Introduction
Civil Disobedience is recognized as the pioneer of formal action of society resistance toward government in the history of United States. This term comes in the essay of Henry David Thoreau written in the time of war between America and Mexico during the territorial expansion on purpose of applying the notion of ‘manifest destiny’(Diggins, 1987; Horton & Ewards, 1974; Luedtke, 1990; Sardjana, 1988; Zinn, 1980).
Comes with the idea of not directly obeying every single rule made by the government, civil disobedience has awakened US society to the importance of self dignity and sovereignty. This concept later helps US philosophers to generate the basic principles of individualism in the US history until today’s struggle of individual rights empowerment.
As one of the most significant events in US history, the emergence of civil disobedience shapes the character of US society (Sardjana, 1988; Stevenson, 1998). For being known as the most open and critical society, US citizens have their democracy development as the fastest as well as the role model in the world. This fact is shown clearly in the improvement number of struggle of democracy and human rights –which increases not only in term of amount but also types and medium. Even if US society is hardly involved politically by registering themselves to be part of House of Representatives, their political involvements are expressed through the new form of nowadays civil disobedience. This is exactly tracking the line of Thoreau’s struggle concept of civil disobedience that the regeneration of society must begin with self-regeneration, not political participation (Diggins, 1987).
Most of the previous civil disobedience studies focus merely in portraying this action and relating it with political policy of US government (Diggins, 1987; Horton & Ewards, 1974; Luedtke, 1990; Sardjana, 1988; Taylor, 2000; Zinn, 1980). Somehow, as a democratic country, US put the people to have the highest authority through the idea of government of the society, by the society, and for the society. Therefore democracy gives a big portion of any individual to take part in the running of government, particularly in the decision-making process. *I should explain more: the relation between civil disobedience and the character shaping of US society –something ended with ‘therefore’*
This paper is aimed to improve new understanding of US civil disobedience in the history and the significant effect of its emergence toward US development, specifically in the shaping of US society character as democratic individual.
Discussion
Civil Disobedience
Opposing the war between US and Mexico, Henry David Thoreau, a writer living in Massachusetts, refused to pay his poll tax in 1846. He was jailed for three days and released after his friend paid it secretly. Thoreau made his lecture of “Resistance to Civil Government” based on essay entitled Civil Disobedience as a critique to government’s decision in Mexican war. Nevertheless, Thoreau did not specifically write his protest toward US government in the detail of the war. As a transcendentalist, he concern more in the idea of self-government; how to see individual as the owner of a high independent authority (Diggins, 1987; Horton & Ewards, 1974; Sardjana, 1988; States, 2005; Zinn, 1980).
Civil Disobedience explain some ‘eternal’ pro-contra issues in many types of society around the world such as majority and minority right, social and individual right, government and society interest, liberal individualism and liberal pluralism, and a brief concept explanation of radical individualism (Diggins, 1987).
Considering the historical emergence background, civil disobedience can be applied whenever any government breaks the role to protect people’s right and safeguard their interest. However, in the case of today’s US application of civil disobedience, many scholars put ‘lack of management’ as the problem of ‘controlling’ civil disobedience (Diggins, 1987; Luedtke, 1990; Stevenson, 1998).
The formula of existence
It is not Thoreau who is the first thinker of civil disobedience even since the idea even has existed in the era of John Locke. The spirit of ‘people as the owner of highest authority’ is actually the main idea of self-government. The typical questions of what so importance important with civil disobedience and why it survives until today can be answered at least by three points of reason; the strong historical background (Mexican War), the political grounds (Declaration of Independence), and the helps of internalized myths in US society (self-made man and woman, American Dream, the Chosen people) that helps the existence of civil disobedience to be one of the nature characterization of today’s US society.
Why does it matter?
The reason why civil disobedience matters for US development can be seen for the society (characteristic) development after the introduction to with the idea of civil disobedience. US society is now well known as the most open and critical society where every governmental action can be viewed more easily through mass media. This nation characteristic is shaped by many factors; one of them is the idea of civil disobedience because of its huge space available for them to be critical toward power and authority outside a man’s.
To be a critical citizen can be simply defined as a ‘protestant’ –who loved nothing so much s to protest, to question, and deny authority(Diggins, 1987; Moten, 2007). For these people, there will be no submissive without questions. The scenario when the people approve the government system or rule only happens after the negotiation, at least one which placed inside them. The negotiation, also known as US culture of self-criticize, deals with questioning and re-thinking its benefits to take decision or action. It can be sum up that there is no ‘governmental works’ which is not under their supervision. As a form of civil disobedience, this culture is now still exist –and even grows bigger– in US society.
Civil Disobedience in US society nowadays
Today’s civil disobedience comes with the different reasons, forms, and media. Their acts are legally protected by the government under some specific laws such as The Freedom of Information Act (1966) and The Privacy Act (1974) that allow all Americans to see whatever information government agencies, federal, state, and local, might have on them (Stevenson, 1998). Considering Thoreau’s proposal of the not-a-big-sense for politically involved in the parliament, US people tend to express their disobedience through some popular products and art works.
Movies, music, and literary works protesting government policies are spread out and consumed with no boundaries. The birth of new media significantly helps the people to ‘shout’ their protest to government more easily. In all cases of this new movement, the idea of civil disobedience is highlighted in the individual effort of preserving the self-dignity over every outer authority and power. However, critiques rise to these new ways of civil disobedience as it is judged to be less effective compared to its historical victory.
Conclusion
The spirit of civil disobedience comes since the revolution of US which is manifested in the Declaration of Independence. This concept still exists as the process of democracy development of US society. Civil disobedience expands as one of the political idea of US government as well as the indicator of US people’s characteristic. To be a critical-minded individual as part of US society means to have a society consist of people who are aware of their power and authority. Therefore, in the development of US society, the emergence of civil disobedience is significant to create the idea of individual rights empowerment of which self dignity, authority, sovereignty is uphold.
Bibliography
Diggins, J. P. (1987). Civil disobedience and american political thought. In L. S. Luedtke (Ed.), Making america: The society and culture of the united states.Washington DC: United States Information Agency.
Horton, R. W., & Ewards, H. W. (1974). Background of american literary thought.London: Prentice Hall International, Inc.
Luedtke, L. S. (1990). A reader's guide to making america: The society ans culture of the united states.Washington DC: United States Information Agency.
Moten, F. (2007). Democracy. In B. Burgett & G. Hendler (Eds.), Keywords for american cultural studies.New York: New York University Press.
Sardjana, B. M. (1988). Ambivalensi pikiran nathanael hawthorne dalam the scarlet letter. Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.
States, B. o. I. I. P. U. (2005). Outline of u.S. History. In D. o. State (Ed.).
Stevenson, D. K. (Ed.). (1998). American life and institutions.Washington DC: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs US Information Agency.
Taylor, R. L. (2000). Government of the people: The role of the citizen. In R. T. Targonski (Ed.), Outline of us government:Office of International Information Programs US Department of State.
Zinn, H. (1980). A people's history of the united states.New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Showing posts with label amstud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amstud. Show all posts
April 9, 2013
Homosexuality between Two Ages: Solution Remains Similar
Short Story to Film Analysis: Brokeback Mountain
Released in 2005, Brokeback Mountain have no huge change as an adaptation work of a short story published in 1997 with the same title. Generally, the movie and short story have similar setting, character, characterization, plot, and theme. Most of the words used in movie’s dialogue are even written as exactly the same as the texts found in the short story. The adaptation of 28 pages short story into 130 minutes film is done well through some extensions and additional characters without changing the story itself.
The setting of mountain, country, and many beautiful types of scenery helps the creation of romantic atmosphere between Ennes and Jack. The cliché genre of gay cowboy sends image of manhood in some senses; for instance through manly physical appearances and activities showing the masculinity of Ennes and Jack. The blend of men’s adventure in wilderness as the background of same sex relationship between two cowboys also employs certain contrast of setting in an uncommon harmony. This way of framing seems to counter the idea of queer as ‘manless’, besides showing the nature of ‘love’ as human.
Generally, the grand timeline of both artworks are similar. The different parts are actually the minor ones, though it gives certain sense of the story. Those are the inexistence of the opening of the short story (the first paragraph) which sum up the story in the film and the end of the story (how Ennes lives his life after the dead of Jack). However, these dissimilarity do not hamper the gist of the story but adding new ‘tastes’ and ‘perspectives’.
The different length of these artworks becomes another reason of the emergence of more additional conflicts in the film. I think the problems depicted in the film are richer since they are not only focusing on Ennes and Jack’s romance but also exploring their ‘real’ domestic life out of their same sex relationship.
Since both of them are married with their heterosexual partners, the story of their relationship with their wives happens to be another interesting point; such as the different acceptance of Alma and Lureen to their husband, their ‘professional’ concept marriage or less-lovable husband (Ennes’ reproduction function, Jack’s business-partner relationship), and the love story of their wives (the disappointment of Alma knowing her husband is queer, the sad expression of Lureen losing his husband while Jack’s dead).
Besides, Ennes and Jack’s relationship with their children are also more explored in the film. The deep relation between them is seen from the visits and stories of Alma Jr, Ennes’ payment of his child support, the choice of Ennes for taking care of his children than having date with Jack in a time, and the way Jack teach his son to drive and behave in a dinner.
Essentially, there is no distinct characterization of the character. However, in some way, I feel Ennes character is more explored in the film (through his emotions as a lover, husband, and father). Physically, the choice of Heath Ledger is excellent since he represents Ennes very similarly with the way Proulx describes him. Jake Gyllenhaal characterizes Jack less emotionally than the short story Jack did. This is due to the different physical appearance of them and the focus point of view of Ennes makes less space for him to expose.
The use of third-person omniscient point of view in both artworks leads to free interpretation of the spectator since the narrator only functions as the story teller of what happened, including the emotional emotion of the stakeholders. Regarding to the controversial issue of the artwork, it will be depend on spectator’s stance; whether they will support or against the ideology after watching or reading the works. The using of this point of view, somewhat is quite fair for this sensitive issue.
However, on the other hand, this narrative style gives less space of emotional release of the character. It will be different, for example, using first person point of view of Ennes in delivering the story. The human side of queer probably can be felt deeper and more on the idea of why same sex relationship is justifiable. Nevertheless, I personally agree with the using of this omniscient point of view for its more ‘fair-narrow-knowledge’ on what happens with other characters.
Generally, the artworks tell about same sex relationship, particularly the faithfulness of homosexuals in maintaining their relationship for 20 years under certain fear of being revealed as the unwanted part of society. The problems occurred during their dilemmatic choices between normal family, children, work, social paradigm, and love. The loyalty to partner is one of the key points of the story. At the end of the works, this faithful is depicted in different ways. Ennes’ faithfulness to Jack is seen through his longing for Jack by having emotional dreams with him.
The movie, however, has different way of defining faithfulness by letting Ennes move on from his past (indicated with his agreement to attend his daughter’s marriage) without forgetting his deep affection and story with Jack (reflected when he is crying, saying ‘I swear’ in front of their united shirts).
Published in different time, these works still bring the same issue of homosexual’s human side. One of the social issues brought in these works is the killing of revealed homosexual. This kind of problem remained in the time between the short story published and the film released. Moreover, this case is still unfixed in today’s American life by only 10 out of 50 states in America legalizing same sex marriage. The dilemmatic condition of these queer is always portrayed without clear solution for their civic right’s fulfillment.
In the short story, this condition is represented through Ennes’ way of keeping his feeling muted, as it is stated in the last sentence of the story, “if you can’t fix it you’ve got to stand it”.
Released in 2005, Brokeback Mountain have no huge change as an adaptation work of a short story published in 1997 with the same title. Generally, the movie and short story have similar setting, character, characterization, plot, and theme. Most of the words used in movie’s dialogue are even written as exactly the same as the texts found in the short story. The adaptation of 28 pages short story into 130 minutes film is done well through some extensions and additional characters without changing the story itself.
The setting of mountain, country, and many beautiful types of scenery helps the creation of romantic atmosphere between Ennes and Jack. The cliché genre of gay cowboy sends image of manhood in some senses; for instance through manly physical appearances and activities showing the masculinity of Ennes and Jack. The blend of men’s adventure in wilderness as the background of same sex relationship between two cowboys also employs certain contrast of setting in an uncommon harmony. This way of framing seems to counter the idea of queer as ‘manless’, besides showing the nature of ‘love’ as human.
Generally, the grand timeline of both artworks are similar. The different parts are actually the minor ones, though it gives certain sense of the story. Those are the inexistence of the opening of the short story (the first paragraph) which sum up the story in the film and the end of the story (how Ennes lives his life after the dead of Jack). However, these dissimilarity do not hamper the gist of the story but adding new ‘tastes’ and ‘perspectives’.
The different length of these artworks becomes another reason of the emergence of more additional conflicts in the film. I think the problems depicted in the film are richer since they are not only focusing on Ennes and Jack’s romance but also exploring their ‘real’ domestic life out of their same sex relationship.
Since both of them are married with their heterosexual partners, the story of their relationship with their wives happens to be another interesting point; such as the different acceptance of Alma and Lureen to their husband, their ‘professional’ concept marriage or less-lovable husband (Ennes’ reproduction function, Jack’s business-partner relationship), and the love story of their wives (the disappointment of Alma knowing her husband is queer, the sad expression of Lureen losing his husband while Jack’s dead).
Besides, Ennes and Jack’s relationship with their children are also more explored in the film. The deep relation between them is seen from the visits and stories of Alma Jr, Ennes’ payment of his child support, the choice of Ennes for taking care of his children than having date with Jack in a time, and the way Jack teach his son to drive and behave in a dinner.
Essentially, there is no distinct characterization of the character. However, in some way, I feel Ennes character is more explored in the film (through his emotions as a lover, husband, and father). Physically, the choice of Heath Ledger is excellent since he represents Ennes very similarly with the way Proulx describes him. Jake Gyllenhaal characterizes Jack less emotionally than the short story Jack did. This is due to the different physical appearance of them and the focus point of view of Ennes makes less space for him to expose.
The use of third-person omniscient point of view in both artworks leads to free interpretation of the spectator since the narrator only functions as the story teller of what happened, including the emotional emotion of the stakeholders. Regarding to the controversial issue of the artwork, it will be depend on spectator’s stance; whether they will support or against the ideology after watching or reading the works. The using of this point of view, somewhat is quite fair for this sensitive issue.
However, on the other hand, this narrative style gives less space of emotional release of the character. It will be different, for example, using first person point of view of Ennes in delivering the story. The human side of queer probably can be felt deeper and more on the idea of why same sex relationship is justifiable. Nevertheless, I personally agree with the using of this omniscient point of view for its more ‘fair-narrow-knowledge’ on what happens with other characters.
Generally, the artworks tell about same sex relationship, particularly the faithfulness of homosexuals in maintaining their relationship for 20 years under certain fear of being revealed as the unwanted part of society. The problems occurred during their dilemmatic choices between normal family, children, work, social paradigm, and love. The loyalty to partner is one of the key points of the story. At the end of the works, this faithful is depicted in different ways. Ennes’ faithfulness to Jack is seen through his longing for Jack by having emotional dreams with him.
The movie, however, has different way of defining faithfulness by letting Ennes move on from his past (indicated with his agreement to attend his daughter’s marriage) without forgetting his deep affection and story with Jack (reflected when he is crying, saying ‘I swear’ in front of their united shirts).
Published in different time, these works still bring the same issue of homosexual’s human side. One of the social issues brought in these works is the killing of revealed homosexual. This kind of problem remained in the time between the short story published and the film released. Moreover, this case is still unfixed in today’s American life by only 10 out of 50 states in America legalizing same sex marriage. The dilemmatic condition of these queer is always portrayed without clear solution for their civic right’s fulfillment.
In the short story, this condition is represented through Ennes’ way of keeping his feeling muted, as it is stated in the last sentence of the story, “if you can’t fix it you’ve got to stand it”.
European Colonialism to American Military Invasion
Novella to Film Analysis: Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now is known as the most famous adaptation of the novel Heart of Darkness. As an adaptation art work, the movie changed the novel in some way. However, the soul of ‘darkness’ remains both in the novel and movie.
The strongest similarity between the novel and the movie is the plot structure. In a straight and open plot, both works are started with a mission to accomplish through a hairy journey of the main character to find the so-called ‘evil’ character. The journey physically ended when the main character (as well as the narrator) met the so-called ‘evil’ character, but at the same time continued in a more psychological way –in which the character had to deal more with his inner thought and standard of morality. Both of the works got the climax when the so-called ‘evil’ character died, and the story ended with the way go home of the narrator. The novel and the movie gives a free space for the reader and viewer to interpret whether there is finally a ideological change inside the main character; thus I conclude them both as an open plot.
As an adaptation, Apocalypse Now has a quite big difference in the way the director change the setting from Congo, Africa (in the Heart of Darkness) to Vietnam and Cambodia. In term of time setting, both of the movies got the tense of ‘conflict area’ in the era of European explorer’s colonialism (Heart of Darkness) and American military invasion during the height of Vietnam War (Apocalypse Now).
Depicting the gloomy atmosphere, the novel uses words of the narrator (Marlow) while the movie employs the setting of atmosphere through cinematographic technology such as lighting, camera angel, sound effect, and framing. Using this high technology, I feel the ‘darkness’ in the movie more easily. The harsh of European colonialism –portraying by the savage to native African– is adapted in a different sense of seeing how cruel war is during the suffering of civil Vietnamese.
Basically, both the novel and the movie have the same character composition: Marlow and Willard against Kurtz. However, these characters are developed in a different characterization. As an assigned worker to find Kurtz, Marlow and Willard employed the same psychological denial to fulfill their mission during the journey. Facing the fact that materialism leads the company to treat native America as non-human workers trigger Marlow to jump to Kurtz’s side. This inner conflict also happened as Willard witnessing how war fails to get the righteous people. However, Willard seems to have more stable (or in any case, unclear) stance of this, since he was able to assassinate Kurtz himself after his lecturing of the psychology of war and the idea of morality.
The character of Kurtz –both in the novel and movie– is described as a brilliant (even genius) designed to get high position before his unsound way is considered as a threat to the ‘institution’ he comes from. His power to establish own ‘government’ with native tribe worshiping him as a high spiritual figure is seen as mental illness to curry or even, terminate. The ‘Novel’ Kurtz seems did nothing but sharing his ideas to Marlow before his dead, while the ‘Movie’ Kurtz got the chance to show his ‘power’ by imprisoning Willard and killing one of Willard’s crews. Following the different behavior, this character is also physically built in different way. The genius ivory agent is described as a lifeless thin of illness man; while the genius colonel appears as a huge man with military-well built body.
Using the first person point of view, both of the works tell the story through the eyes of Marlow and Willard. However, the different development of these characters of the narrator for me, somehow, impact to the atmosphere of the story. As the narrator, Marlow tends to be more active than Willard. He is actively share his thoughts and perspectives of what he sees and feels of every moment during the journey. On the other hand, Willard performs as a more passive character who functions as the ‘silent camera’ during the movie. The major actions done by him are only the killing of woman survivor in the civil small ship and the killing of Kurtz.
As the reader, I felt –as if I am– led by the author to judge ‘the others’ (concerning racism issue) the same way as it is narrated by Marlow. The journey he experienced is told in a story of his thoughts, leaving less space for the reader to have their own judgment. However, through the eyes of Willard as a ‘silent camera’, I got more space to take my own perspective toward certain issues and the existence and the ‘civilization degree’ of ‘the others’.
The major similarity of the works is the theme, even though they both are served in a different taste. Shifting European Colonialism into American Military Invasion, Apocalypse Now does not diminish the issues of White superiority. Critiques of the idea of civilization (native African and Vietnamese are less civilized than European or American), ‘foreign’ superiority (to enslave African is justifiable as well as to take military invasion during Vietnam War), prejudice mentality and standard of morality (Marlow and Willard are forced to take Kurtz based on the owner of authority’s prejudice), and notion of insanity (they who refuse any cooperation with the ‘righteous’ people and extend their life with ‘uncivilized’ society will turn to be insane) are expressed in this two art works.
Carrying these values, there is no way to deny these two works as the critique of so-called White supremacy.
Apocalypse Now is known as the most famous adaptation of the novel Heart of Darkness. As an adaptation art work, the movie changed the novel in some way. However, the soul of ‘darkness’ remains both in the novel and movie.
The strongest similarity between the novel and the movie is the plot structure. In a straight and open plot, both works are started with a mission to accomplish through a hairy journey of the main character to find the so-called ‘evil’ character. The journey physically ended when the main character (as well as the narrator) met the so-called ‘evil’ character, but at the same time continued in a more psychological way –in which the character had to deal more with his inner thought and standard of morality. Both of the works got the climax when the so-called ‘evil’ character died, and the story ended with the way go home of the narrator. The novel and the movie gives a free space for the reader and viewer to interpret whether there is finally a ideological change inside the main character; thus I conclude them both as an open plot.
As an adaptation, Apocalypse Now has a quite big difference in the way the director change the setting from Congo, Africa (in the Heart of Darkness) to Vietnam and Cambodia. In term of time setting, both of the movies got the tense of ‘conflict area’ in the era of European explorer’s colonialism (Heart of Darkness) and American military invasion during the height of Vietnam War (Apocalypse Now).
Depicting the gloomy atmosphere, the novel uses words of the narrator (Marlow) while the movie employs the setting of atmosphere through cinematographic technology such as lighting, camera angel, sound effect, and framing. Using this high technology, I feel the ‘darkness’ in the movie more easily. The harsh of European colonialism –portraying by the savage to native African– is adapted in a different sense of seeing how cruel war is during the suffering of civil Vietnamese.
Basically, both the novel and the movie have the same character composition: Marlow and Willard against Kurtz. However, these characters are developed in a different characterization. As an assigned worker to find Kurtz, Marlow and Willard employed the same psychological denial to fulfill their mission during the journey. Facing the fact that materialism leads the company to treat native America as non-human workers trigger Marlow to jump to Kurtz’s side. This inner conflict also happened as Willard witnessing how war fails to get the righteous people. However, Willard seems to have more stable (or in any case, unclear) stance of this, since he was able to assassinate Kurtz himself after his lecturing of the psychology of war and the idea of morality.
The character of Kurtz –both in the novel and movie– is described as a brilliant (even genius) designed to get high position before his unsound way is considered as a threat to the ‘institution’ he comes from. His power to establish own ‘government’ with native tribe worshiping him as a high spiritual figure is seen as mental illness to curry or even, terminate. The ‘Novel’ Kurtz seems did nothing but sharing his ideas to Marlow before his dead, while the ‘Movie’ Kurtz got the chance to show his ‘power’ by imprisoning Willard and killing one of Willard’s crews. Following the different behavior, this character is also physically built in different way. The genius ivory agent is described as a lifeless thin of illness man; while the genius colonel appears as a huge man with military-well built body.
Using the first person point of view, both of the works tell the story through the eyes of Marlow and Willard. However, the different development of these characters of the narrator for me, somehow, impact to the atmosphere of the story. As the narrator, Marlow tends to be more active than Willard. He is actively share his thoughts and perspectives of what he sees and feels of every moment during the journey. On the other hand, Willard performs as a more passive character who functions as the ‘silent camera’ during the movie. The major actions done by him are only the killing of woman survivor in the civil small ship and the killing of Kurtz.
As the reader, I felt –as if I am– led by the author to judge ‘the others’ (concerning racism issue) the same way as it is narrated by Marlow. The journey he experienced is told in a story of his thoughts, leaving less space for the reader to have their own judgment. However, through the eyes of Willard as a ‘silent camera’, I got more space to take my own perspective toward certain issues and the existence and the ‘civilization degree’ of ‘the others’.
The major similarity of the works is the theme, even though they both are served in a different taste. Shifting European Colonialism into American Military Invasion, Apocalypse Now does not diminish the issues of White superiority. Critiques of the idea of civilization (native African and Vietnamese are less civilized than European or American), ‘foreign’ superiority (to enslave African is justifiable as well as to take military invasion during Vietnam War), prejudice mentality and standard of morality (Marlow and Willard are forced to take Kurtz based on the owner of authority’s prejudice), and notion of insanity (they who refuse any cooperation with the ‘righteous’ people and extend their life with ‘uncivilized’ society will turn to be insane) are expressed in this two art works.
Carrying these values, there is no way to deny these two works as the critique of so-called White supremacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)