Beth's stance on illness and dying seemed to be very concrete. With views similar to my own she believed that a hospital is an institution, though it has good qualities of course, is still a place detached from the rest of the viewing population. It shields us of the reality of dying and has a lifeless tone of white beds and sheets and walls. She also believed that mourning and wearing black shouldn't be the common practice when someone is dead, sadness is inevitable but we should rather celebrate that these people were in our lives and be thankful they were there. Before Erik’s unfortunate end she felt very close to him and more intimate, something I couldn’t relate to personally which I will get back to later.
Before Beth began speaking about her husband Erik's death, she painted us the picture of him being a larger than life man, someone in touch with the community himself and his family, very contributive with his art and other skills and a loving man. A trend common when someone has passed; to give them this almost heroic status and never giving mention of his faults.She went on to say he was a househusband pushing his son around in a stroller and being the only dad in the park, something very uncommon twenty years ago. She elaborated that this connected him with the community, and he then became the "dad of the neighborhood" which everyone loved him for. This is in interesting prospect when analyzed, as a man not following the norm of a community the assumption would be that he would not be loved, contrary to what Beth said. Maybe then it is a statement about the community that it is open minded. Or rather when a more dominant figure (a man) chooses to step outside the norm of a society to those less dominant (mothers taking their kids to the park) can only accept it. Or even one step further that this step was unavoidable that these norms (unless practiced religiously and fundamental to the society) are always changing, that he was simply an example of this norm going through the change in which more stay-at-home dads will be apparent and be taking their kids to the park.
Going back to what Beth said earlier about the intimacy when Erik was very close to the end was something I felt oppositely when I had a similar experience. She felt that when she was caring for Erik they were more connected. Before my own father died I felt more distanced from him he wasn’t the same image of my father I had when I was younger; he was thinner, delusional at times and visiting him in the hospital was not the same as years prior to that when I would sit on his lap and he would explain to me things far beyond my ability to comprehend at the time. I was very in touch with him at his state at the time. That state however I don’t think of as who he really was. This distance was mental and emotional in ways it was not at all physical, if he needed something I was always there to help him. Not to want to go into semantics but my view of intimacy is that the two (or more) are connected in every way, if Beth thought it was only physical by tending to him when needed then I would agree with her as I was more aware to my father’s needs whenever he presented them and I was more connected to him in this sense because I might not act on a request he posed every time before his illness but during it was my priority just as it was his.
So what constitutes as an intimate relationship? Can you be close when there is so much distance mentally and emotionally?
Hey John, this was a very interesting discourse on death, intimacy,and social norms that was compelling and clear. There were some grammatical and syntactical mistakes that, if fixed, would make your piece more fluid and precise. This piece sparked some questions for me about people's reactions to death through, celebration and mourning, and why they might differ. How should we react to the death of a relative if we never found anything worth celebrating in them, or were just indifferent to them,when the social norm is to celebrate or mourn? Does the social norm provoke people to behave in a certain way towards deceased relatives even when they do not love the deceased, or do not feel a connection with the deceased? When someone defies the norms of a society, like norms about death, does that individual's defiance create a feeling of strangeness towards themselves? Does it make society look at you strangely? I think that you ask a similar question when you ask: "what constitutes as an intimate relationship?" And I think that our social norms and cultural context defines our ideas on intimacy and therefore define our ideas on how to react to the passing of a relative. For example, when you talked about Beth's celebratory description of Erik as the "dad of the neighborhood" you suggested that the description was only celebratory because of its cultural and social context. And that perhaps in a different context, both the neighborhood and Beth, might not feel the want to celebrate Erik after his death if descriptions like the "dad of the neighborhood" weren't culturally celebrated.
ReplyDeleteHey John,
ReplyDeleteI like a lot of what you said and I think you got a good point across about what Beth was saying and you did a good job answering the questions that Andy presented. Also, when I know that you most likely had some of the feelings that Beth had and you mention that when you say, "Before my own father died I felt more distanced from him he wasn’t the same image of my father I had when I was younger". But even though this could just be something that may be to personal for you to want to talk about I feel like even though you compared your feelings to Beth you could go more into depth about the differences and the similarities of how you felt with how Beth felt. The question does ask you to compared both of these things and I think you do address this but for someone who has experienced this I thought maybe you could bring up something that you thought she might have felt that you felt. As for the beauty in the work and the insight, I feel that you also bring something up that is very smart about the norms changing, which is something that I didn't really think that much about when she said he was a "stay-at-home dad". Besides this, the one thing that I thought could have made your blog better was just going more into depth IF you feel comfortable with that about your experience because that would have brought out a lot more beauty in this assignment.
John,
ReplyDeleteI found your piece at the end relating your contrasting thoughts about a family member insightful. Perhaps the difference in feeling was the relationship difference between Beth and Erik, and you and your father? You knew your father your whole life (I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), whereas Beth met her husband later in life when she had already had many life experiences.
In addition, your second paragraph dealing with the divide in what you perceive as cultural norms and what others like Beth might see was also a interesting insight. I thought so because once again, the two perspectives are coming from different backgrounds. Beth saw Erik as a notable difference in his role as a stay at home dad, probably because she was seeing it from a view influenced by her situation as a working mother. You on the other hand are seeing it from the perspective of a young man. Since you don't have kids yet or have to work fulltime, maybe there's more to a familial relationship with the community than you, or I for that matter, could have experienced yet?
John,
ReplyDeleteYou touch on a very distinct aspect of remembrance after someone close to you has died: idolization. To idolize someone after death seems to be common, as I did that with Dad, and I think is part of the healing process. It acts as a component necessary for acception (or really, the ability to cope with death). It would be interesting to explore this process further.
You mentioned Beth grew closer to Erik while he was sick, but more importantly, this happened because she cared for him during his illness. I doubt the relationship actually gets closer, but rather there is this protective, nurturing, almost self-sacrificial element that occurs while caring for someone. We saw this with our parents. However, there is a difference between caring for someone when their life is ending, and the recognition between the image of them before and now. You saw dad as a different person when he was sick, as did I, but I wonder what mom thought as she was his primary care-giver. You should ask her.
John,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post - you raise questions and complications. Thank you! Do you do it out of bravery, self-assertion, or simple compulsion? Which motivates me?
It sounds like you missed some of the more critical comments Beth made.
On the hero neighborhood dad image - I especially appreciated your attempt to problematize the simple (as you also helpfully did about "intimacy"). The feminist insight you generated - that male privilege meant he was heroic for doing something that most women do as a matter of course - helped me think clearer. Beth's depiction also had an element of pathos - most of the kids had no male adult role models, at least in an active way throughout the normal day. Pretty sad. That's one reason Erik's situation mattered. I think both of these points can coexist peacefully with Beth's intended point - Erik lived boldly and artistically and out of the box of the normal and mattered to a lot of people.
Which you probably agree with? Sometimes when one of us tries to contextualize or problematize everyone runs around trying to defend X from being "diminished". The diminishment, instead, happens when people treat complex and confusing elements as glass-encased museum pieces.
Obrigado!