Showing posts with label Thomas Hobbes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Hobbes. Show all posts

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Riding the Trail of Tears: Compassion and Altruism


In what follows A.S. examines Blake Hausman's novel Riding the Trail of Tears.

* * * * *

Under normal circumstances, we are generally compassionate and giving. We act in the best interests of others--we are caring and we empathize with members of our community. In a sense, we act irrationally and against human nature. However, when we are taken out of our comfort zone and placed in a situation that is dangerous and unpredictable, we act on impulse and our innate, sometimes selfish, human instincts. Political philosopher Thomas Hobbes once said, “The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone” (Leviathan). According to Hobbes, man in the state of nature seeks nothing but his own selfish pleasure. It is human nature to place oneself above others. Being taken out of our comfort zone tests our personality and questions everything we know about ourselves--or thought we knew. In Riding the Trail of Tears, I believe Blake Hausman made it a point to show that people have their true animalistic nature come out on The Trail of Tears and, that at times, this can be inherently selfish (or “rational”).

Danny wishes selfishly to fulfill his animalistic desires regardless of the consequences. For example, Danny is found with his, “body rolling limply over puddles of blood and clay, poked and prodded by soldiersʼ bayonets” (Hausman 226). Apparently, Danny had grabbed a woman with the intention of raping her. As a young male with raging hormones, he could not resist the sight of dozens of semi-naked Cherokee women. Danny’s motivation for the rape was purely animalistic in nature. Danny knew there would be consequences for his actions; however, the intention of rape was still there. Danny did not care for the emotional pain it would cause Mandy, his girlfriend, if she found out about his reckless actions. In the moment, he did not care about their relationship. He placed himself above Mandy because his animalistic urge for sex was too large to ignore. This animalistic urge for sex proves to be a stronger force than his conscience. Dannyʼs inherently selfish animalistic urge for sex ultimately resulted in his death.

There is another case of selfishness in the rape scene involving Danny. As this scene is told through Tallulah, we do not read about the actual rape. When first learning of the rape Tallulah hears, “Gunshots ring...she hears Spencer calling her name. Yelling her name. Screaming.” You may think the rape is Danny’s fault alone. However, before Danny’s rape of the Cherokee woman, Tallulah had noticed “the bulge in Danny’ pants.” Tallulah could have prevented the rape if she had warned Danny about the consequences. However, Tallulah chose to ignore Danny’s erection because she was preoccupied with talking to Wallace about Irma Rosenberg. Tallulah selfishly prioritizes finding the missing Irma Rosenberg to preserve her survival statistics. This leads into the discussion on Tullalah and her state of mind as a result of the Trail of Tears.

Tallulah admits she has lost her sense of empathy upon riding the trail of tears. For example, in response to the lack of empathy she feels towards Mandyʼs beating, she says, “Why do I feel so little for these dead and dying tourists? Of course itʼs all a simulation, but something is missing, and itʼs terrifying. She begins to wonder if itʼs more than just her need for a vacation. She wonders if she is becoming less human” (Hausman 266). After one is exposed to gut-wrenching events such as murder, torture, and rape, one is left feeling desensitized. It is a sense of empathy that separates humans from animals and this is what Tallulah feels is “missing”. Unfortunately, riding the trail of tears dehumanizes Tullulah, leaving Tellulah stripped of that which makes her human. When Spencer attempts to help Mandy, Tallulah responds with alarming ease, “Just keep moving.” Although this is the correct response as a tour guide in her situation, one cannot help but think how Tallulah would respond to a similar real-life situation. Would she be able to tell the others to “keep moving” with the same ease and bluntness? Tallulah admits she feels nothing, and it is clearly affecting her state of mind.

Tallulah’s motivation to preserve her survival statistics remains ambiguous. Her motivation may be out of compassion. For example, she may want to give her customers the best experience possible. This means that sacrifices are necessary to preserve the interests of the group as a whole--correlating with the Native American culture of “communal interest”. Her motivation may also be attributed to selfishness. She may want to be the best tour guide for professional gain. At the very least, this would give her job stability and decent pay. In addition, since this is a virtual simulation, is it fair to claim she has lost her sense of empathy?

In my opinion, the ease with which Bob Rosenberg falls asleep is the most convincing case demonstrating the inherent selfishness of man outside his comfort zone. For example, Bob Rosenbergʼs wife is missing and he is, “passed out and stuffed, convinced that his limber old body is full and tired, so physically content that he can nap in a chair facing a strange fireplace even though his wife is missing” (Hausman 138). Clearly, Bob Rosenberg has no concern for his wife. He seems to have forgotten her. His thoughts dwell on his physical discomfort from the journey. His motivation to forget about his wife is to gain physical comfort, a disturbing thought in nature. In our society (outside the “state of nature”), love is sacred and we have high regard for it. We respect the institution of marriage and the inherent worth of love as a form of unselfish expression. Unfortunately, this was not the case as Bob Rosenbergʼs animalistic desires were placed over his wife’s interests.

A hard case for my argument is that of Nell Johnson’s. For example, Nell Johnson believed her children were hungry and despite warnings such as, “Lady--either stop right now, or Iʼll shoot yer dumb ass dead,” (Hausman 186) she sprinted in order to retrieve fruit for her children. If Blake wants to show that human nature is inherently selfish, then why did Nell Johnson (selflessly) put the needs of her children above her own safety? Firstly, we are unsure as to whether Nell Johnson’s motivation was to retrieve food for her children or escape from captivity. However, I am going to assume she was planning to retrieve food for her children. Nell Johnsonʼs selflessness does not actually contradict the theme of man’s inherent selfishness. The natural instincts of a mother to care for her children can also be contextualized as “selfish” if we think about rationality more generally as picking those actions which gives us the highest utility. The sight of her children suffering for food causes her pain--to minimize this pain and maximize her utility (thus, acting “selfishly), she puts their physical needs over her own. This gives her greater pleasure and, therefore, might be classified as not entirely “selfless.”

I think there is a level of irony in the intended purpose of the TREPP. Going as a tour group was supposed to show the Native American culture of communal interest; however, these characters acted in their own self-interest on multiple occasions. In Native American society, straying from this idea of communal interest is shunned. In a sense, it is fitting that these characters were punished on The Trail of Tears for their actions in the TREPP.

A.S.