Absurdity, Camus, and My Future College Debt

The topic of "the meaning of life" has come up multiple times through out our discussions in AP English, and the responses have been varied; it appears that the majority of the class (and the world) believes that their life has a personally ingrained meaning given by some sort of creator who propels them towards a predesignated future where every action, event, and twist and turn of life is meaningful in some way. While I take no issues with people viewing their lives through any lens that they see fit, my world has never felt so perfectly planned. Just as a certain Algerian philosopher and writer would put it, my experiences with the world have all felt rather...unplanned? Not totally rational? Perhaps the word I'm looking for is...absurd? How's that sound, Albert?
The struggle with the "absurdity" of life, as Camus coined it, is reflected  throughout the whole of his landmark work The Stranger. Mersault's entire trial for the murder of the Arab can be seen as absurdity in action. Both the defense and prosecution attempt to give Mersault's killing a grander societal meaning and motive as they try to make sense of the non-conformist that he is. Despite serving him with a death sentence, which many of those involved feel is "justice", their attempts at giving meaning to the situation fail. Ultimately, Mersault's reason for murdering the Arab is unknown, or at least lacks the rational thought that his society feels must come along with a crime of that magnitude. His acts are beyond explanation, and this fact alone unsettles the public more than the crime itself. Although Mersault takes a certain pride and fulfillment in being a symbol of hate, he also feels comforted by the overall absurdity of all of his life's events: his job is absurd as his mother's death is absurd as his affair with Marie is absurd and so on and so forth. The world is free to attach any meaning they wish to his actions or lack thereof (not crying at his mother's funeral, beginning an affair the next day, etc.), but their explanations are all for naught in a world that does not operate by the meaning, logic, and rules that society attempts to assign to it.
As my senior year of high school comes to a close, I've been forced to make some choices that society (including my parents, friends, and teachers) constantly reminds me will determine the entirety of my future forever and ever: the college I choose, the major I pursue, the scholarships I apply for, etc. As I grapple with these choices, I constantly wonder whether my choice will make a difference in the end. Society tells me that if I work hard, go to a prestigious school, and graduate at the top of my class that I will find some sort of job at the end of the collegiate tunnel. But in a world where jobs are dwindling and college debt is booming, is there really any logical order to how to come out on the other side successful? At least to my current self, the adult world awaiting me seems messy, void of rhyme or reason, bleak, and (surprise, surprise) absurd.
While I fall into a similar philosophical camp as thinkers like Camus and Sartre, I know that while the things that happen to me and the course of events in my life may be random, without order, and in the grand picture completely meaningless, I can still prescribe personal meaning to what happens. Just as Mersault is able to find peace in the label society gives to him, despite his knowledge of the absurdity that rules the universe, I, too, am able to find peace in the random order of life that had joined me with so many people, interests, and things that I hold so dearly. Maybe I can't do anything to guarantee my success as an adult 100%, but I can try my best to enjoy the random twists and turns of life. The universe may be void of meaning and completely indifferent, but there will always be people and things there who make the absurdity worth it, whether it's a best friend, a job, or a death sentence.

January Blog- A Thousand Splendid Suns and Gendercide

Reading A Thousand Splendid Suns (hereafter referred to as ATSS because I’m lazy) was an intense emotional experience; whether it was the graphic portrayals of emotional and physical abuse, the inequality within Afghanistan that Meriam and Laila experienced, or the seemingly never-ending string of awful events that the characters had to endure, I was crying through 75% of it. Some of the moments that struck me the most, however, were scenes depicting the vastly different treatments Zalmai and Aziza received from Rasheed due to their genders. Upon learning of Meriam’s first pregnancy, Rasheed only considers that the baby could be a boy, and is not at all interested in the thought of a girl child. When Laila gives birth to Aziza, he is obviously not pleased; he refuses to help with Aziza’s care and is constantly complaining about the typical newborn behavior that Aziza exhibits. However, when Zalmai is born Rasheed becomes a different parent entirely: he is loving, enthusiastically involved, and even buys Zalmai a TV on the black market. Of course, this behavior is extended to Zalmai only; at one point, Rasheed suggests to Laila that Aziza should join the other children that beg on the streets for money. One could say that this is due to the loss of Rasheed’s son from his first marriage, who drowned, and his desire to have this son back that makes his treatment of Zalmai so starkly different from that of Aziza. However, there are a myriad of societal and cultural disadvantages working against Aziza and millions of female children across the world: girls are not only seen as undesirable children to have, but as drains upon their families that are to be avoided by any means necessary. And although Aziza’s mistreatment is awful, in many cases for girls born in third world countries they are subject to an even harsher fate: death at the hands of their parents.

Gendercide, or the mass killing of girl children at birth or shortly after, is a phenomenon that has occurred since the birth of many cultures, and can even be traced back to 200 B.C. Greece. In modern China and India especially, where in the former there is a one child per family policy that is strictly enforced and in the latter there is much poverty and the expense of paying a dowry to the family of the man their daughter will eventually marry. In more traditional societies, sons are seen as the children who will carry on the family name and be able to take up a job or trade that will bring income to the family, whereas girls are a drain upon family resources who cannot contribute nearly as much to the family income or legacy as a boy could. To the women in these situations, it is often seen as a practical choice to have a sex selective abortion, to murder their baby girls within days of birth, or to abandon these babies.

The details of female infanticide are brutal and sickening, but not shocking when you consider the social climates that foster these beliefs that female children are inherently less worthy of love or life due to their gender and society’s ideas of what they could accomplish for themselves and their families based on this. And it is in this belief that lies the real problem, and the thing that must change if an epidemic like this is to end. The lives of girls and women must be valued on an equal level with those of boys and men, and this belief must be promoted. Although women are most often the perpetrators of these infant murders, women like Laila who value their children no matter the gender exist and are working tirelessly to change the immensely damaging culture that they are forced to raise their daughters in and the policies that condone and turn a blind eye to this epidemic. It is my hope that within my lifetime this practice of female infanticide, and infanticide in general, will be only a devastating chapter in our world’s past. We need all of the Lailas and Meriams that we can get in this world.

Cultural Relativism and Heroism

            Since the beginning of human history, the cultures of other groups has been infinitely fascinating and mysterious, and at times confusing or even horrifying. Some people, having come into contact with the unknown, differing elements of a foreign culture are quick to judge and scorn, while others with a more open mind see these differences as just that: different ways of behaving that should not be judged as either “right” or “wrong”. The latter viewpoint reflects the tenants of Cultural Relativism, which is the beliefs that different societies will naturally hold to different moral codes and that there is “no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another”(“The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, Page 53). The article presents the argument that while Cultural Relativism does maintain important and valid points of consideration, it also contains fallacies in its beliefs that there can be no definitive moral truth and in the exaggeration of actual differences between many cultures.

            In the literature we have read so far in our Nature of the Hero and Villain unit, we have been introduced to many cultures’ idea of a heroic character. As you can imagine, each culture’s definition of a hero is different due to the varying morals held by that society. For example, the epic hero of Beowulf is a true embodiment of the Geat’s beliefs regarding heroism; he is physically unstoppable, stoic and void of fear, and strives to bring infamy to his name. While he perfectly fits the bill of a hero in terms of his own cultural programming, the society in which we find Hamlet would see Beowulf as a sort of impolite brute. Hamlet’s brand of heroism is found in his respect for the individual man and his thoughtful investigation of his uncle before determining that he did indeed murder Hamlet’s father. While Beowulf and his fellow Geat’s would see Hamlet’s reflection a procrastination and waste of precious time, Hamlet and the Danish would see Beowulf’s style of immediate action as brash and uncalculated. When we discussed in class our personal definitions of a hero, few of us included the traits that are found in either Hamlet or Beowulf, but even though our culture differs from theirs we as students can still see the validity in their heroism.

            When it comes to cultural relativism gone wrong, I think of the laws that have recently been passed in France that have outlawed facial coverings, including those of Muslim women who practice hijab (modesty) through the wearing of the niqab headdress. France is a secular nation, and therefore their cultural standard of “right” would see this law as an aid in maintaining a secular environment in schools and in public spaces. For the Muslim women who willingly don the niqab, this is a violation of their cultural and religious standard of “right”, which includes a standard of modest dress that is very important to their faith. These laws are an example of the dominate culture of an area forsaking the idea of a lack of moral right or wrong that is found in cultural relativism and choosing to deem another culture’s way of life immoral and unethetical.

            Personally, I can see the validity of the criticism that James Rachels provides in this article, especially that of cultural relativism providing a protection of cultures taking part in cruel practices such as slavery or anti-Semitism from criticism. However, I also agree with Rachels that cultural relativism does teach important lessons in not solely believing that our home culture is the only one that is morally sound in its ways. In the end, it appears that humans operate with many of the same common goals, and have found many different ways of accomplishing these goals based on what that culture has to offer. As long as you aren’t eating my dead father, I can’t really complain.