Reading Response (11.13)

Email: jp7228@nyu.edu

 

In reflecting on this week’s readings of Making Present and the artworks discussed in this chapter, I found myself immersed in prolonged contemplation. These works are ostensibly political, yet they resonate with me on a profoundly human level. I am compelled to consider whether the political is merely an amplification of our humanity. Thus, I am drawn to a pivotal concept introduced in the text— ‘empathy’ —and it is this notion that I wish to explore further.

 

“Studies on empathy ‘as an affective capacity or technique via which ‘we’ can come to know the cultural ‘other’ keep the hierarchical self-other distinction firmly intact. Empathy, the way I understand it, is an innate, adaptive capacity living creatures have to connect with other forms of life (not exclusively human) through neurological mechanisms … ‘despite its early origins and adaptive functions, empathy is not inevitable; people routinely fail to empathize with others, especially members of different social or cultural groups.’ Not only ‘Who cares?’ but ‘They deserve it.’ Not caring, in fact, has been promoted as hip and attractive in today’s U.S. culture. Memes of ‘Who cares?’ circulate constantly.” (Taylor, pp122) This paragraph talks about an attitude of people towards events, yet I seem to see shades of this “Who cares” in one of the artworks.

 

Carry your Dead

On page 119 of Making Present, the process of Carry your Dead is described. I accessed the video of this artwork, and the setting was all too familiar, unfolding just outside our building. It appears to have commenced on Lafayette Street, and gradually, the procession transporting the deceased swelled in numbers. However, a particular observation caught my attention: the addition of some individuals was marked by a conspicuous act. They extracted their mobile phones to document the performance. This raises the question: Are they genuinely concerned with the individual being carried, or are they merely satisfying their curiosity?

 

This brings to mind the second episode of the second season of Black Mirror. The episode centers around an immersive drama, wherein the memory of a criminal is erased, casting her as the protagonist in a theatrical spectacle. The audience participating in this experience must adhere to certain rules: they are prohibited from approaching the criminal too closely, from interacting with her, and are instructed to record her with their phones throughout. Once the performance concludes, the criminal’s memory is wiped clean, setting the stage for a new cycle of performance. The organizers seem to be punishing that criminal over and over again in a way that bystanders treat with indifference.

 

My first encounter with human indifference occurred during my freshman year of high school when I went to my high school which is closer to the city center from a slightly remote area. One day, on my way to school, I witnessed the genesis of “Who cares” on the subway. An individual, about 10 or 11 feet from me, had their phone snatched. The subway was in motion, preventing the thief from immediately escaping to another carriage. The victim shouted, “Someone robbed my phone!” The passengers in the carriage ceased their activities momentarily to look up. After a brief glance, they returned to their previous engagements. Not a single person offered assistance. It seemed to be treated as a trivial daily occurrence, yet it was my first time witnessing such an event. Their expressions seem to tell the story: all of our emotion-producing functions have been removed, remain ingrained in my memory. At that moment, I questioned: Why do such incidents occur even closer to the city center? Why does prosperity coincide with increased indifference? Yet, as I wrote down these words, I reflect that I, too, was part of that “Who cares” crowd, and I can find no justification for my inaction.

 

In last week’s Introduction to Performance Studies class, we engaged with Judith Butler’s Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative in the introductory chapter. The discourse revolved around the potency of language, acknowledging our susceptibility to its impact, and recognizing the extent of harm certain articulations can inflict. However, it’s not solely language that can cause damage; ignorance and indifference are equally potent agents of injury.