College, for me, as it is for many, was a profound experience where I learned, most importantly, how to look and analyze the world in a way that was relentless, but rewarding. As a child I believe I collected lots of information, but reserved judgment on many of them. I was able to hold contradicting views about complicated issues and feel completely comfortable with it. Judgment would be made when I was ready and had more information, I unconsciously thought. When I went to college I began making sense of my views and was able to put them in a frame that I still hold today.
A few days ago I came a across, Ways of Seeing, by John Berger; A short book I read an art class in college about the way we look at the world. Reading the book now I am a bit more critical of it than when I was in college, especially in the way that it lays out inherently complex idea with so much certainty. My current gut reaction tells me that world cannot so easily be grouped into tidy categories, but even I acknowledge that that maybe it’s genius. The simplicity hints at the core of so many things, which are obstructicated by the complexities of life. Art, especially in fiction writing, for me, is capable of hinting at such truths.
Anyway, I’d not seen this book in years and I did not recall many things from it, but I knew that there was passage in that book which had framed the power dynamics between people in a way that made complete sense to me, especially in relationships between people of opposite sexes. I flipped to the book, and almost as if I had known exactly where it was I found the passage:
According to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have no means been overcome, the social presence of a woman is different in kind from that of a man. A man’s presences is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies. If the promise is large and creditable his presence is striking. If it is small or incredible, he is found to have little presence. The promised power may be moral, physical, temperamental, economic, social, sexual - but its object is always exterior to the man. A man’s presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you or for you. His presence may be fabricated, in the sense that he pretends to be capable of what he is not. But the pretense is always towards a power which he exercises on others.
By contrast, a woman’s presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her. Her presence is manifest in her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surrounding, tastes - indeed there is nothing she can do which does not contribute to her presence. Presence for a woman is so intrinsic to her person that men tend to think of it as an almost physical emanation, a kind of heat or small or aura.
The Conversation {1 comments}
Elaboration: we are simpler than we think. For all our complexities, we are a lot similar to the charactures of ourselves than we like to think.
Just recently, I had a weird experience when seeing old school friends. I had a great time in college and after I graduated I looked at myself and thought: people who knew me before college would not recognize me today. But after I saw down with a few friends for dinner one day, I realized that we were, fundamentally the same. There was no hesitation in conversation, even though we’d not seen each other in 7 years. My insecurities from high school were all present, the way I drew attention was the same, the way I told stories, and the way people laughed at some jokes was the same, the way I paid more attention to some more than others was the same; the way I interacted with these people was identical. Had I not changed?
And what I find interesting about this John Berger quote is that even when we believe we have full control over the we choose to interact with the world, the way I like to think I do (and believe is important to accomplish anything), your most intimate thoughts have a way manifesting themselves into your physical appearance no matter how hard you try.
I guess that is both subtle and obvious at the same time, which is why I don’t think I wanted to elaborate much farther in my original post.
Leave Your Own Comment
You can follow any responses to this entry via its RSS comments feed. You can also leave a trackback if the inclination is there.