Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Sean's Post

I think the connection to Hal's term paper that A. "Dove" Lempke made is rather insightful, and of considerable import to our discussions regarding the subjective and objective nature of various characters. In his paper, Hal makes a distinction between the modern hero, chief Steve Mcgarret of Hawaii 5-oh, and the post modern hero Frank Furillo of Hill Street Blues. He states that McGarret, the hero of action takes charge, acting upon others, as the subject, while the retiring Furillo is acted upon, is the object of forces outside, and greater than, himself. Moreover McGarret acts on the basis of actual evidence, objective evidence. This creates a sliding scale, where as time goes on American heroes become increasingly the object of others. This is explored to its greatest possible degree in Gatley, who is entirely subject to, and the object of others machinations. Even his infirmity is brought about by external forces.
Throughout the story we can see that various characters are reduced to objects by external forces. It is the nature of addiction that the addict surrenders their ego to a greater force, allows the addiction to suppress their fundamental sense of self. Even AA requires the surrender of dominion to the divine. The characters are essentially buffeted by a perfect storm of external forces that keep them from ever acting with facility in their own interest.
In response to the point raised by Cory about Canadians/Americans, I would say that Americans as we see them are objects, while the separatists are as much subjects we can find. (Please note that I said objects and subjects rather than objective and subjective, which would have the opposite meaning that I intend here. The terminology is somewhat muddled.) The Canadians are able to view themselves as agents of their own destiny precisely because they have made the move from subjects to objects, they act upon others rather than being acted upon by external forces, (drugs entertainment etc.) In choosing their temple, they make the conscious choice not to become an object for others to control.


Blogger peter friel said...

Subjectivity or objectivity with respect to one's own temple seems to be a possible method of sorting human population in two truly separate categories: control of one's life, versus a lack of control of one's own life--both of which essentially, do not have the ability to change.

[This is not my blog, I contributed to the 'wiki']

5/09/2007 10:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home