Title: “Beyond the Point of No Return”
Hello everyone, Na Young and Siwook here, co-leading the discussion for this week. After all the grim news and the cold rain pouring from the world today, we’ve decided to take on a more cheerful topic: apocalypse! Broadly defined, there are 3 progressive stages in an apocalypse.
3 stages of apocalypse
- Events leading up to the apocalypse, either directly or indirectly causing the big “end”.
- The big end, the point of no return, the armageddon, or simply known as the apocalypse.
- Events after the apocalypse as the survivors try to reconcile with what had happened and rebuild “society”.
So far in the class, we’ve collectively discussed what is wrong with the current system, or the fact that the system is doing precisely what it was designed to do (ie. US farming system is built on stolen lands drenched in the blood of the indigenous people, maintained by black and brown bodies). Oil spills, deforestation, climate change, all these lovely events are part of Stage 1, incidents leading up to the apocalypse.
We’ll skip Stage 2; that’s too sad.
Stage 3 is where all of our beloved dystopian literature comes in, ranging from the Hunger Games to the Divergent. However, as a class, we haven’t tackled Stage 3, events after the apocalypse and what our societies could look like after all of the above. So during class, we would like to invite everyone to ask, what is the end vision? What could our society look like (disregarding how we will actually get there - for now). Towards what “dream” can we work for? What kind of societies do we want to be in?
First off, Mononoke Hime by Miyazaki Hayao! This classic is about… well, watch it to find out! Siwook will be at the coffee shop during Common Time, and Na Young will be there from 1-3pm on Monday with a downloadable movie file. Na Young will also be in the library circulations desk from 5-6pm and 7-8pm (yeah, the work hour is weird, we know). There’s also a DVD disc you can rent out from the library, so feel free to utilize that as well (when approaching the circulation desk workers, bring the W22 number with you)! What always gets us about Mononoke Hime is the complexity of the characters and the plot, how the director pushes against the simple nature vs. technology as the good vs. evil. Lady Eboshi has all the traits that we would find in a stereotypical villain: shoots the boar Nago which sets off the plot, pushes for advancement in technology via rifle development, and ultimately, chooses to (albeit for external and selfless reasons such as to heal her sick citizens) murder the Forest Spirit. However, Director Miyazaki has given her an extremely compelling storyline, making it more difficult for the audience to simply state, Lady Eboshi and technology are evil.
After watching the movie, read the article that is attached to the email we’ve sent out (or Na Young figured out how to computer https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6MO7XnPQjjaWFlHMXVWNG9RZ0E/view?usp=sharing ). It is an excerpt from a book titled ANIME from Akira to Howl’s Moving Castle: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation from a chapter called Princess Mononoke: Fantasy, The Feminine, and the Myth of “Progress”. The chapter does an excellent job analyzing the movie, placing the plot in Japanese historical context and the country’s relationship with technology specifically thanks to the atomic bomb, and contrasting the ending of Mononoke Hime with those of Disney’s Tarzan. And since the theme of this discussion is the Apocalypse, let’s thinking about the ending, which the article does a wonderful job of analyzing. The movie itself never offers us a solution, and to be blunt, nothing is solved. The Forest Spirit is dead, humans still have to survive, most likely by destroying nature, and San tells Ashitaka that she cannot forgive the humans. Tarzan, on the other hand, portrays an optimistic Garden of Eden-esk ending, which is extremely problematic and ignores the reality that we live in. So the two main takeaways are (if you don’t read the article, which, please DO)
- “While Tarzan uses fantasy to gloss over the inconvenient facts of historical change and cultural complexity, Princess Mononoke employs the fantastic to reveal how plurality and otherness are a basic feature of human life.”
- “By acknowledging Eboshi’s “humanity” (in both senses of the term) the film forces the viewer out of any complacent cultural position where technology and industry can be dismissed as simply wrong.”
Since we are talking about technology, we think it would be a good idea to review and complicate the way we define technology itself. What really is technology? How is modern technology different from what it ought to be? How are atomic bombs and ancient greek clay vase different/similar? This short (4:05) video clip is a summary of Martin Heidegger’s essay on technology. They unpack it and explain it so well using some 8-bit animation and Star Wars references, which we think is the best combo one could ask for.
Now that we unpacked the idea of the technology itself, let’s think about human civilization! In the following essay, John Zerzan (aka everyone’s favorite anarcho-primitivist) argues that human society in itself is destructive and harmful. We personally do not agree with his view, but this article does a good job of questioning the way we think about human society and progress. Towards the end, Zerzan states “To the question of technology must be added that of civilization itself. Ever-growing documentation of human prehistory as a very long period of largely non-alienated human life stands in stark contrast to the increasingly stark failures of untenable modernity”
(side note: This person also wrote an essay on agriculture, arguing that the shift from hunter-gatherer society to agrarian society led to societal injustice we see today)
So, to bring all this together, below are the blog post questions.
- What were your reactions to the film’s ending, after watching the movie and reading the excerpt from the book? Does the “there is no winning on either side” make you feel uncomfortable? Or is it a fact of life?
- How does Heidegger’s definition of technology and Zerzan’s bleak view on human society fit in with the movie’s main message? What aspect do they share? How are they different? More broadly, do you agree with either Heidegger and/or Zerzan?
- Or anything you feel inclined to discuss (pertaining to the topic).
Princess Mononoke is one of my favorite movies by the way so thank you for showing this to us! Since I've seen the movie so many times I guess my overall reaction is anger but happy. I remember being so angry at Lady Eboshi for causing all of this chaos for her own motivations and desires. I was also sad that San and Ashitaka didn't end up staying together in the end but I understand why. I am happy that they both could come together and solve the problem that was caused by humans stupidity and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of there is no winning on either side makes me a little uncomfortable but at the same time it is true. I do not think that there is a way to have a perfect solution where no one is hurt in the process.
Lady Eboshi creates this technology but she uses it for harm. It it like how we are living in our society. We have all this technology but we are not using it to benefit us in the long run. In most cases it it making us more illiterate. Our ancestors survived without all the things we have now and were more connected to the land as a survival mechanism. Now we are more disconnected than ever and seem to not care about the land and how we effect it just like Lady Eboshi.
Thanks, Na Young and Siwook, for putting together our class for this week! I’m super interested in how the framework of apocalypses can help us think through farming, technology, and agriculture. It certainly is a different way of framing things than we have been in our previous conversations.
ReplyDeleteI devoured Disney movies as a kid. I loved the music, the characters, the animation. For me, watching movies meant watching Western movies, and specifically Disney. I haven’t watched many Eastern movies, or even Western movies from different studios. I don’t usually think much about this, but it became very apparent as I was watching Princess Mononoke. The tropes that I usually associate with movies weren’t there, and this made for a very jarring experience as a viewer. I hadn’t realized how much I expect the standard Disney “happily ever ending” ending until it wasn’t there. Princess Mononoke ends on a much more mixed (and perhaps more realistic?) note. At the end, I didn’t get the sense that everything is going to be okay, which is something I have always associated with animated movies.
I don’t find the idea of “there is no winning” discomforting. Something that I really appreciated about Princess Mononoke is that the movie is willing to play with the idea that no person, being, or idea is purely good or purely bad. It’s human nature to think of ourselves as “the good guys”; we are always the heroes in our own narratives. Yet, the world isn’t actually sorted into “good guys” and “bad guys.” Almost all of us exist somewhere in the middle. In spite of our good intentions, we are not perfect people. I found this particularly apparent in the article’s discussion of Lady Eboshi. It reads, “In the film’s presentation, Eboshi is in some ways a tragic figure, but her tragedy is that she is not actually evil. Instead, she is coerced into her destructive attack by her natural desire to protect a utopian collectivity” (241). That is, even though we may not agree with her actions, Eboshi is acting according to what she believes is necessary. She cannot simply exist as a villain. Truly, she is doing what she thinks she need to do to protect her people. I find it refreshing to see a movie actually acknowledge this.
On the question of technology, my opinions fall into similar murky territory. I’m not interested in creating a binary opposition between “good” and “bad” technology. Technology has been historically used for both positive and negative purposes. As the movie shows, these purposes can include destruction of the environment and the other creatures with whom we share our planet. According to the video, Heidegger argues that technology is connected to our specific ways of thinking. What an interesting framework! I’m wondering what it might mean to think of how we develop technologies that are more consciously tied to ideas of sustainability and preservation of nature. (I’m thinking, too, of the technology of movie making… and how the narratives that we write form a particular kind of public discourse surrounding these issues.)
This was not particularly coherent, I realize. I’m having a lot of thoughts and looking forward to discussing them in class!
In response the quote "there is no winning on either side" presupposes a false dichotomy. Though the citizens and leaders of Irontown have depleted and destroyed nature to continue their own survival, I don't believe that this is the only way for them to survive. Though I believe technology to be inextricably linked to human survival, the modern technology that has possessed and guided our lives for so long is not only unnecessary, but unsustainable. I tend to agree with Heidegger on his critique of modern technology, whether the critique is supported by ecological, social, or medical reasons. This is not to say that we have to throw out the baby with the bath water and rid ourselves of all technology developed after the 14th century, but that we should seriously consider the impact of various technologies on the human psyche and human society, in addition to the impact on the environment. There are many technologies that I believe to be more beneficial than harmful, but there are also many that are the inverse of that. Neither technology or nature should be viewed monolithically, and I think that Princess Mononoke's depiction of the two and their interaction is complicated and accurate.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger pointed out that with technological advancement there is a lack of reflecting on whether we are happy with our current state. It reminds me of the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. A person is chained to watch a false reality in the cave but when they step out of the cave they are enlightened. Engaging in discourse about topics such as food justice brings about enlightenment. We must not only ask ourselves why we do the things we do an for who but what consequences will that bring and for who. I think the humans in the film did not consider the perspective of the forest when they decide to kill the boars. Both sides consider the other to be completely awful, and the humans do often to think of themselves. It is natural that there is no winning on either side because both sides don’t consider the other side’s needs.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this is the best homework assignment ever. I seriously love this movie, so thank you guys for giving me an excuse to watch it again. I grew up on all of Hayao Miyazaki’s films (Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke [obviously] etc…) but it has been a few years since I last watched it so thank you again for the excuse to go back and re-watch my childhood. I definitely feel like I took more away from it rewatching it now then what I took away from it as a kid, so the shift in perspectives was interesting. When I was a kid I wanted so badly to dress up as Princess Mononoke for halloween, and I thought she was the coolest princess— better then all the lame disney princesses (no offense to anyone who liked disney). However, when I watched it now for this class I definitely saw more of Miyazaki’s play on the environment versus technology war. I really liked the chapter from the book you gave us to read both because it gave us an interesting look on the gender dynamics as they were portrayed in the film, and also because of its comparison to Tarzan. I don’t mind the ending, how no side really wins. It makes it feel more realistic and gives the movie a deeper meaning in my mind. On a similar note, the complexity of the characters also made it hard to hate either side completely and also made it seem more realistic in that sense as well. As far as the things we learned about technology, I thought that was interesting how they defined technology now-a-day as a tool we can use, and as a resource we can exploit. I thought the starwars in the video was cool too. Overall, it was an interesting topic so I can’t wait to talk about it in class! Thanks again guys! :D
ReplyDeleteI believe that the term “there is no winning on either side” gives me a mix of emotions. On one hand, I feel like the term is a wake-up-call for society, especially for people who may not be aware of the realities of what is going on. On the other hand, the term seems to be a little negative (Implying that the impossible cannot happen, which is something that I disagree with). If there is misunderstanding or lack of education, the term does have some truth, and it may be a harsh reality (But this concept or thought of thinking can have the ability to change). Both Heidegger’s definition of technology and Zerzan’s view on human society relating to how humans make an impact on the Earth, the readings fit the message’s movie on how humans negatively interfere or destroy their surrounding environments through personal choices and activities. The readings touch more on modern technology and it’s history. I do agree that humans are somewhat destructive and I also believe that like in the Heidegger’s video, that technology is only viewed as beneficial only if it helps to benefit human beings. Both readings in the movie show how disconnected human beings are from planet in terms of obtaining knowledge about how technology destroys the environment. Additionally , these readings and movie expose the truth of the negative impacts that humans make. These visual moths through written and visual content help to promote education on this important subject. The film is a great way for education on this subject, especially for children or people who find visual content. The written content and video also allow those such as college students or scholars, to better understand the subject.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion "there is no winning on either side" seems accurate to real life. I don't believe there is ever a solution to anything that makes everyone 100% happy- it is always a matter of compromise. At the end of the movie, I felt like neither side had really won, but both had compromised a little (but really a lot) in order to reach a point where things were at least fine, and I felt fine with that ending.
ReplyDeleteThe role of technology in both the movie and the additional resources seems so abstract. It was interesting to me that Heidegger described an ancient vase as technology because it was a way of seeing the world's potential. In the movie the concept of technology seemed a little less abstract in some ways, such as using the iron for new guns that were light and effective, and more abstract in other ways, such as the supernatural tools of the forest. This got me thinking (and this might be to philosophical), what if technology could be described as a mental tool as well. With such varying definitions of good and bad technology, so many different opinions are formed. However, maybe technology is actually just a way of seeing the world creatively as Heidegger pointed out with the vase in the video. Through this lens, the most modern technology in the movie would have been the act or idea of the people and forest being able to cohabitate.
In response to “there is no winning on either side”, I feel fine with this statement. Due to economic theory, there is always an opportunity cost when people are doing something. For example, when we are eating the breakfast, we might give up the extra 20 minutes’ sleep, when we are taking the class in college, we are sacrificing the opportunity to get a full-time job at the same time. Opportunity cost is everywhere. Even though we might have reasons to make a choice, thinking one option is better than the other, it can only show we have certain values or preferences, but can’t show the opportunity cost of making this choice doesn’t exist. From the video of Heidegger’s definition of technology, his view could be said in this way, there is a tradeoff between the efficiency from modern technology and the environment. The opportunity cost of having greater efficiency is to sacrifices environment, and the opportunity cost of having environment is to sacrifices greater efficiency. If this statement hold to be true, maybe the best choice for us having both technology and environment in the amount associated with their relative ‘price’. However, I don’t think this relationship between technology and environment should hold forever. Maybe one day, the level of technology is so high that achieving greater efficiency no longer need to sacrifice environment, and we can use technology to improve the environment instead.
ReplyDeleteThanks for giving me a push to watch this film! I'm really looking forward to talking about it. The "no winning on either side" interpretation of the ending is interesting and I'd like to dig into it more---because I actually felt that the humans maybe got off a little easy at the end. It seemed like life was returning to the mountains and they were going to have a chance to rebuild and continue their lives despite having assaulted the life force itself. Though, of course, they'd have to recover from the devastation they'd wrought and certainly humans and nature weren't at peace at the end of the film. I was left wondering whether the humans would learn from their mistakes or whether, in their rebuilding, would re-create a "suicidal" society.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the introduction to Heidegger as well. Thinking about technology as a mode of thought rather than as objects makes a lot of sense to me and it's REALLY interesting that the ancient Greeks used the term in very different ways than we do today. The idea of beauty VS utilitarianism is one that comes up again and again in my reading. Currently I am reading a book by Martin Prechtel who spent time living with the Tzutujil people--in the chapter I'm reading right now, he is describing how one role of the shamans of that culture was to create rituals of beauty that fed the life force. There was this idea that life needed beauty to continue and that every person had a responsibility to create beauty in their everyday lives, that beauty was a way that we repay the world for what we take from it. In the film, the contrast between the beauty of the forest and the ugliness of the city is stark . . . .
Is agriculture the root of all evil? Argh, I don't know--I've heard different shades of this argument before and something about it doesn't sit right with me. I'm running out of time now--but maybe we can talk more about this in class!
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mononoke Hime. It was a captivating film and I wish I would have watched it sooner. The author, Miyazaki Hayao, did an amazing job portraying the problem between technology and nature that is occurring. I like how the movie pitted human’s overreliance on technology against nature. More specifically, I am referring to human’s way of thinking of technology (similar to what Heidegger was referring to in the video) in which nature is merely a resource for us to utilize. We forget about the beauty of nature and how important that is. How important the artistic processes of nature is and how it makes life worth living. Reducing such processes to a science takes the beauty away and makes things dull. I don’t think it is even possible for us to survive without nature. Should humans let things get so terrible that we destroy nature itself kind of like in the movie, I doubt that we will get a second chance. According to some scientist we have reached the point of no return with nature. At this point, there is really not much we can do from preventing the inevitable human made catastrophe. I hope that we are wrong about crossing that point of no return and that there are still things that we can do to heal the earth.
ReplyDelete