One’s death is other’s death. This is the line that my mother told me about five years ago, as we watched the news on the earthquake that happened in Sichuan Province, China on May 12, 2008. It all started when the news reporter reports the news on how many people passed away or was heavily injured. My mother then told me that those numbers are not accurate. I asked why. My mother replied something like this. For example, one person passed way. Let’s say, he is a father and business owner. Since he is a father, when he dies, his wife and his sons and daughters will suffer. His relatives and close friends will also suffer. Since he is a business owner, when he dies, his workers will suffer. The families, relatives and close friends of his workers will also suffer. Since his business will collapse, other businesses will also suffer. Since other businesses suffer, the economy of the whole country will also suffer. The suffering goes on and on.
In fact, the line “One’s death is other’s Death.” does not only apply to that earthquake. It also applies to all other calamities that happened anytime and anywhere. In a broader sense, it can also include the all the problems of other people. Despite the line being true, there seems to be some potential problems in interpreting this line. First way of interpreting the explanation of my mother goes like this. He, as a father, is responsible in various ways for his family, his relatives and his close friends. What makes his family, his relatives and his close friends suffer due to his death is not primarily because losing the economic support and the like. Instead, it is primarily because of losing his presence and his spiritual support. In other words, it is primarily because of losing what Levinas calls his Face. Second way of interpreting the explanation, particularly the last part, of my mother goes like this. He, as a business owner, owns a business that can indirectly affect us through infinitely long lines of action and reaction. In other words, anything that happens to him can affect me, no matter how slight, through the infinitely long lines of action and reaction. We, as a part of the greater whole or as a human in this world, are then affected through economy. The economy here in this second way of interpreting refers to personal interest and not the trans-act-ability of money. If the economy here refers to the trans-act-ability of money, then the second way of interpreting will be more or less the same as the first way of interpreting.
Before trying to dig deeper to Levinas’ new alternative way of looking, I would first like to express my deep admiration to it. What makes others suffer with one’s death is the losing of one’s Face. If we put the death in the context of very big problems, heavy injuries and passing away, this is totally true and acceptable. However, if we apply the death even to the very small problems, is this still true and acceptable? For example, if someone on the other side of the world is having very small problem finding a pen dropped on the floor, is this still applicable? When interpreting the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, should we put a limit to its scope for it to become more acceptable? If we are not putting a limit to its scope, aren’t we too assuming or too intervening of others in the bad sense? When Levinas is saying the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, is he saying that out of pure purity or with the bad sense of too assuming and too intervening, like applying it even to the very small problems? Sometimes, some have the tendency to glorify or even God-ify the way some act. Can this tendency be seen in that line? Compared to the first way of interpreting the explanation of my mother, is the second way of interpreting more realistic by not trying to cover up the unsaid, whatever the unsaid is?
No comments:
Post a Comment