The front-page of today’s International Herald Tribune brought me to contemplate on the Other as Face. Plastered on the newspaper is a group of Tibetans at the Tibetan People’s Solidarity Campaign in New Delhi, India. Long-oppressed by Chinese rule in their country, these Tibetans continue to rally for the world’s attention to the severe deprivation of freedom in Tibet. The method by which they seek priority in international affairs is one of extraordinary measures—self-immolation.
Since 2009, ninety-nine Tibetans have resorted to setting themselves on fire in dissent towards a harsh Chinese regime. Without the right to freedom of speech or political protest in their country, they turn to the fiery spectacle of self-immolation to further their cause. Although extraordinary, this particular act of protest is not one entirely uncommon to the world. In fact, what propelled the historic Arab Spring in 2011 was the self-immolation of Tunisian vegetable vendor Mohammed Bouazizi who, like the Tibetans, faced grave oppression by political authorities.
What is it about setting oneself ablaze that makes it such an iconic symbol of protest? Apart from the gripping display of flames, self-immolation represents something else, the defacing of oneself or in our perspective, the defacing of the Other.
When Levinas speaks about seeing the Other as Face, he pertains to not seeing the Other as an object. The Face, as we discussed in class, is not an actual face but rather, a synecdoche for the whole human person. In that case, even the back of one’s head can be perceived as Face. While noticing first the eyes, nose, and mouth of a person is tantamount to objectifying a person.
One can argue that although the metaphor of the Face is symbolic of the Other as human being, it is a paradox in itself. Aren’t the eyes, nose, and mouth what makes a face a face? How then can we see the Face without actually seeing the parts which form it? What is a face without its features?
However what Levinas tries to reveal is that it is specifically these features that lead us to superficial conclusions about the Other. We immediately see the physical aspects of our Being that distinguish us, that make us unique. Quickly we pass judgment on others by categorizing them as beautiful or not and using these categories as evidence for their worth.
In the engulfment of flames, the Other is defaced. Torturously, the immolator loses his or her face and body to fire. It is during this act of self-defiance that the Other behind categories of poor, uneducated, oppressed and unworthy emerges. Similarly it is not the face which we turn to see but the expression it reveals to us. As in the case of Mohammed Bouazizi, it was in his self-immolation that the world turned to finally face him as Other.
I think this is what the Tibetans aim to achieve in their protests. They aim to deface themselves in order to be seen as Face by the Chinese authorities primarily. They beckon us to realize our shared humanity, our being in Being. Through this, we direct our consciousness beyond ourselves. We turn to face the Other as Face.
First of all, I am very glad about your insight about the face when you look deeper into it. However, I hope that you will always open and listen both sides and analyze critically on what is really happening. We all know that world media is heavily influenced by western countries and countries aligned to western countries. We also know that some countries think of many ways to push down the peaceful rise of other countries for many interests. Just for additional information, Tibet, also known as Xizhang in Chinese, is one of the five autonomous regions in China. Majority of the people living in Tibet are the Zhang Ethnics. In other words, Zhang Ethnics are the indigenous people of Tibet. As autonomous region, in terms of politics, the people in Tibet are directly lead by Zhang Ethnics and not directly lead by the central government. Also as autonomous region, Xizhang Zhang Ethnic Autonomous Region has its own law makers, laws and the like. Assuming the news is really true, it would be better to use local rule in Tibet, local regime in Tibet and local authorities in Tibet over Chinese rule, Chinese regime and Chinese authorities. Although Zhang Ethnics are Chinese, it could be misleading to use the term Chinese, because the term Chinese usually connotes People's Republic of China as a whole or central government of China. Thank you for your openness and understanding. Have a nice day.
ReplyDelete