Measure Up to the Monster

Rather than examining this article in light of the monster, I was drawn toward looking at it in consideration of the hero. What does it mean to be a hero? Why must we have them? It has never been so clear to me, as it was upon reading, “When fear is at a fever pitch, they always move onto the hero phase… Life and art seek to mutually conquer vulnerability” (Asma 5). As monsters serve to highlight our collective fears, heroes serve as a resolution to both external and internal conflict.

Monsters spring forth from both superstition and the exaggeration of fact in a myriad of shapes and sizes, and are often framed as obstacles – the hoard of gold is always guarded by a dragon. Regardless of their form, however, facing them is, “… an illuminating exercise in hypothetical reasoning and hypothetical feeling” (Asma 3). In contrast, the job of the hero is to confront and ideally overcome these obstacles. Externally, monsters can represent threats against life, limb, loved ones, or even something such as wealth. Using their wit, guile, bravery, and whatever other weapon deemed appropriate, heroes face the odds and surmount these challenges – they serve to let audiences experience a potential method of coming out of a harrowing event minimally-scathed. The external component of this age-old battle begs the question of whether we are physically prepared for whatever life might throw at us. On the other hand, the hero must usually prepare for their encounter with the monster, or otherwise face some sort of moral decision. Do you save the damsel, or the school bus full of children? To kill or not to kill? Do you possess the resolve to accomplish whatever task is at hand? This internal struggle on the part of the hero asks whether we are morally equipped to handle the stressors of life. Granted, these decisions may be as simple as deciding to attend class on any given day, but they are no less impactful.

Original Image © Crowsmack

By this logic, monsters are a method by which we assess our own preparedness for everyday life – which can only be the case when they reflect our real fears. Similarly, heroes are the ideal measure of competence – the hero always saves the day, which is the metric we aspire to. The monsters that thrive in our imaginations allow us to test ourselves in a safe environment, in order to breed self-assuredness. After all, if we cannot conquer the terrors in our heads, then how can we do so in reality?

Reference:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009): 1-6.

Imaginary Monsters or Real-Life Issues?

In Asma’s “Monsters and the Moral Imagination, Asma argues against current “liberal” theory on monsters, which holds that monsters are dramatized and then used to “scold ourselves and our intolerant society for alienating the outcast [the monsters] in the first place” (2) and will likely disappear once we “embrace the difference[s]” (5) of the outcasts. Instead, Asma explains that “the monster concept is still extremely useful” and can “virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way” (5). Asma’s argument that the concept of monster is still relevant in today’s society is interesting, although I am not sure I agree with him.

First off, it seems like Asma’s argument is not supported by the examples he gives. Although he does list some stories of monsters – like Frankenstein for example – that’s just it: he simply lists these stories with no analysis of how they represent real-life obstacles. Instead, the majority of Asma’s support in the article consists of real-life anecdote. The anecdote of Bruce Shapiro, for example, was a real-life scenario in which real-life people were put into a terrifying situation in which they feared for their lives. The same thing goes for his anecdote of Malim Abdul Habib. Again, a scary situation featuring a monstrous group of attackers that actually happened.

My point is this: why do we need “virtual representations of real-life obstacles” when real life gives us those obstacles point-blank? Don’t get me wrong, I love fantastical stories as much as the next person does, but as far as all of them representing many different real-life obstacles like 9/11 or the economy, Asma does not have me sold. How can “monster stories” which are so similar that they can even be grouped into a category called “monster stories” (5) all represent different conflicts? Especially when, as Asma states himself, these stories focus on the “hero phase,” and not the “threat phase” (5).

I think that the term “monster” is still very relevant in today’s society. People definitely still act monstrous and create real-life issues from those monstrous actions. However, I am unsure whether or not monsters in recent literature and media represent current real-life issues. For example, what issue does Edward from “The Twilight Saga” (1) represent…? He is a vampire, after all. Obviously, that is an extreme example, but still, even the author himself mentioned Twilight. I think that in general, and in older literature, monsters can represent real-life issues, especially general societal issues; and that monsters can take on the worst qualities found in real-life people. But I am not so sure that in recent literature monsters represent obstacles found in daily life.

Our Real & Imagined Monsters

Asma's article, "Monsters and the Moral Imagination," mentions several interesting points. He says that "in the denouement of most stories, the monster is killed and the psyche restored to civilized order" (Asma, 2).  While reading or viewing a monster tale, we are sucked into a gruesome world in which we are disgusted but also intrigued--perhaps we even enjoy it--but it can't last forever.  Once the story ends, we must be able to return to reality.  However, the stories in which the monster isn't killed better reflect our own reality; our experience with monsters is real and extends beyond the screen or page.  We are not always able to completely destroy our monsters. Sometimes we bide our time and build our defenses, hoping that the monster never strikes.  Other times the monster evades us, or it is not contained within a body that can be destroyed, living on indefinitely as an ideology.  It is this kind of monster we often face, and it is the most dangerous.

Asma also states that "monster stories and films only draw us in when we identify with the persons who are being chased..." (Asma, 2).  I must disagree with this overarching statement.  Asma uses Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles as an example of a monster story.  In these novels, the vampires--or monsters--are presented as the (surprisingly relatable) protagonists.  Instead of asking ourselves, "how would I escape the monster?" the Vampire Chronicles force us to ask ourselves how we would cope with being the monster.  Although imaginatively facing monsters is valuable, so is imaginatively being one.  This forces us to question if we would, or even should, retain our "ethical convictions," which we must create using "real and imagined challenges" (Asma, 3).  Unfortunately, many people are wrongfully ostracized, be it for their race, gender, economic status, or any (human-created) trait.  While we all fight against unfair inequalities, we must also remember to hold fast to our personal identities.  

"Evil is always possible.  And goodness is eternally difficult"

(Rice, 13)

Will we allow another person's perceptions of us dictate our choices?  Will we forget who we truly are and do monstrous acts simply because society labels us and treats us as monsters?

References:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009): 1-6.

Rice, Anne. Interview with the Vampire. Ballantine Group, 1976. Print.

Monsters Will Never Die

Monsters are woven within the moral fabric of society. In some capacity, people will always need monsters in order to satisfy their inner desires and feelings. To me, the most powerful statement in Stephen Asma's discourse lies in the idea that monsters reflect various problems and life transitions. Asma writes, "The monster is a beneficial foe, helping us to virtually represent the obstacles that real life will surely send our way" (Asma, 5). Certainly, the distinction of a monster comes from within and is shaped by our imaginations through morals, fears, and concerns. However, the notion that monsters are disappearing within our society is an illogical allusion (Asma, 5). In fact, monsters can actually stimulate positive effects on the morality of the individual. These imaginary monsters, once formulated in an individual's mind, can provide motivation for one's daily activities and contribute to one's success. 

As far as I can remember, monsters have influenced my life to varying degrees. Whether through sports, school work, or other problems that I have faced, oftentimes, I channeled the prism of the hero versus monster relationship to represent what I had to overcome. As a fan of both action and horror movies, I have witnessed these dynamic roles modeled numerous times. For as Asma explains, "Our ethical convictions do not spring fully grown from our heads but must be developed in the context of real and imagined challenges" (Asma, 3). Each example of monsters that people are exposed to causes them to question personal ideologies and morality. Generally, then, the monster serves as the obstacle we must defeat to achieve our own goals. This mentality allows each one of us to become the hero within our own story. People enjoy listening to stories of heroes and acts of courage. Therefore, it would be no surprise for them to want to view themselves in a heroic light as well.

In reality, monsters never die; they merely change and adapt, representing new challenges, fears, and anxieties. As society moves into an era reliant on technology, placing emphasis on the ideology of post-humanism, people will continue to devise new monsters, showcasing current fears and obstacles of humanity. As Asma states, "The monster concept is still extremely useful, and its a permanent player in the moral imagination because human vulnerability is permanent" (Asma, 5). Sadly, I cannot envision a world free of the distinctive lines defining an us and them. Therefore, when change occurs, something affects the status quo, or an opponent stands in the way of a person's hopes and dreams, monsters will endure. As long as there exists opposing viewpoints or different perspectives, one will conjure imaginary monsters in order to take a stance and conquer.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b6/e4/be/b6e4be551adf889233af6fe9f2d5ce54.jpg

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment. Anthony King

Sources:

Asma, Stephen T. "Monsters and the Moral Imagination." The Chronicle of Higher         

          

          Education (2009): 1-6. Web.

Familiar Concepts Lead to Changes

“Monsters and the Moral Imagination” by Stephen T. Asma sums up a lot of our discussions in class. I feel like we have gotten to the point where we have talked about so many aspects of monsters that we have become familiar with the author’s main points.  

Some examples:

“The uses of monsters vary widely. In our liberal culture, we dramatize the rage of the monstrous creature—and Frankenstein's is a good example—then scold ourselves and our "intolerant society" for alienating the outcast in the first place. The liberal lesson of monsters is one of tolerance: We must overcome our innate scapegoating, our xenophobic tendencies.”

We have talked about this many times. We create these monstrous creatures that serve as our fear for different and unknown and to protect ourselves we condemn them to a life of alienation.

“Monsters can stand as symbols of human vulnerability and crisis, and as such they play imaginative foils for thinking about our own responses to menace.”

We discussed this back when we read “The Monster Within: Post-9/11 narratives of threat and the U.S. shifting terrain of terror.” They reflect what has happened in our lives and how that has changed us. They represent our newfound fears after tragedy.

“In a significant sense, monsters are a part of our attempt to envision the good life or at least the secure life… In order to discover our values, we have to face trials and tribulation, and monsters help us imaginatively rehearse. Imagining how we will face an unstoppable, powerful, and inhuman threat is an illuminating exercise in hypothetical reasoning and hypothetical feeling”

We want to survive and monster stories are exaggerated circumstances of what can happen to us. But they can also prepare us for realistic situations where we might actually have to fight those monsters. This can also be traced back to our post 9/11 discussion or when we read the X-Men comic. The monster represents those struggles and obstacles in our lives that we need to face in order to survive and become better.

We have discussed so many of this points so I wondered, why are we reading about this again? Haven’t we heard all of this before? Maybe we have, but it’s a good thing that we are reading this. It serves much more than just a refresher; it can help you change your mind a little bit or it can confuse you.

Asma’s words confused my perspective of a monster. Throughout this whole course I have placed characters into two different categories: monsters and wrongfully accused monsters. Monsters are usually our enemies who are trying to harm us. Their actions are devastating and unforgivable.  However, there are other characters categorized as monsters who we sympathize with because they have no other options but to act like monsters. The actions may be monstrous, but they are not monsters. The definition changes for each situation/character. Now I am not so sure this is valid. I realized that I was basing the definition on the connection with or feelings towards a specific character. In other words, if the character’s actions were justified by a troubled past or unfair circumstances, the character was not a monster in my eyes and their actions were forgivable.

After reading “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” I realized that a character’s actions make him/her a monster, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Asma states “if you can gather a man's family together at gunpoint and force them to watch as you cut off his head, then you are a monster. You don't just seem like one; you are one.” This is true, there is nothing that can justify this action. We can make up a story that the man could have done horrible things to the person who murdered him, and this man was just getting his revenge. He is still a monster and his actions are devastating and unforgivable. This is an extreme case, but it can be true for every case. However, I think it is important to state that some monsters are worse than others and that some monsters can change their ways and become better. Furthermore, it is okay to sympathize with monsters, it is okay to feel bad about what caused them to become this way. It is even okay to understand why they are doing what they are doing, but we must realize that they are monsters. Our connections with and feelings towards them does not change anything. At least this is what I think now, maybe next week we’ll read something else and I’ll change my mind again!