In this series the word 'dignity' has been used several times. It has been used not as some attitude of self-importance, but simply as a register of a man's responsibility to the community. A man herded about, surrounded by armed guards, starved and forced to live in filth loses his dignity; that is, he loses his valid position in regard to society, and consequently his whole ethics toward society. Nothing is a better example of this than the prison, where the men are reduced to no dignity and where crimes and infractions of the rule are constant.
We regard this destruction of dignity, then, as one of the most regrettable results of the migrant's life, since it does reduce his responsibility and does make him a sullen outcast who will strike at our Government in any way that occurs to him.
Dignity is a register of man's responsibility to the community. What Steinbeck says here of the migrants from Oklahoma applies equally to the various other 'problem groups' in our societies today--the homeless, the poor, illegal immigrants, felons, sex offenders, etc...
Somehow, we have convinced ourselves that the actions or attitudes of these various groups have precluded their valid position towards society. We act as if it would be nice if such groups could have a valid position towards society, and ethics towards society sound good too, but, well....we shrug our shoulders. After all, there is a reason they are the groups they are. I guess what we really say is that it wasn't us who took their dignity away, it's them, they gave it up. Coming here illegally, committing a felony (or getting caught), their choices, their foolishness, their addictions, their faults are what have brought them to this undignified situation. They stepped away from society; we didn't step away from them.
Though expectations are not what will determine their actions, though by expecting upstanding citizenry of them we won't erase their faults, it is still possible that the return of a clear position in regard to society might be the first, necessary foundation from which to fix their problems. They them their. Theirs those, these, them. The arrogance behind fixing their problems, behind the language of they is more evidence of the loss of relation to society.
Expecting a man to be a man won't make him one, but expecting him to be a pig will achieve even less. At least if we expect a man of him, we have a chance of recognizing the man in him...I don't know what we'll ever see expecting a pig of him. If a man is expected to be an animal, how will we recognize when he has become a man? I guess being poor takes away your dignity, but it seems that dignity, as in 1936, is something we still haven't connected with success in society.
The old story of giving a man a fish and that guy eating for a day has been told in many versions, but I'm going to add another. It's been said that it's better to teach him to fish, so that he'll eat for more than a day; it's been said that it's hard to learn when your starving, so giving a fish and teaching at the same time are probably pretty good in relationship; and it's even been said that you have to look at the pond the man is fishing in, to see if there are any fish for him to catch; but what about the reason the man would want to fish in the first place? If while he is learning he doesn't feel that his fishing has any meaningful relation to society, if he doesn't feel like society needs him to fish, how long will even the best fisherman keep at it?
I agree with Steinbeck: the destruction of dignity is one of the most regrettable results of our current attitude towards poverty, crime, and addiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment