine at the same time. This harm of the inner Sanctuary gives me the most intense pain there is. I cannot see it without being completely upset. When I was a little girl I saw how men killed baby seals for the fur. I was devastated. I stood in front of the television and screamed. I felt the hammer going down on these little beings. It felt as if the hammer was destroying me.

I have had this all my life. I feel it. I deeply experience the suffer when the inner Sanctuary gets destroyed. It is the suffer I feel as part of my life. Betty, my old wise therapist, she explained to me that it is a sensitiveness that I have been born with. When I was a child and later on, a young woman, I felt but didn’t understand. Now, getting older, witnessing what happens in the world, and learning words from philosophers and mystics who wrote about this in history…. I have some words for it now. But I will never be able to explain what happens deep inside of me. People pray to an outer God, high in the sky, without realizing that the God inside them is the same Divine Energy, which they destroy.

Philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and others were seeking Divinity in the deeper meaning of life. It’s not for nothing that for lots dogmatic religious figures philosophy is a treat. Because philosophy is mostly about questioning instead of prescribing. It is about the question and not about the answer. It is not about religion as a form of power and hierarchy. It is about learning from different perspectives, instead of the arrogance of claiming to know the truth. We only have our perspectives, and they all refer to a certain truth, but the truth itself is in itself and cannot be known directly or rationally. Thank goodness it can’t. Because that means that at least the truth cannot be defiled.

Incarceration in the current conditions means the destruction of the human being behind the crime. It means turning the human being into an object. Stripping a man or a woman from his or her human characteristics and turn them into the label Inmate. This objectifying of the human being behind the crime leads inevitably to the destruction of the inner Sanctuary. Therefore the prison system in its currents conditions is an evil system based on fear and power. It is an attack on Sacred Life.

Pen Pal in de Amerikaanse pijplijn

Ze kijkt naar jou. Je blik is leeg. Het wezenlijke is er al lang geleden uit verdwenen. Je hebt het veilig opgesloten in de kerker van je diepste donkere lagen. Dat deed je op het moment dat je je kleding verruilde voor een gevangeniskloffie, en je naam werd veranderd in een nummer. Een moment dat inmiddels is vervaagd door de vergankelijkheid van de tijd. Zoals de bewaker over jou waakt, zo waak jij over de ziel in je kerker, waarvan de sleutel tot verlossing is weggegooid.

Dus ja, je blik is leeg. De blik van een levenslang gestrafte. Ontdaan van elke menselijkheid. Dat moet ook, omdat je anders niet kunt overleven. Jouw doelen zijn niet de hare. Jouw woorden over de liefde dienen een ander doel. Je hebt ze nodig om in je onderhoud te voorzien. Jouw agenda is het overleven in de hel van de pijplijn, zoals de Amerikaanse gevangenis ook wel wordt genoemd. Geld is nodig om te eten. Om te roken. En om van tijd tot tijd via een shot cocaïne de pijplijn niet te voelen. Je houdt van haar zolang ze je betaalt. In ruil voor haar betaling ontwerp je een wonderbaarlijke fantasie. Je schrijft over huiselijkheid. Nachtelijk erotisch vuur. In de ochtend ontwaken binnen de intimiteit van het samenzijn.

 De woorden, zorgvuldig gekozen, doen een exclusieve wereld ontstaan. Je schept een wereld die je zelf nooit hebt gekend. Een wereld die je ook nooit zult leren kennen. Want je weet dat de pijplijn de weg is die je naar je grafkist voert. Binnen het sprookje dat je creëert zet je haar op een troon. Want je weet dat ze hiernaar verlangt. Je bent van haar kwetsbaarheid op de hoogte. Omdat je de technieken beheerst van het vertrouwenwekkende. Je weet hoe aan haar, uitspraken te ontlokken, om ze daarna in eigen woorden terug te geven. Ze voelt zich gehoord. Ze voelt zich gezien. Ze weet niet dat ze verliefd is op haar eigen woorden. Je gedichten, ontstaan in je rijke fantasie, geven haar voor even het gevoel er te mogen zijn. Je speelt met haar, en ze geniet ervan. Ze raakt aan je aandacht verslaafd.

Gedichten worden geschreven en verhandeld tussen hongerige gestraften. Twee sigaretten. Een extra kom soep. Het is het wezen van de pen pal industrie. De dames genieten via de calculerende gevangene van hun eigen fantasie over een leven dat nooit zal zijn. Voor deze fantasie wordt gretig betaald. Omdat hij haar verkoopt wat ze zichzelf niet kan geven. Het idee van liefde en respect.

 Jij hebt geen liefde te geven. Je kunt ook geen liefde ontvangen. De intimiteit tussen twee geliefden is voor jou onbereikbaar. En daarom nietszeggend. De huiselijkheid in jouw leven beperkt zich tot de enorme eetzaal en de betonnen cel, binnen een grijze tint van een oneindig aantal monotone dagen. Je lichamelijke verlangens vinden bevrediging in een omgeving van ijzer en beton, waar je voor geld of postzegels je lichaam beschikbaar stelt. Terwijl je in de rij staat om door bewakers geteld te worden, bedenk je je volgende strategie. Je calculerende brein weet wanneer het juiste moment daar is om toe te slaan. Jij speelt. Zij betaalt.

The missing question in solitary confinement

 

In the BBC documentary Solitary confinement, an incarcerated man puts it like this: Monsters. This is what they create in here. Monsters. And then they drop you into society. And say: go ahead. Be a good boy. You can’t conduct yourself like a human being, when you are treated like an animal!

Another man in segregation says: If you don’t have a strong mind, this place can rape you clip. A lot of guys, they don’t even have reasons why they just snap out. That’s what this place does, it makes you mean. It makes you violent, and it’s a lot of people’s heads up. This is solitary confinement.

Solitary confinement began in the USA in the 1800s as a progressive experiment by the Quakers. They wanted to see if isolation would reform criminals. But it was soon abandoned by the United States, because it was doing terrible damage to the people who were placed. Instead of reforming, the incarcerated people lost their minds. However, in the 1980s, solitary confinement really merged as a way to stamp out prison violence.

The United States began to put unprecedented numbers of people in prison and so you had terribly overcrowded conditions. And prisons look like they were about to become out of control. The response to a large riot in one of the overcrowded prisons was to employ very large-scaled solitary confinement. Put a ton of people in solitary which takes away opportunities for programming, opportunities for social interaction, and utter total control and harsh punishment. That took off in the United States, so that over time, more and more supermax prisons were developed, where everyone’s in solitary confinement. It seemed the only answer to the violence of the imprisoned men.

Reducing violence by solitary confinement, and trying to press superficial behavior on people, won’t change anything, because the underlying patterns stay unconscious. What is happening here, is that the emphasis is on superficial change, or in other words, socially appropriate behavior. There was no attention for the authentic person. Nobody asks this simple question: Who Are You? The absence of this question makes the situation hopeless. Staff don’t have a feeling that there is another solution than solitary confinement. Because their only job is protecting the staff and the men, and to allow people to get to their time and to go out as respectable citizens. They seem to not understand that one cannot become respectable by being locked up in solitary confinement. There is no social medicine or magic wand, that can be used for  the transformation of an incarcerated man. One can only become a respectable person when he first is able to answer the question, Who Am I?

The other thing that happens is that there are increasing numbers of mentally ill prisoners coming into the prison system. Their behavior is harder to understand and it is harder to control. Prison systems don’t have the resources to properly deal with them.According to doctor Stuart Grassian, in the film Solitary Confinement, it is toxic to mental function. There’s a particular illness that results from being in solitary confinement. It’s a delirium. It’s a neuropsychiatric, almost a medical and neurologic disease. What we see in humans, we also see in animals. It is the same as you can see in mammals.

In the 1950s there were some experimentation with monkeys, studying the effect of social isolation. One experiment involved taking monkeys who had been raised with other monkeys. So, they were socialized and okay. They were put in what was amounted to a solitary confinement chamber. It showed distress. One saw them repeatedly rocking and shaking. This went on and on.

They also showed a sort of ritualistic compulsive behavior and after some period of time, they brought them out and put them into a cage with other animals. These monkeys were massively impaired. They were frightened, hiding, and then they would have sudden aggression, while attacking each other. One saw very different and abnormal behavior. There was no recovery from this! One of the important clinical findings with thought requirement is, that people deprived of an adequate level stimulation become intolerant of stimulation. They overreact because they have become hyper responsive to it, they can’t stand it.

That’s why men getting out of solitary just hide in their room. They can’t stand stimulation. There has also been a study that showed that this is a reality in the brain. It was a study from the Balkan conflict, in which was looked at prisoners released from confinement. They studied on their brainwaves. Some of these men had hyper responsive reactions as spiked reactions to the visual stimulus. There were only two things different. One was the head trauma to the point of consciousness. The other was a period of time in solitary confinement. So, what we see clinically is actually confirmed by EG funder.

The documentary shows different incarcerated men who talk about the way they experience solitary confinement. However, one demonstrates very clear what it means to be isolated, without being able to get into the deeper justice process. Important here is that Sam didn’t know Who He Was and there was nobody to go with him through that process to himself. He lived a way of non-existence, without the possibility to do deeper justice to himself. His name is Sam Caison and he explains about solitary confinement:

You lose all feelings. You become immune to everything. You are not the same after spending so much time by yourself and those conditions. You don’t get who you are, you don’t come out the same person. I did eleven months in the segregation unit. And I went from there straight home. I tried to tell my mom and everybody else that I didn’t want anybody around. I got home, and there were five people there. And I felt like, there were five thousand people living. And ultimately for my first couple of months, I walked myself and my camper. I stayed in the mountains all by myself. Until my mom and everybody tried to explain to me that I wasn’t in solitary confinement anymore. And that I shouldn’t live like that. I ultimately tried to force myself to live like I was supposed to, but I didn’t know what to do. And then, when I stopped I was out of control. I didn’t know what to do with myself. I went from the most restrictive place I’ve ever been, to no restrictions at all. And ultimately, I ended up shooting somebody and coming back in prison.

Then Sam gets released again. He is hopeful and wants to make it this time. He hits the streets straight out of solitary confinement. He is supposed to survive in an existing world, from his position of non-existence. That hasn’t changed, because still nobody asked him the question: Who Are You? The system in the USA has programs but no questions. Sam only followed programs which were focused on socially appropriate behavior by community. In fact, one can say, he only learned to play a role, instead of becoming the person he is. He never learned to asked himself the question  Who Am I. And nobody asked him this question either.

He says:

One morning I’m getting released to the free world. This sentence is the first sentence that I haven’t spent 90% of my time in and say, I have done a lot of programming, I’ve got a wife and kids out there. This is the first sentence where I realized that this isn’t the life that I want to live. I’ve been in and out since I was nine. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t going home. Because the anxiety is so bad. For somebody like me, who spent most of my life locked up, it’s easier to say alright, I am going back to prison, for however many years. It’s not easy to go back to the streets. I definitely think that all the solitary time I’ve done has changed me. Maybe not permanently, but it won’t be easy to change back. I mean, as far as functioning in the real world, I think it has affected me in extreme ways. You know, it’s held for six months and I still couldn’t go in the Walmart without either being high or having a panic attack. It may just be because I’ve spent so much time out of the real world. But my honest opinion is, because I’ve spent so much time in a cell all by myself. I feel like I still carry it. But I don’t feel like it’s going to affect me as much as it has in the past. I don’t want to come back here again. All I can do is take it one at a time. Try to do the right thing, and hope that it works.

But then:

I got arrested and been sitting here in Max. thing unraveled fast and they have a half. I mean, I don’t know if it is just my segregation time, or all the time I spent locked up. But maybe I am destined to rot in a cage. I am not somebody they shouldn’t ever be left to his own thoughts. Addicts feel that the drugs call their name. I feel that that raiser calls my name. I still think that the best thing for me is treatment some kind of over, because I overanalyze everything. And I think everybody is out to get me. And then I start cutting up. I am not normal. People normally don’t dream about cutting themselves. Normal people don’t feel normal in jail.

 

 

Albert Woodfox, 73, is an activist and the author of “Solitary,” a 2019 National Book Award finalist. Known as one of the Angola Three, along with Robert King and Herman Wallace, Woodfox served nearly 44 years in solitary confinement at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. He was released in 2016.

No other person has spent such a long time in solitary confinement. Woodfox compares it with a bathroom, where one spends 23 hours a day. The other one hour one spends in a cage outside. I try to imagine the size of my bathroom, and sitting there day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade. He calls it a horrible experience. But in fact, there are no words to describe the experience. The experience transcends language. Still, he kept his sanity and even was able to maintain hope.

Woodfox felt an internal strength to endure by his mother. And he dedicated his life to the Black Panther program to better his life. That gave him a purpose. The party gave him an awaking, as he calls it. He got a sense of self-worth. The Black Panther brothers asked him the question: Who Are You? This question of the Panther Brothers, made it possible for Woodfox to ask himself: Who Am I? Through this question, he discovered that he was not the person who he had been taught he was, throughout his entire life. They made him realize that he was a decent human being, who could achieve things if given the opportunity. Woodfox discovered that in life, an event or an individual can raise one’s level of consciousness.

According to Woodfox, once your level of consciousness is raised, then you can no longer continue to be the person you were.These are interesting words from Woodfox, because they contain the same message as deeper justice does. Because, when consciousness is raised, there is no recidivism anymore. Or, as Socrates mentioned; “It is impossible to not do good when you have become conscious about it.” This shows that the process of deeper justice is the only right road. Woodfox was lucky to have his Panther brothers, who gave him the opportunity to become aware of his real Self. But this path of deeper justice has to be accessible for every incarcerated human being.

This raised consciousness made Woodfox forming schools inside prison, where he taught men to read and write. He passed through his consciousness. He says:” we taught men history, we worked to teach ourselves the law because we knew our struggle couldn’t continue to be physical, that our bodies just wouldn’t survive the constant beatings and gassings that we were going through. So, we had to take our struggle to another level. We figured the court would be the best place. And so, we had to teach ourselves the law.”

While incarcerated, Woodfox was convicted of the murder of correctional officer Brent Miller. The wife of this correctional officer had been lied to for a long time. Woodfox, now familiar with law, made her aware of facts that she had never known. It brought her to the awareness of him being innocent, and that she had been lied to.Woodfox shows that knowledge leads to true power. He doesn’t use this power to overpower other people. But he uses his knowledge in order for justice to be done. This also leads to deeper justice, because he stands for himself, takes his place in the world, and get the acknowledgement he deserves. He did this to himself, in the first place.

Standing for oneself and resisting the established order, in this case the prison system, means dealing with a lot of resistance. Woodfox underwent this resistance because he and his partners organized all kinds of strikes against unfair rules. It is amazing how they did that while being in solitary confinement. He and his fellow men were organized through letters, other kinds of messaging and examples of not being broken. Woodfox and his friends understood the words of Nietzsche, who said: “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”

Although he feels anger, Woodfox managed to stay out of a feeling of bitterness. He uses his anger now as a motivating factor for what he is accomplishing now. He continues to be a social advocate, and speaks about the horrors of solitary and other issues of the prison system. In this, Woodfox follows the foodsteps of his mother, who never became bitter throughout the years. Instead, she kept convinced that whatever situations one is given, one can make it into something better.

However, the main reason why Woodfox didn’t become bitter, is that he went through a process that made him a better man and a better human being. When people ask him what he would change, when he could do his life all over again, he simply wouldn’t change anything. The years in solitary confinement gave him the opportunity to reeducate himself, an opportunity to develop the qualities of endurance, that he never realized he had. He took the opportunity to find something that he loves to the point that he was willing to sacrifice his life. Woodfox understands that he walked the deeper justice path, and that this path can be walked independent from the circumstances.

It means that he not went to the process of consciousness because he was in solitary confinement. But he did it despite being in solitary confinement. During his time in there, there were no programs or treatments from the state or the prison. He was simply put in a cell for one reason, namely breaking his spirit. His cell was meant to be a death chamber. But he and his fellow men turned these cells into schools, debate halls and law schools. So, everything he did was on his own initiative, his own determination, his own strength. It had nothing to do with the prison.But it had everything to do with the question Who Are You.

Woodfox is not a religious person, but he is very spiritual. He believes that there was a reason for him to survive the system and its horror. He sees that he survived to build a better humanity. He wants to make other human beings aware of what is happening. Woodfox: “Every time that I give a speech, when I wrote my book, when I get an award, they lose; I win.” Woodfox knows the importance of the quest

 

Sources:

• Last days of solitary. BBC documentary. https://youtu.be/sZfcW8f2BXo
• Washington post. Magazine. By KK OttesenMarch 31, 2020.

Photos:

• Last days of solitary. BBC documentary. https://youtu.be/sZfcW8f2BXo
• Bryan Tarnowski/for The Washington Post

 

 

 

It is late in the morning, when I sit in my kitchen with coffee. I keep the curtains closed. I can’t look at it. I can’t stand looking at the big tree in my neighbor’s backyard, while it is getting cut down. I keep hearing the chainsaw, which cuts an intense pain through my soul. The penetrating sound deviates silent breaks, because the tree has to be killed step by step.

Yesterday evening, my neighbor knocked on my kitchen door. If we please could remove the car, because tomorrow the tree will be felled. The tree? That enormous big tree? It might as well had been standing in a forest. That tree has to leave? Now? Damnit, during breeding season! There are so many nests in the tree! If killing the tree is unavoidable, why not wait until after the breeding season? No, waiting is not an option. Because the tree leaves a mess and it damages the patio tiles. 

The chainsaw is cutting the branches. It feels as if my arms and legs are weakening. I take a sip of my coffee and stare into nothing. Why do I feel this intense pain inside my soul? Why am I so devastated from this? Because, well, every day trees get cut. Every day, animals die. Every day, people close their eyes forever. And well, everyday uprooted people get taken away from society and locked up in detention.

The tree. A strong symbol in so many cultures. And in so many stories. The tree holds a message about the human roots. It symbolizes being embedded. From the symbolic consciousness within me, associations are made between the tree and the current situation in human society. The tree in the backyard of my neighbor is uprooted with policy. Isn’t that the same we humans do to ourselves? Are we not uprooting ourselves with the policy of artificial systems? Ancient old cultures lived in the knowledge of being part of the whole. They were rooted in that whole. However, when human kind started to place itself above nature, it got uprooted. Because human kind is part of the same, from which it separates itself from.

The tree tells me that nature has to make room for economy. It has to go, because it damages the patio tiles. I think of a news item, yesterday on television. In that item, Trump calls to inject chemical agents into to body, in order to fight the covid-19 virus. The virus has to leave, so the artificial systems can start up again. Because otherwise, Trump might lose the elections without a well running economy. And when he loses the elections, he loses that horny power he craves so much.

Symbolically, my brains connect felling the tree with the uprooted man in the time of Corona. It seems as if humanity finds itself in between two paradigms. The old is gone forever, while the new hasn’t yet arrived. In this phase of in between, one tries to save what can be saved from the old familiar world. However, Corona hunts people back into their houses, and it destroys their artificial systems. At the same time, nature is involved in the orgasm of spring. Like every year. Unattached.

Tonight, the tree will be gone. Tonight, the patio tiles can be restored. I look through the front window of my kitchen door. I see the neighbor passing by. Carrying her grocery bag in her hand. 

Andrew zit in solitary. Het voelt alsof hij van de aardbodem verdwenen is. Elke vorm van communicatie is weggevallen. Alleen brieven zijn nog mogelijk. Brieven die er minimaal twee weken over doen om hem te bereiken. Ze zijn een week onderweg naar de gevangenis in Amerika. Vervolgens duurt het nog een week, en soms langer, voordat ze ook daadwerkelijk in zijn bezit zijn. Twee weken. In twee weken gebeurt zoveel. Hoe accuraat zijn mijn gedachten nog na twee weken? Sommige gedachten zijn niet aan tijd gebonden. Dat zijn gedachten die van tijd tot tijd met me meereizen op mijn levenspad. Het zijn mijn filosofische gedachten. Gedachten die voor mijn tijd ook al gedacht werden door anderen. Gedachten die buiten de tijd staan. Ze zijn niet van mij. Ze wandelen een eindje mee, om vervolgens hun weg naar andere denkers te gaan. Ik denk ze in mijn eigen kleur en binnen mijn eigen beperkte tijd in de wereld. Ik kneed ze tot mijn persoonlijke gedachten. Ik slijp ze fijn. Andere gedachten zijn van tijdelijke aard. Wat heeft het voor zin ze te delen met iemand die ze pas kan lezen op het moment dat ik ze alweer vergeten ben?Andrew is weg. Email is stilgevallen. Geen filmpjes meer. Geen spanning ook. Omdat hij niet meer op de gekste momenten kan proberen te bellen met een illegale cellphone, die hij voor even te pakken heeft. Ik lees oude e-mails en kijk naar zijn foto’s. Ik kijk en luister naar zijn kleine videoboodschappen. Wie zie ik? Wie spreekt er? Hij zegt dat hij van me houdt. Verder weet hij niets te zeggen. Wat moet je zeggen, als je geen contact hebt met het gewone dagelijkse leven? Als je niet weet hoe het is om verantwoordelijkheid te dragen voor je doen en laten in de vrije wereld? Wat moet je zeggen, als jouw wereld er een is met andere codes? Codes die ik niet kan begrijpen. Codes die ik niet eens mag begrijpen. Codes die angstvallig verborgen worden gehouden, onder de mantel der “ik houd van jou”. Weet Andrew wat houden van betekent? Of spreekt hij uit automatisme? De woorden ik houd van jou worden zo gemakkelijk en gedachteloos gebezigd. Weet ik wat houden van betekent? Bestaat het eigenlijk wel? Of is houden van de ander niet meer dan een houden van een onbewust deel van jezelf, dat je in de ander weerspiegeld ziet? Andrew is in solitary. Bewakers voerden hem, geboeid en wel, weg van de weinige communicatiemiddelen die we tot onze beschikking hadden. Hij laat niet eens een lege plek achter in mijn leven. Hij was daar nooit. Het enige dat veranderd is, is de akoestiek in mijn hart. Ik hoor meer echo.Andrew zit in solitary. Omdat hij gepakt is met drugs, een wapen en een illegale mobiele telefoon. Dat van die illegale telefoon is zeker, want daarmee had hij die middag Julia gebeld. Of hij ook drugs en een wapen bij zich had? Ik weet het niet. Het is wennen om te leven met de vele mysteriën waar het systeem in doordrenkt is. Je weet nooit iets zeker, en zowel het systeem als de gevangenen zijn niet betrouwbaar. Of eigenlijk, er zit een gat tussen de communicatiecodes van het systeem en haar gevangenen, en die van het gewone leven met hun gedetineerde geliefden.Ik moet denken aan de manier waarop in de Middeleeuwen straffen werden uitgevoerd. Het is dezelfde manier waarop in landen als Saoedi-Arabië nog steeds wordt gestraft. Als je fout bent, dan gaat je hoofd er af. En publiek. Iedereen moet komen kijken. Wij, westerlingen, gruwelen bij de gedachte. Daarom werd in onze Westerse wereld het panopticum bedacht. Een architectonisch principe beschreven door de Engelse Verlichtingsfilosoof Jeremy Bentham in 1791. Het panopticon maakt het mogelijk groepen mensen te controleren, te disciplineren en te bewaken. Een voorbeeld van een panopticon is de koepelgevangenis. Het panopticon hoort bij een geordende maatschappij die alles zichtbaar maakt en beheerst. Het doet denken aan George Orwell aan de totale controle die hij beschrijft in zijn boek 1984. Ook in de Amerikaanse gevangenis is alles van de gedetineerde zichtbaar. Zelfs zijn toiletbezoek, want de pot staat gewoon in de cel. Dus als je moet poepen mag je hopen dat je celgenoot er niet wakker van wordt. En wordt hij toch wakker, dan mag je hopen dat hij niet kwaad wordt en je tegen de grond werkt. Alles is zichtbaar, zou je denken. Maar het machtsmisbruik door personeel, en de levensgevaarlijke hiërarchie binnen de populatie gedetineerden, is zo onzichtbaar als maar zijn kan. Je kunt van alles uitvreten, heersen over anderen, zonder dat dit zichtbaar is. Voor de buitenwereld dan.  Het panopticon functioneert in instellingen die mensen vormen en socialiseren. De het gevangenissystteem heeft er een mooie slogan voor, namelijk “Inspiring Success by transforming one life at a time”. Daarbij noemen ze de sleutelwoorden: safety, accountability, fairness &integrity, innovation. Hoe in de vredesnaam moet ik deze sleutelwoorden zien in het licht van solitary? Wat is daar zo integer aan? Hoe veilig is een straf die in feite een vorm is van pure mishandeling? Ben je als systeem betrouwbaar als je straffen inzet, die na wetenschappelijk onderzoek beschadigend blijken te zijn voor de mens? Welke les valt er te leren voor Andrew, als hij voor een paar maanden in de isoleer wordt gegooid, en een uurtje per dag in de kooi mag luchten? Als hij voor de rest van de tijd langzaam gek mag worden door het gebrek aan prikkels uit de omgeving? Hoe moet Andrew transformeren tot een integer persoon, als hij niks krijgt aangeboden om te rehabiliteren? Als ik kijk naar de principes waarop het panopticon rust, doet me dat sterk denken aan de isolatie van Andrew. Een principe hiervan is individualisering. Elke bewoner heeft een vaste plaats, ziet geen medebewoners en heeft geen contact. Een ander principe van het mechanisme van het panopticon is de asymmetrische machtsrelatie van de gedetineerde met zijn bewaker. De afdeling is zo geconstrueerd dat de bewaker de celbewoners ziet, maar zij hem niet. Sterker nog, zij vermoeden zijn aanwezigheid alleen maar. De onzichtbare macht is altijd aanwezig, het is de in-en uitademing van het systeem. Het systeem ademt macht in, door het ontvangen van belastinggeld, betaald door de zich veilig wanende inwoners van Amerika. Het ademt macht uit, naar de zich verrijkende machtige ondernemingen.  Het systeem wordt gevoed met haar 2.2 miljoen gedetineerden. Een biologisch macrosysteem, dat functioneert als het microsysteem dat het menselijk lichaam is.

Machtsmaximalisering is ook een principe van het panopticon, waarbij het onnodig is dat er permanent een bewaker is. Het besef dat je gecontroleerd kan worden, verzekert rust en orde. Mensen passen hun gedrag aan, omdat zij gezien worden. In hun beleving vindt de alomtegenwoordigheid van controle plaats. Deze ‘machtsmachine’ verschuift de macht van de sterkste naar de slimste.  Foucault schreef erover. En tijdens mijn college over deze filosoof, hoorde ik dat het panopticum een machtsmiddel is, waarbij een klein aantal machtige mensen het overgrote deel uitgeleverden onder controle houdt. De gruwelijke straffen die in de Middeleeuwen op het dorpsplein plaatsvonden, blijven achter de muren van het panopticon in het verborgene. Wij, Westerlingen, kunnen dan doen alsof het niet bestaat. Want we zien het toch niet. Immers, wie heeft gezien dat Andrew in elkaar werd geslagen door bewakers, toen hij probeerde toegang te krijgen tot een rehabilitatieprogramma? Hij werd mishandeld omdat rehabilitatie voor gedetineerden, een regelrechte bedreiging vormt voor de ademhaling van het systeem. Stel dat gedetineerden herstellen, en inzicht krijgen in hun daad? Stel dat gedetineerden en masse worden gerehabiliteerd? Dan stokt de ademhaling, omdat het belastinggeld niet langer in grote bedragen binnenkomt. En wie voorziet de grote bedrijven als Jpay of Secures dan van hun macht en rijkdom? Wie heeft gezien dat de verpleegkundige haar ontslag nam, nadat ze de gruwelijke wonden had verzorgd die zijn bewakers hem hadden bezorgd? En wie is ervan op de hoogte dat de verpleegkundige geen aangifte durfde te doen, uit angst voor represailles uit haar omgeving? Een omgeving van waaruit veel van haar collega’s werken in de gevangenis. De enorme instituten, tegenwoordig ook warehouses genoemd, staan vaak bij kleine onbeduidende dorpen. Het systeem zorgt voor werkgelegenheid, in gebieden die anders een torenhoge werkeloosheid zouden kennen. De jonge correctional officer volgt in de voetsporen van vader, oom, opa. Je gaat niet klagen over een systeem dat zorgt voor brood op de plank. Je doet geen aangifte. Je kijkt wel uit. Niemand heeft het gezien. Het is dus niet gebeurd. Het mysterie is onaangetast gebleven. Adem in. Adem uit. Het panopticum functioneert prima. Ik vraag me af wat het meest ethisch verantwoord is. Je kop eraf op het dorpsplein? Gewoon, zonder versluiering? Laten zien wat er gebeurt als je fout bent? Of mensen in elkaar trimmen, terwijl ze in de boeien zitten, verborgen achter muren, in alle geslotenheid? De codes van het gesloten gevangenissysteem in Amerika. Ik begrijp ze niet. Volgens mij is het nog gemakkelijker om Chinees te leren. Ook die taal bestaat uit volstrekt andere codes en tekens dan die uit mijn taal, maar er hangt in ieder geval geen mysterie omheen. Wie liegt en wie spreekt de waarheid? Ik heb veel vragen gesteld aan zijn classification officer. Julia heeft de zoveelste poging gedaan om duidelijkheid te krijgen. Mogelijk waren er te veel vragen, waardoor het mysterie van het systeem in gevaar kwam. En is Andrew met smoesjes in de isoleer gegooid. Wij moeten onze mond houden, en zo niet, dan worden we gestraft via onze geliefden.

Andrew zit opgesloten. Hij zit in de gevangenis van de gevangenis. In een hok. Mijn vriend zit 23 uur per dag in een hok, en 1 uur per dag mag hij naar buiten. Dan gaat hij luchten in een kooi. Ik denk aan mijn labrador. Zij heeft meer bewegingsvrijheid. Gaat elke dag twee uur rennen in de uiterwaarden van de rivier. Mijn lieve vriend zit in een hok. Ik kan het me gewoon niet voorstellen. Ik blijf het proberen. En steeds voel ik die gruwelijke pijn vanbinnen. Pijn rondom mijn hart. Een knoop in mijn maag. Woede in mijn hoofd. Verborgen tranen die maar niet uit mijn ogen willen stromen. Mijn liefste vriend. In een hok. Mijn liefste vriend. In een kooi. In plaats van in mijn armen. Godverdomme. Van zijn classification officer krijg ik te horen dat hij nog niet is gehoord, en dat Andrew ongeveer 2250 uur in solitary zal verblijven. 2250 Uur, dat zijn 94 dagen. Drie maanden, dus. Drie maanden geen dagelijks email verkeer. Drie maanden geen kans om via een illegale cellphone zijn stem te horen. De laatste keer dat hij mij belde zat ik in mijn tentamen ethiek. Hij had me de hele middag geprobeerd te bellen, en ik was de hele middag bezig geweest met ethiek. Vanuit een systeem dat verstoken is van enige ethiek, probeert hij contact te krijgen met de vrouw die op dat moment een tentamen ethiek zit te maken. Hoe cynisch wil je het hebben. Op het laatst had hij een bericht ingesproken. Een bericht van 18 seconden, waarin zijn stem zei dat hij me miste, maar het zou blijven proberen. Een stem die verdrietig klonk. Teleurgesteld. Ook, een stem die al twintig jaar het contact kwijt is met de dagelijkse beslommeringen uit het gewone leven. En dus niet begrijpt dat ik niet altijd kan opnemen als de telefoon gaat. Tegelijkertijd is uitleggen niet te doen. Ooit probeerde ik het een keer in een e-mail. Hij schrok zich rot toen hij zich realiseerde dat het dagelijks leven met gewone zaken hem niets zei. Hij kwam er niet op terug. Het was te ver weg. Na zijn telefoontje van 18 seconden hoorde ik niets meer. De volgende dag las ik nog een blije email. Blij, omdat de kiosk eindelijk was gerepareerd en we weer konden emaillen. Het zou de laatste email zijn in maanden. Maar waarom, verdomme, ben je weer gaan rotzooien met medegevangenen? Waarom moest je zo nodig ‘business doen’? Waarom? We waren onze plannen aan het smeden. We waren samen bezig met teksten schrijven. We waren bezig met uitgevers voor je boek. Je zei dat je eindelijk weer doelen in je leven had, door onze liefde en onze plannen. Wat betekenden die woorden voor jou? Een momentane oprisping? Hoe in de godsnaam, krijg je ooit het systeem uit jezelf? Die slogan van Warchild is op Andrew van toepassing. Hoe krijg je het kind uit de oorlog en hoe krijg je de oorlog uit het kind? Hoe krijg ik Andrew uit het systeem en hoe ik krijg ik het systeem uit Andrew? Deradicaliseren is bij Andrew de-institutionaliseren. Wat was zoveel waard tijdens het zogenaamde business doen, dat je onze communicatie en onze geplande visite ervoor in de waagschaal legde? Hij wist wat er op het spel stond. Als er iemand de klappen van het systeem kent, is het Andrew wel. Letterlijk! Misschien ben ik gewoon een afleiding voor het moment. Misschien kan ik nooit opboksen tegen de voorspelbaarheid en de gewoonten die het systeem hem biedt. Misschien wil hij de rest van zijn leven in de bak slijten. Dan weet hij in ieder geval waar hij aan toe is. Er zijn er die daarvoor kiezen, nadat ze zich er volledig mee hebben geïdentificeerd. Ik snap het gewoon niet, en ik kan het hem niet vragen.

Ik weet nog dat ik die documentaire keek, Last day of solitary. Daarin zag ik wat het doet met mensen, wanneer ze voor langere tijd geïsoleerd zijn, van hun medemensen en van dagelijkse prikkels. Een man werd na jaren solitary vrijgelaten. Hij kwam thuis bij zijn ouders en nog drie andere familieleden. Hij had het gevoel in een vol voetbalstadion terecht te zijn gekomen en kon de prikkels niet verdragen. Hij kocht een oude caravan en verborg zich in de natuur. Daar verbleef de man een half jaar, totdat zijn ouders hem kwamen halen. Ze overtuigden hem ervan dat hij niet langer in solitary zat, en dat het tijd werd om het gewone leven op te pakken. Hij ging met zijn ouders mee naar huis, kon zich niet meer aanpassen, ging de fout in, en belandde opnieuw in de gevangenis. Huilend bekende de man dat hij niet meer in staat was om zich te voegen in het dagelijks sociale verkeer.

Hij realiseerde zich dat de gevangenis de enige plek was waar hij zich kon handhaven. “Inspiring Success by transforming one life at a time” Ik vraag me af in hoeverre Andrew al geïnfecteerd is door het systeem. Ik weet het niet, en maak me zorgen. Nee, ik kan hem niet transformeren. Dat moet hij zelf doen. Buiten wordt het langer licht. Andrew zit vast. Langzaam gaat de temperatuur omhoog. Andrew zit vast. De vogels beginnen ’s morgens te fluiten. Andrew zit vast. De bomen, planten en bloemen gaan in de knop. Andrew zit vast. Terwijl de gehele natuur om mij heen opgaat in een orgastische lente, zit mijn geliefde Andrew vast. Ik zal de lente zien losbarsten terwijl mijn hart vast zit. Vast in solitary. Vragen. Ik heb vragen. Over 156 dagen komt er misschien een antwoord.

(namen zijn gefingeerd)

 

Preface

The Dutch philosopher Maarten Doorman acknowledges an obsession concerning authenticity, in current society. For example, we are not searching for sport shoes, but we want real Nikes. Or, we don’t go to Starbucks for a coffee, but for an authentic Starbucks. Doorman redirects this obsession to the work of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. According to Doorman, we desire for the real, the natural, the authentic, since the times of Rousseau.

In an article of the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, Doorman writes that this strive to authenticity has raised, because of an increase of the use of social media. On these media, we try to present ourselves on an authentic way. Doorman calls this a “directed authenticity.” According to Doorman, thinking is secondary, strategical, and therefore inauthentic.  This is, contrary to feeling which is primary and therefore authentic. Doorman emphasizes that our obsession with authenticity is paradoxical, because this obsession removes us from it, while we try to reach it on a calculating way.

According to Rousseau, man has alienated himself from his being, when he decided to live together in communities, and civilization made its appearance. Rousseau distinct natural man from civilized man, which show the same paradox Doorman sees. Namely, Rousseau considers natural man as authentic, and civilized man as inauthentic. However, to find back our authenticity, he doesn’t call us to a return to the situation of natural man. Instead he appeals to modern man, to commit himself to the inner natural man, because the natural man represents the non-rational feeling which is authentic.

In the essay, I will search for the meaning of authenticity according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through my research I want to discover why Doorman redirects the current obsession with authenticity to the work of Rousseau. My claim reads: Modern man is not able to find his authentic being, because he tries to find it on an inauthentic way, which makes him stay stuck in a paradox.

The paragraphs in my essay show three opposites, which will end in the paradox of authenticity. The first opposite describes feeling as being authentic versus thinking being inauthentic. Following by a deepening in the distinct between civilized man, natural man and the characteristics of authenticity. Subsequently, I describe authenticity as existing from good as well as evil fundamental characteristics. Finally, it gets clear that the paradox of authenticity is reflected in the social dynamics in society. The obsession with finding authenticity in society, reflects the lost connection with the authentic being inside man.

Feeling versus thinking

Within philosophy, authenticity is about the extent to which somebody is faithful to his own nature, despite external impulses. Rousseau refers to this when he says: “Everything reinforces my heart, the tendencies that it naturally had.” , and, “nothing more matched my nature than the quiet and withdrawn profession of a good craftsman.” Rousseau characterizes himself as a person who acts in accordance with his own desires, motives, ideals and beliefs. They are not only of his own, but they also express who he really is. This is about authenticity, as the idea that in a way some things are ‘you’, or express who you are, and who others are not.

This concern, for both Rousseau as Doorman, the fact that feeling is preliminary to thought, and with that it is authentic. Rousseau says; “I have only one faithful guide I can count on, namely the series of feelings which have determined my development, and second, the series of happenings which have caused these feelings or are the results from them.” This means that feeling is surrounded by thinking and by extern impulses, but in itself it is authentic. According to Rousseau, only feeling is a loyal guide, because of its authenticity. Only after that, he values the causes and results of feeling.

We express our feelings on a nonverbal way, like art or music. Rousseau mentions that only the results of feelings can be described. Only what they generate can be put in words. This means that a description of the authentic is never the authentic itself. In other words, we are forced to use our inauthentic thinking, when we want to say something about authenticity. This way, we seem not able to escape from what Doorman calls “directed authenticity”. This directed authenticity occurs, when authenticity is mistaken for the description of authenticity. Hence, we seem unable to escape the fact that we only can describe authenticity on an inauthentic way. According to Rousseau, we need to turn inside to be authentic. We have to focus on the soul. Because she is independent from faith. Hence, she is not influenced by the necessities. Therefore, her impressions are unique.

This means, that authenticity should not be searched in the extern world. Instead, only what is not influenced by faith, is authentic. Hence, that what is influenced by extern impulses, is necessarily inauthentiek. Thus, when man searches for authenticity on an obsessive way, on social media, he will not find it there. The lack of connection with the soul, and the sense of unhappiness associated with it, could be translated to the words of Doorman about man in current society: “We live in a period of boredom and nostalgia. Ideals are obsolete, and classical meaningfulness has become problematic through secularization, and we miss the clarity of past decades. People have this feeling that history is over, and therefore they desire more to an assumed reality in the existence experienced as an orphan. A reality which once was there but has vanished.

In this quote, Doorman calls the problematizing of meaningfulness, by secularization. Interesting here, is that, according to the dictionary, the word religion stems from the word religare, which means connection to Divinity. In the light of Rousseau’s approach of the soul, one could say that modern man lost the connection with the authentic soul. I see a resemblance with what Doorman calls the existence experienced as an orphan.

Natural man versus civilized man

The absence of resemblances with one another is an important element in authenticity, according to Rousseau. He makes a distinction here, between natural man and civilized man, which will be discussed further in this text. About natural man he writes: “Natural man is indifferent towards the self-love: the need to compare himself with the other, before he can be satisfied with himself, does not exist for this man. “, and, “The inequality, the fact that he is stronger, more beautiful, more intelligent than the other, has no influence on the behavior of natural man, because he doesn’t care about how he will be valued by others. This shows the paradox within the obsession for the quest for authenticity. Because on social media the quest to authenticity gets colored by the comparing element. The possibility, for instance to “like” on social media, expresses a desire for acknowledgement.

Rousseau sees a distinct between natural man and civilized man. I quote: “natural man and the civilized man are essential different. Everything should be attuned to their essences. But what to do when both essences are in conflict with each other? What if one not raises a human for himself, but for the other’s sake?” This quote makes clear that Rousseau sees natural man authentic, because he gets raised for himself. The civilized man, however, expresses the element of comparison, that contradicts authenticity.

He illustrates this distinction with the following quote: “The natural man is everything for himself, he is the unity in number, the absolute oneness, who is only related to himself or what is equal to him.” The citizen is merely a broken number, who is bound to his denominator, and whose value is determined by the relation to the whole, by the civilized organism.”From his natural state man is a whole, while the civilized man is only part of the whole. Thereby, civilized man is not according his own nature, thus not authentic.

However, Rousseau himself experienced an authentic unity between his lover and him, and says: “ Without noticing we became inseparable, and we arranged our existence on a mutual way, while we felt that we were not only essential to each other but we were each other sufficient, and we got used to not thinking of things outside us, and we limited our happiness and desires to this mutual and among humans unique possession, that, like I mentioned before, is not the possession of love, but of somethings more essential which, without dependency from desires, sex, age of body, was connected to everything that makes one oneself, and what one cannot loose without ending being himself.”

In this Passage, Rousseau draws out life according its own nature, which can exist in between people, when the mutual dynamic connects to the original nature of man. Both lovers are each other sufficient, and they seek meaning within their mutual existence. The lovers are not connected through characteristics, but through authenticity that lies beneath that. Hence, it is possible to be connected with one another on an authentic way.

Rousseau mentions that one stops existing, when one loses or denies his nature. According to this idea, the obsession with authenticity, colored by rational thinking, would be an expression of people not existing anymore, because they deny their own nature. Namely, in the eyes of Rousseau it is difficult to stay faithful to one’s own nature. This would mean that there are only a few authentic people. Again, I see why Doorman refers to Rousseau, when he illustrates the obsession with authenticity. After all, when a lot of people deny their nature by calculating thinking, it makes sense that a lot are searching for it.

About these people Rousseau says: “One time, a tempted man will resist because he is strong, another time he will fail out of weakness. Would he have been the same as before, he would not have failed. ” Hence, an authentic human being doesn’t fail, because he stays faithful to his immutable nature. Only the unfaithful human being collapses by the external impulses. Modern society is soaked in external impulses, including the worldwide web. Man stands for the big challenge to be authentic, while temptation to move away from it, is present everywhere.

Non-rational versus rational

Rousseau seems to search for the authentic human being through the non-rational. He digs beneath language and reason to the natural human being, who enjoys a way of existence, on non-rational and nonlinguistic way, and who puts in touch with our existence, in other words with what we are. Rousseau illustrates this when he mentions that he thinks in images. As mentioned before in this text, the authentic feeling is not to be put in words. Images are also preverbal, and so they are non-rational. By exposing the sequence of thoughts and memories in images, Rousseau shows that he himself is searching for natural man.

Nevertheless, finding authenticity doesn’t mean the disappearance of inauthenticity. On this subject Doorman notes: “He who wants to be real, by definition he is not, because with the awareness of that desire the inauthenticity is there too, like day only exists because the existence of the night and like with birth our death is an inevitable fact.” This means that man is naturally a paradox, because he exists from both authenticity and inauthenticity. In other words, man exist both from the non-rational natural man and the civilized citizen.

However, according to thinkers like Nietzsche and Freud, we need the rational citizen to be able to act on a moral right way. These thinkers doubt the concept of human nature as a fundamental good. From their “hermeneutic of distrust” (Ricoeur 1970), human nature is seen as including violent forces, disorder and unreason, but also as including tendencies of prosperity and altruism. In that case, every idea of an ethical based primary ideal of authenticity is unreachable. According to these philosophers it would be wrong when we assume that interior is a moral valuable guide.

Namely, this assumption is strongly attempting and builds upon an exaggerated optimistically idea of human nature. When the idea of rational liberation has been set aside, the powerful impact of the non-rational gets visible. The current obsession with authenticity, could be translated to a desire to become liberated from the rational. However, according to Nietzsche and Freud, this liberation would mean that we get confronted with both the moral and the immoral characteristics.

Paradox of authenticity

Hence, Nietzsche and Freud see immoral characteristics as immanent in the human being. Therefore, authenticity cannot be seen as an ethical ideal. Rousseau also internalizes the origin of evil when he declares:” Fools, you who complain about nature continuously, learn that all your aliments come out of yourselves. At the same time he believes in the virtue of man and criticize the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who started from the idea of a natural state wherein the human being is intrinsic evil. According to Doorman, this means that he doesn’t want to return to the former state of nature, but he appeals to a moral that leads to authenticity.

According to Rousseau, these immanent characteristics get activated by the dynamics of modern society. He sees a connection between different ways of being, and their expressions caused by experienced impressions in reality. Unnoticed, these sensory impressions influence our ideas, feelings and actions. The authentic self-relationship of the original human being, inspires to sympathy and affected relationships with others, whereby one is sensitive for “the look at the sensitive essential”, which the human being is. The human being is especially sensitive for this in his relationship with his loved ones. Suffer by loved ones inspires the human being, because this suffer is also his own suffering.

According to Rousseau this self-relationship unfolds to virtue. Virtue expresses itself in a concern for the fellow human, without the presence of individual interests. True virtue only acts from an independency from its own capacities. From this true virtue, a human being only desires what is in his own power. Here, Rousseau describes virtue as an authentic virtue. There seems to be a connection between behaving from this authentic virtue and the authentic self-relationship, where it is based on. Behaving from authentic virtue, which is thus based on self-relationship, leads to authentic relationships in society.

Nevertheless, we stay behind with the tension between moral and self-realization. Nor Kant, nor Hegel, nor the tradition of authenticity (Schiller, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger) succeeded in finding a solution for this field of tension. However, I cannot shake off the impression, that Rousseau actually managed to solve this field of tension between self-realization and moral, because he considers both as intrinsic elements. After all, the social moral can be seen as a reflection of authentic virtue, which is immanent.

Social morality exists from both the authentic and inauthentic behavior. Authentic behavior is based on self-realization. At the same time, inauthentic behavior is based on comparation with the other and seeking for acknowledgement outside oneself. The best we can hope for is the awareness of the complexity and the ambiguity of our inner lives. From this awareness we should develop a practical wisdom or moral common sense, and a reflexive ability to judgement, which allows us to find a balance between the contraction of morality versus self-realization.

According to Rousseau it is about finding the right balance between both. He sees that the sensitivity of our hearts is a product of nature and our constitution. However, without her environment she cannot develop herself. Without the environment a human being is not able to get to know his own true nature. This is nevertheless a big challenge which ask for a great amount of self-discipline. The concept autonomy, according to Rousseau, exist mostly from the development of a capacity for something like “ego-integration”. This means that, although this is radicalized in his book Emile, the direction that someone gives to his life comes from within. It asks an enormous amount of self-discipline, because impulses have to be suppressed, when one wants to follow his self-chosen path.

Hence, it seems that immanent characteristics are activated by social dynamic. At the same time, society is formed by people, and so the extern impulses of society are in fact reflections of the interior of human kind. The authentic human being who is faithful to his own nature, is able to translate the social dynamic into the inner dynamic, because he is aware of the reflection. His sensitivity for competition and the need for social acknowledgement, will continue for as long he is not aware of his inner dynamic, because he will go on trying to solve on the outside what needs to be solved on the inside.

The obsession with authenticity in the outer world is a dynamic that resonates with the desire of self-realization within. For as long a human being searches for this by rational thinking, he will never discover his true nature. That way he will stay imprisoned in the paradox of authenticity, because he seeks on a rational way what only can be found through the non-rational. Rousseau doesn’t reject society, but he dares the human being to connect again with the non-rational natural man. We don’t need to go back to the former state of nature. We only have to realize that we exist from both natural man and civilized citizen, be aware of the paradox of authenticity that comes with that, and transform it into a positive balance.

Conclusion

Doorman sees an obsession with authenticity in current society, which is reinforced by social media. He speaks therefore about a directed authenticity, because it is directed by strategic thinking. Within this directed authenticity it is clear that people compare themselves with one another, and they seek for acknowledgement to each other. Especially social media shows this mechanism. This, while for Rousseau the absence of comparison, and the independency of social acknowledgement are elements of authenticity. According to Doorman, thinking is inauthentic, contrary to feeling which is prior to thinking. Like him, Rousseau describes feeling as authentic, because it is without words and it is non-rational. That is why Rousseau seeks for the preverbal and non-rational, or in other words the natural man, in the human being. The rational citizen seems to have lost this connection, which is to be translated to an obsession with finding it back again.

However, this search shows a paradox within authenticity, because authenticity means being faithful to one’s own nature, despite extern impulses. The obsession with authenticity leads instead to inauthenticity, because it is based on the extern impulses, like social media. With this obsession Doorman refers to Rousseau, because he blames this alienation from human nature to the moment man went to live together. However, with that Rousseau only refers to the loss of the connection with the inner natural human being. He does not mean that we should go back to the former state of nature. However, only when there’s is found a balance between natural man and civilized citizen, in the interior of man, he can start living from his authentic nature in society. The obsession with authenticity is in fact a cry for help to find natural human inside again. Nevertheless, for as long man tries to find authenticity through inauthentic thinking, he will stay captured in the paradox of authenticity.

Bibliography

Primary literature

 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Bekentenissen. Vertaald door Leo van Maris. Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & van Gennep, 2008.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile of over de opvoeding. Vertaald door Anneke Brassinga.        Amsterdam: Boom, 2012.

Secondary literature

Anderson, Joel. “The persistence of authenticity.” Philosophy & social criticism, 21, no. 1 (1995): 101-109.

Berkeljon, Sara. “Authenticiteit is nep,” de Volkskrant, february 25, 2012.

Doorman, Maarten. Rousseau en ik. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2012.

Guignon, Charles & Varga, Somogy. Authenticity. In Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, (September 11, 2014). https://stanford.edu/entries/authenticity.

Marks, Jonathan. “Misreading one’s sources: Charles Taylor’s Rousseau.” American Journal of political science, 49, no.1 (2005): 119-134.

Wikipedia s.v. “Authenticiteit,” laatst bewerkt 8 februari, 2019, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticiteit.

Errant voices

About the gap in the testimonies of Auschwitz

Preface

Symbolic language, like poetry or art, expresses what cannot be said in words directly. For instance, when a poem is recited, something else seem to express itself through the poet. I think that something similar is happening in the theory of Giorgio Agamben, when he describes the gap in the testimonies of Auschwitz. I wonder what Agamben means with this gap, and whether it is also the case of something else expressing itself through, in this case, the witness. My query in this essay is: wat exactly does Giorgio Agamben means with the gap in the testimonies of Auschwitz?

By following Agamben on his research to insights in this gap, in The remnants of Auschwitz, I hope to get more understanding of that other, that resonates through the witness. I will stay close to the subject of Agamben, which means that I will only look specifically at the testimonies of Auschwitz. I will first research what Agamben means with this gap. In his research, he involves a contradiction. Namely the one between phoné, which means voice, and logos, which stand for meaningful language. Agamben connects the essential human being to phoné, while connecting the linguistic human being to logos.

Subsequently, he searches for the connection between these two opposites. This connection seems to express something that is absent in the testimonies, but at the same time, it seems to sound through them. With that, I get to the terms subjectification and de-subjectification, because Agamben shows how something else resonates through us, via the subject. The subject gets, so to speak, de-subjectificated. In this case, this “something else” is the everyday prisoner in Auschwitz. He was called “the Musselman”. The Muselmann was the human being who comply with the ultimate goal of the Shoah, namely to die.

In Auschwitz, the Muselmann was reduced to naked life. According to Agamben this means a life that is human, but it is no longer capable of claiming human rights. This means this life is potentially exposed to violence. This also means, that the Musselman was not capable of testifying. Nevertheless, the Musselman testifies without words, through the survivors. He testifies from non-language, which at the same time seem to show an impossibility to testify. According to Agamben, this impossibility is precisely the gap in these specific testimonies,

Gap

The testimonies about the truth of what has happened in the camps, are not traceable to the reel elements they are based on, because this truth is simply unimaginable. According to Wittgenstein, only facts which we can imagine, can be presented by valuable propositions. This means, that only the statements about natural sciences can be said. Statements concerning personal experiences are excluded. This means, that the truth about what happened in Auschwitz, cannot be presented by valuable propositions.

Agamben speaks about the aporia of Auschwitz, enabling a seemingly unsolvable impasse in these testimonies. With this he refers to the account that the experiences transcend the facts. Hence, there seems to be a chasm between experience and fact. According to Agamben, the testimonies show a gap. Regarding above conclusion, Primo Levi says that the witnesses are necessarily the survivors of Auschwitz. These witnesses survived the camp because they benefited from privileges. A regular prisoner wasn’t able to testify about his fate, simply because he could impossible survive the circumstances.

These regular prisoners in Auschwitz were called Muselmänner. They belonged to, what Agamben calls the grey zone; a zone in which ethical and legislative categories get mixed up. This zone is formed by subjective guilt and objective innocence. According the analysis of Hegel, there is evidence of subjective guilt and innocence, because we are responsible for the things we do. However, according to ancient philosophy, objective guilt and innocence means, that one truly did what one did, in the objective reality.

This means, there is no verdict to deliver within the grey zone. That makes the grey zone a so called “non-responsibility-zone”. An example of the grey zone is the sonderkommando in Auschwitz. This kommando existed from groups of random appointed, strong looking prisoners. Under the surveillance of the SS, they were forced to help misleading other prisoners. This means, that a prisoner was the victim of the regime. At the same time, he was an offender within the camp. This way, nobody could be held accountable. De Muselmänner belonged to that grey zone, because they as well were not able to judge. According to Levi, they haven’t spoken by themselves. Hence, the true witnesses of Auschwitz, the Muselmänner, have never testified. This means that its value derives from what is essentially missing.

Namely, the true witnesses have perished.Therefore, it seems, as if the ones who do testify, testify by mandate. However, according to Levi this is not true, because he who perishes, has nothing to say. This means that the witness only testifies that it is impossible to testify.

Contradiction

In order to testify, one needs the possibility of speech. Nevertheless, the Muselmann was no longer able to speak, because he was reduced to naked life. Agamben finds this mechanism of naked life in the theory from Carl Schmitt, about the legitimacy of the exceptional state. This legitimacy reduces all kinds of layers of society into the position of lawlessness; of declared outlaws who can be murdered with impunity. According to Agamben, naked life is human, but it is no longer eligible for human rights, like the right of testifying. After all, he has no longer access to logos. Remarkable here, is that the linguistic competence of the Muselmann shows a reversed image of the child, that is not yet able to speak meaningful.

Levi shows this reversal in linguistic skills, when he mentions Hurbinek, a small child in Auschwitz. In Hurbinek, the potential of speech has to become actualized. Therefore, Hurbinek testifies trough the words of Levi. This shared testimony shows that the personal experiences transcend the linguistic competence. With that, Agamben comes to a contradiction, namely phoné versus logos. According to Wittgenstein, contradictions form the boundaries of language and thought, and with that, the boundaries of the world. Agamben tries to find the right middle within these boundaries.

Phoné stands for voice, or the direct experience. Hegel sees the directness, or non- linguistic experience, as a perfect element, in which the interior is as exterior, as the exterior is interior.Logos on the other hand, refers to meaningful language and the human being as a linguistic being. Agamben searches for the connection between these two opposites. The direct voice, which coincide with subjective experience, the phoné, is called Voice by Aristotle. The Voice of Hurbinek expresses more than the logos with which Levi tries to catch it.

This ‘more’ is the non-language where the gap exists from. It is the part that Levi cannot put in words. Meaning, the witnesses are not able to testify to a gap. They can only testify to the inability to get the Voice into the logos. This inability expresses itself in the fact, that each testimony exists from two people, namely the survivor and the Muselmann. In other words, the testimonies exist from logos and Voice. Voice tries to come to significance in logos. However, the gap in the testimonies, exist from the inability of experience to come to significance in logos.

Subjectification versus desubjectification

Within the distinct between subjectification and desubjectification, Agamben connects the essential human to the Voice and the linguistic human to logos. Hence, speaking about subjectification means that the linguistic human identifies with logos. By taking the word, the speaker surrenders to the structure of language. With that, Voice get lost within logos. Or, the essential human gets lost when the human becomes the subject. However, the caesura in what is present, but doesn’t belong to the human, is a form of desubjectification.

For example, according to Plato it isn’t the poet, but a Divine voice that speaks through the poet. Another resemblance is the Muselmann, who speaks through the witness. Nevertheless, the distinction gets intensified within the Muselmann. A human being normally suppresses Voice in logos, when he takes the word. The Muselmann on the contrarily, is completely evolved into Voice. He only is able to get to meaning through the logos of the witness. This means that the testimony is the transition from Voice to logos. However, the direct element, or coincide of Voice with experience, makes this transition impossible at the same time. As mentioned above, the experience transcends the reality. Hence, the Muselmann raises the question of itself through the logos of the witness. It is up to the listener to hear this Voice, or the essential human, in between the words.

I find back something similar in the approach of Jacques Derrida, about the written word. Namely, by approaching a text with great caution, one gets to the core of it. In the poems of Celan, he searches for the tracks of the essential. He concludes that the search itself is the essence of wat literature is.

However, scripture is not to be grasped by our words. Every time it eludes our interpretations, according to Derrida.This seems in accordance with the impossibility to get Voice within logos. According to Derrida, it is not about the word itself, but about that what the word refers to. Literature is an endless exercise in finding the truth in between the sentences. .

Similarly, it seems to be stated with the testimonies of Auschwitz, which don’t refer to the gap, but to the Muselmann, the gap points at. Hence, the non-speaking part in the human is a form of desubjectification. Agamben calls shame as an example of the non-speaking part, which is present in every human being. It is a direct element we are surrendered to, and were we have no effect on. It speaks through the subject, making the subject being desubjectificated. Namely, this process gets caused by a double process. on the one hand there is a loss, or desubjectification, of the subject. On the other hand, there is a new controlling of the subject, or subjectification. The witness exists from both elements. In fact, every human being carries a Muselmann inside.

Non language

So, a testimony contains something that cannot be said, an untranslatable part. There seem to be a distinct between that what can be said, and that what can be experienced but not be said. This is applied to the logical form of the world, the visible word, which can be seen or experienced, in the way of contingent propositions, like symbolism, and in logical propositions. Even the unspeakable propositions in philosophy, like metaphysics or ethics, belong to this group, which Wittgenstein describes as the things which cannot be put in words. They manifest themselves. They are mystical.

Poetry shows a similar gap. According to Derrida, every accountable witness enters a poetic experience of language. Poetry creates its own idiom, and is therefore untranslatable. Lyotard contrasts reality with the experience of the eyewitness. The reality of the experience of the eyewitness, which he doesn’t know how to translate, cannot be raised. That what cannot be raised, seem to be the transcending life experience, which expresses itself through the essential, instead of the linguistic human being.

The reality is a social construct that is always stuck to reality. This means that we only can say something about a part of that reality. Therefore, we can say about the testimony that a testimony is missing. Either there can be testified that nothing can be said at all, or there can be testified dat something is missing. About the so-called logos part we can say that this part belongs to the social construct. The unspeakable part, in other words, the transcending experience, seems to belong to phoné. Het seems to belong to the ineffable propositions, by which it is mystical.

The testimonies of Auschwitz only exist from a part of the reality, namely the ones from the survivors, who testified of death in the camp. However, we always can only testify of the death of the other, but never of our own death. Because of this, the experience escapes our daily understanding. It is logical impossible to testify of death from one owns experience. Because in death, Being is alienated from Be. Meaning, the other announced, does not possess this Being in the way of possessing a subject, which is in this case the Muselmann, it possesses; his grip on existence is mysterious. It is not only unknown, it is even not knowable. While the transcending life experience is unspeakable of, death is not known. Because the witnesses of Auschwitz, testify of death, one gets into a realm of danger. Approaching these testimonies as being mystical, gives the opportunity to see the Shoah as something unique, and with that exclusive. In other words, like Ype de Boer writes in the preface of Remnants of Auschwitz: When we grant a special status to Auschwitz, there is the possibility that we lose the human character of it out of side. Understanding of the gap, and with that, the awareness of the presence of the Muselmann, can keep us out of this dangerous area.

Conclusion

According to Agamben, the testimonies of Auschwitz show a gap. Within this essay I tried to give an answer to the question what Agamben exactly means with this gap. Namely, it seems as if this gap wants to express itself through the witnesses. I discovered that this gap stands for the Muselmänner; they were the ordinary prisoners who formed the mainstream in the camp. The Muselmann was in fact the main character of Auschwitz, who impossible could have survived, because he wasn’t able to benefit from privileges. This figure belonged to the so-called grey zone. A zone in which no judgement could be made. In other words, it was a so called “no-responsibility zone”.

During his research to the gap, Agamben discovers a contradiction, namely logos versus phoné. Logos stands for the rational human being and meaningful language. Phoné expresses the essential human being and the direct sound, which Aristotle calls Voice. Within the testimonies, the Muselmänner form the Voice which tries to resonate in logos. Within the testimonies of Auschwitz, the direct experience seems to be more comprehensive than the language that tries to catch her. In other words, the direct experience of the Muselmänner cannot be expressed in logos. This impossibility is the gap in the testimonies. This means that every testimony of Auschwitz exists from two witnesses, namely the survivor and the Muselmann. The first one gets desubjectificsated by the last one, because the last one resonates trough the logos of the first one. With subjectification, namely, the subjects identify himself with the talk mode. However, within the testimonies, the Musselman speaks trough the subject. This means that the subject gets desubjectificated. In other words, it is not about the gap, but about the Muselmann, the gap points at. One cannot speak about the gap, making it mystical. However, a mystical status might keep from further research. Albeit, research is needed to break down this mechanism of biopolitics. Maybe, the call to further research is the true remnant of Auschwitz.

Bibliography

Primair

Agamben, Giorgio. Wat er overblijft van Auschwitz. De getuige en het archief. Vertaald door Willie Hemelrijk. Hilversum: uitgeverij Verbum, 2018.

Secundair

Baarle van, Kristof. Language impossible, Giorgio Agamben en het theater van Romeo Castellucci Marburg: Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag, 2014.

Bergo, Bettina, “Emmanuel Levinas”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2019 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), url = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/levinas/.

Biletzki, Anat and Matar, Anat, “Ludwig Wittgenstein”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford,edu/archives/sum2018/entries/wittgenstein.

Hegel, George Wilhelm. Fenomenologie van de geest. Amsterdam: Boom uitgevers, 2012.

Hegel, George William. Vorlesungen über ästhetik. Stuttgart: Frommann Holzboog, 1988.

Levi, Primo. Conversazioni e interviste. Turijn: Belpoliti Einaudi, 1997.

Levi, Primo. Se questo è un uomo. Turijn: De Silva, 1947.

Levinas, Emanuel. Time & the other. Vertaald door Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Pres, 1987.

Lyotard, Jean Francois, “The differend phrases in despute.” (1983), Brightspace, https://brightspace.ru.nl/d2l/le/content/91343/viewContent/454893/View.

Sandomirskaja, Irina. Derrida on the Poetics and Politics of Witnessing.

Schrijver de, George.  “Gorgio Agambens homo sacer,” Streven, December 2014. https://strevenstijdschrift.be > gorgio-agamben-over-uitsluiting-en-exterminatie.

Whitaker, C.W.A., Aristotle’s de interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1996.