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).