This particular section of the reading truly represents the downward spiral of the blind people in the asylum. The uprising of the "Thugs" and the addition of the old man with the black eye patch. Amongst this reading I found that there has been one major clue to the cause of the blindness and another moral decision.
I find it very ironic that the old man with the eye patch - who is already half blind - would be the one who is partially sees the truth. As if literal blindness is the answer to the metaphorical blindness that has stricken everyone else. I am not entirely sure if it is the old man with the black eye patch that says this, but his arrival certainly prompts it. What I am referring to is on page 129 and states:
"Fear can cause blindness, said the girl with dark glasses, Never a truer word, that could not be truer, we were already blind the moment we turned blind, fear struck us blind, fear will keep us blind, Who is speaking, asked the doctor, A blind man, replied a voice, just a blind man, for that is all we have here."
Here is seems that Saramago is saying - perhaps himself literally - that it is fear that has caused their blindness. Perhaps that are not truly blind at all, but have been for years and have never known it. There is no clue as to who this person was, it might have been the old man with the black eye patch because he was the insightful one at the time. However, as literary works seem to function, it is usually an unknown or the most unlikely of characters that explain the true theme of the novel. Therefore, "A blind man" would be a perfect fit. Of course one could analyze this a litter deeper in suggesting that the "blindness" is truly just our fear blinding us. This fear is reflective of actual society that seems to now be based on fear from outside forces (terrorist) and crime or violence (media) and that this blinding fear is the downfall of our moral reasoning and society which is rightfully reflected in the downward spiral we see in the asylum.
As for one of the major moral considerations of these chapters include the question of if the women are morally obligated to allow themselves to be humiliated and raped so that everyone can have food. Clearly the "Thugs" have regressed to a level of barbaric inclination and sadly, the functioning society of the other wards must yield to the wills of the barbaric "Thugs" in order to survive, in order to receive food. However, the question is if the women should do this? Is it morally correct to relieve yourself of all dignity and humility in order for the good of the whole to survive? Should the husbands have to make the choice of allowing their wives to venture off to almost certain rape and possible death so that everyone may receive some food? It seems that there is little option aside from resistance and an overthrow of the "Thugs" which would also lead to some death, maybe not the death of everyone, but some may die. This path also would lead to the death of the "Thugs" as well in which the morality of that could be questioned. Is death more or less moral than rape? This is the major question of this particular section. The answer: I don't know if I could accurately provide my solution as I am not in that situation. However, my feelings now would suggest that I would be more willing to resist against the "Thugs" than to allow my wife to be raped. If someone doomed to harm, I would wish it upon my enemies rather than my loved ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment