Though the movie and the discussion in class was extremely inciting, I still struggle with the ideas of resistance and opposition. I know the difference in their definitions, but the idea of creating something new rather than fighting against something is complex. Resistance can exist in art, literature, religion, etc... It is easy to see that, however what I argue is that in order to resist the individual has to have a knowledge of what they are resisting against (this is the same idea as Havel talks about earlier that in order to know truth, one must have lived the lie, and vice versa). Otherwise I could create a masterpiece of art and claim it to be my own self identity and culture, but I do not understand how showing my self-identity is resisting other identities unless ofcourse I was living in a communist society where my own identity meant nothing. Also, it is important to note that those who are in opposition are those who the system claims to be in opposition. Our acts of reisstance may not seem or intend to be an opposition, but the system may view it in that way. Since the system views our resistance as opposition does that make resistance and opposition uniquely correalated? Can we even resist without seeming to be the opposition? Realistically, who's view actually appears to be more influential, the resisters' or the systems'?
-Zach
What great questions!! I can't claim to have answers, but they are all worth talking more about, and all are raised again in the remainder of Havel's essay. One thing that stands out for me is the premise -- which I think is false -- that one must live in a communist society in order for the presentation of an "authentic" identity to be, and to be seen, as resistant. There are undoubtedly many things you could do right now that expressed your inmost feelings of what matters most that others, in authority would take to be "oppositional."
ReplyDelete