I am arguing against resolution, that Snow Crash is NOT a Hegelian story; rather, it is a Brechtian story.
Evidence to support this is found in the Metaverse. If this were a Hegelian story, the Metaverse probably wouldn’t exist because Hegel says that “the animal is entirely determined by its environment,” (p. 89). In Snow Crash, the animal (man) created the environment. It is explained on page 93-94 that “Hegel views character as absolute subject while brecht sees him as object- as spokesman for economic and social forces,” ( p. 93). To me, this means that Brecht believes that man changes his views or actions according to the norms of society. He acts in order to succeed or survive in a society. He also says that “the character is not absolute subject but the object of economic/social forces to which he responds (and in virtue of which he acts)” (p. 92), meaning, to me, that environment shapes personality. So even though man did create the Metaverse, the social and economic environment still has an impact on personality and actions of man. Brecht also says that social being creates social thought, meaning that character’s social relations create the dramatic action (p. 93). So the social relationships that exist in the Metaverse create the action that occurs.
The fact that man acts in response to economic/social forces is further supported by Brecht’s view that “’human nature’ does not exist, and therefore nobody is what is ‘just because,’” which is opposite of Hegel’s view; “the character is born with all his faculties and is already predisposed to feel and act in certain ways. His fundamental characteristics are immanent.” (p. 96). It is supported in Snow Crash because the characters were not born knowing how to survive; their environment taught them the things they needed to know. For example, Hiro wasn’t born a swordfighter; he learned how to fight out of necessity to survive. Y.T. was not born knowing how to harpoon cars and get out of handcuffs; she learned those things in response to the environment.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like all of the arguments that you make, and I especially like that you point out the fact that man acts in order to succeed and survive in a society. When interpreting Brecht, I did not think about the shaping of personality, only about how the actions of a person could change.
ReplyDeleteI think you might contradict yourself, though, when you state that their environment teaches them things that they need to know. If Hegel sates that the animal is entirely determined by its environment, wouldn't Hiro and YT learning from their environment support Hegelian theory? I might also be totally off-base and just not understanding fully your personal interpretation of Brecht.
I do like that you discuss another side of the Brechtian argument that I did not think about when dealing with my interpretation. I really like that you talk about the Metaverse and its relation to Brechtian theory. I think you are absolutely correct in saying that the creation of the Metaverse may have been what started the action that concludes in the book. Man creating their own environment, not the environment growing up naturally around man, is a very valid argument for a Brechtian story. This way, the man influences, creates, rules the environment, not the environment influencing man.