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.

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!