Although I found the class today
very interesting and engaging, I did not want to expound upon my machinations
of building social capital because I
could not stop thinking about the question that we were left with at the end of
the film on Wednesday. If it isn’t too much trouble, I hope to throw in my two
cents on yesterday’s activities rather than todays. The question was: “If you
were a friend of Qui Ju and halfway through her ordeal she asked for advice,
what would you tell her to do?” As I stepped out of the classroom, I thought
the answer was very clear. I would tell her that she should search for what she
thought was fair but only in so far as her means did not start hurting those
around her. So when she was told by her husband to cease and desist and then
again when he told her to leave and never come back, that is probably when I
would tell her to pull the proverbial rip cord on this free fall in search of
justice and ride the parachute back to normalcy. (Hopefully that skydiving
reference wasn’t totally lost). Regardless, in approaching conflict I am a firm
believer in gauging the outcome in the lens of Pareto Efficiency. Wherein,
parties can benefit in so far as no one is worse off than when they entered
into this new course of action. I know that this paradigm might differ from the
preconceived notion of winning that I was branded with on Tuesday, but I
believe that resolving the conflict in a point where individuals may benefit
but no one is worse off in the scope of fairness, then that is what winning is
in successfully resolving conflict.
As I
revisit this question today, it brings back the familiar train of thought that
had so frustrated me earlier. So today when asked, “IF you were a friend of Qui
Ju and halfway through her ordeal she asked for advice?” I would take a
different approach and ask her what winning looks like and if that image was in
the realm of possible outcomes. A recurring class theme was in the lack of
communication and the conforming to cultural normative contexts but I think
that framing it to the point where both parties could see what was on the table
rather than grasping for intangibles that were highly unlikely, the situation
would have come to a resolution much faster. It was verbally and nonverbally
communicated very clearly from what each was willing to part with in the search
for the resolution. The chief was very willing to pay money to atone for his
wrongdoing, while Qui Ju was clearly very staunch against just paying off
guilt. At this point I think verbalizing this between the two parties or at
least verbalizing it so each individual would be brought eye to eye on the
matter and they could finally achieve closure.
This movie
ties to the book The Sweet Hereafter in the similar dialogue that lawsuits are
not necessarily the road to the closure that everyone so desperately looks
after. Although you see the way Dolores, Billy, and Nichole all
handle the dispute and unnecessary pitting of people against one another for the sake of monetary gain, it is important
to note that Nichole comes to the conclusion that the lawsuit will not actually
help the people of the town attain the closure and healing that they so desperately believe it will deliver. However, it is important to also note that Nichole
attempts to reconcile the dispute with the law of man rather than the law of
the land; similar to how Qui Ju was trying to attain the apology and closure
she so desperately desired. Nichole however did this by compromising her ethics
and ultimately lying to pursue what she deemed was right in the Confucian altruistic context which is a direct contrast to Qui Ju who operated more strictly on the Confucian beliefs in justice.
I am sorry for the lengthy blog. Once I got on a roll, I
could not stop.
Good roll Nolan! My only comment is from personal experience. Sometimes our biggest mistakes teach us the most. The image of her face at the end of the movie (which is also on the cover of the DVD) is an image that portrays her entire experience all at once when she most likely questions her every move. Sometimes we have to let people do what they need to do. We learn in many ways but do our mistakes make a bigger more lasting impact? My roommate just got a $200 ticket for talking on her cell while driving. She will not likely do this again...at least for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteI thought of something else...The village chief thought he was above the law but in the end went to jail. If he'd believed that could happen would he have apologized? Perhaps going to jail saves face more than apologizing.
DeleteRe Nolan's post, just one Machiavellian question: does Nichole's use of the law of man include the social benefits of lying? At her deposition, Nichole lies about the speed the bus was going in order to sabotage her father's lawsuit, not because she actually remembered the accident. At the beginning of the book, Dolores says she was going 50-55 (p. 33). But is either Nichole or Dolores a reliable narrator? And if Dolores was not speeding, then why does she feel so strangely relieved, as if a huge weight had been lifted from her, and grateful to Nichole for having placed the blame for the accident squarely on her shoulders?
ReplyDeleteIn a way, you could argue that each of the characters in this book (except maybe Abbott) benefits -- at least temporarily -- from maintaining a lie or a facade about their identity and/or actions in order to get what they want. So is it possible to say that lying performs a beneficial function in the rule of man?
I don’t remember which day it was this past week, but I think it was Hillary who introduced the idea of whether we should embrace the idea of complete honesty all of the time, or if a little fib now and then, with the intent to make someone feel better, has value.
DeleteRegarding the Sweet Hereafter, I think Lia is spot on. Nicole gives less thought to whether winning the lawsuit will benefit the town then she does about whether it will hurt her father. The narrative implies that Nicole defiantly lies at the deposition about Delores’ speed for her own personal reasons. Nicole sees losing the lawsuit as her version of justice for her father’s acts of molestation. She prevents him from gaining money, and being able to hurt him in that way gives her satisfaction, a sense of “pay back.” So that brings us to the question of whether the intent behind lying differentiates whether it is beneficial to the rule of man.
Great conversation!
ReplyDeleteRe: advice, I totally agree that the first question back to Qiu Ju should be: what is it you are looking for? And then the discussion can be around why that is the goal, what the world looks like if that goal is achieved, what she is willing to sacrifice for that goal, what the potential/likely costs are, and how likely it is. Part of what the movie shows is that some disputes are resolved not by our active interventions but with just sticking together in community. As Katherine A. pointed out after the movie, what made Qiu Ju feel better seemed to be the action that the Chief took to help her family -- the genuine helpful action -- and it's unlikely that Qiu Ju knew that this would be what would help. She thinks she wants an apology, but what she wanted was an authentic expression of his regard for her family.
I think Michelle's point is terrific -- we think about what Qiu Ju learns here (that she shouldn't have pressed it so hard) but there's also a lesson for other chiefs out there (that a heart-felt apology can save you a lot of trouble down the line).
And I am so happy Lia brought up Nichole's lying -- it's debatable whether this lie "saved the town" as Billy says, considering that the town has been destroyed (people moving, divorcing, becoming alcoholics). Nichole lied to punish her father, and although she seems at peace with that outcome I don't know if we from the outside would consider that the fairest or most beneficial outcome, even to Nichole.
Why is Dolores relieved, do you think? I found that to be the most fascinating part of the book.
I remember while I was reading the book, I thought about how Delores was holding up fairly well considering what had happened. All of the characters had their own personal conflicts other than the accident. Resa's marriage and affair, Billy's wife and affari, Delore's husband being ill; and, most significantly, Nichole's paralysis. I viewed Delores as a wise woman. She stayed back and waited for people to heal, though by the end of the book, few had healed enough to reach out to her. She was consumed with her own grief and guilt and taking care of her supportive husband, whom she also viewed as wise, took much of her time.
DeleteI loved the metaphors embedded in the ending. It had to be extremely painful for Delores. The crowd embraced the appearance of Nichole but ignored her. She valued her tradition with her husband enough to venture out. That took considerable bravery and the wisdom that she had to let go.
I was wondering if anyone in the crowd processed their emotions as they cheered for the destruction of Delore's old car, a metaphor that people might have been hoping for her personal destruction. When the old car took all the aggression and survived, again a metaphor for Delore's resilience, the crowd reverted to cheering for the final battle.
In her wisdom, Delores understood what Nichole was doing. People would heal with or without the money and she wanted the law suit to stop and for people to focus on the real issues.
Perhaps the destruction derby would linger in people's minds. They might acknowledge Delore's bravery; acknowledge the few people that stepped up; reflect on their own stuck feelings and use that experience as a way to move forward a little bit more.
Again, because my story about Delores is that she was brave, this is why she was relieved. The derby brought everyone together. There was celebration, violence, compassion and courage (everyone had to be courageous to continue living with the sadness) and somehow when the lights were out and everyone ventured home, perhaps some hearts had healed just a little bit more.
I think Delores is relieved because uncertainty is one of the hardest conditions in which to exist. Before Nicole lies, Delores doesn't know whether to blame herself, if the town blames her, or if the entire incident was just an unavoidable, tragic accident. Having Nicole put the blame on her at least gives Delores some closure. I don't think Delores believes Nicole's statement, but she seems to give that little thought. She is simply grateful because she can move forward from a point of certainty (albeit perceived certainty). It is much easier to bear the "truth" than it is to bear the unknown.
ReplyDelete