Hello readers, it’s great to be writing this week! In my ASTU course we have been talking Judith Butler and part of her book Frames of War. Butler questions how we value lives around the world and asks “whose lives are regarded as lives worth saving and defending, and whose are not?” (Butler 38). She expands on this question by asking “how we might rethink the the “we” in global terms in ways that counter the politics of imposition” (Butler 38). I think the questions Butler proposes are quite poignant especially in our world today. Much to my dismay, I think the “we” that Butler mentions is Western society and therefore there is an intense bias as to how we view global traumatic events. For example, just a couple months ago in San Bernardino, California a shooting took place claiming the lives of 14 innocent people. The attackers were soon linked to ISIS, and President Obama declared the tragedy a terrorist attack while politicians throughout the country were outraged. Now I’m not in any way trying to take away from the traumatic event that took place in San Bernardino, as it was truly horrific, however I will say that every single day in Iraq and Syria countless innocent lives are claimed or put in danger by ISIS, yet “we” (the West) for the most part go on living our normal routine lives. But of course if something ever happens on Western soil, our daily lives are completely disrupted. The attacks in Paris that happened this past November were shocking and horrifying to say the least, and again, I’m not trying to downplay the tragedy, but literally the day before in Beirut, Lebanon (non-Western world) a bombing killed 43 civilians and injured more than 200 more. That trauma went virtually uncovered in the media as all eyes were on Paris.

I think Judith Butler would certainly point that out as well. In an ideal world, every innocent life lost in trauma would carry the same value, but the fact is that the Western world will be more concerned with events at home rather than abroad. It seems apparent to me that it is up to us, as global citizens, to break through the frames and respect victims of trauma worldwide.

Thanks for reading this week, feel free to comment!

Ben Ross

Hello readers! It’s great to be back writing my ASTU blog for term two! Over the past two weeks, we have covered Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The book addresses the sensitive subject of the 9/11 terror attacks through the eyes of nine-year-old Oskar Schell, who lost his father to the attacks. Oskar is not the average nine-year-old; his vocabulary is unique and he has a very quirky nature. One thing I find particularly interesting about Oskar is his heightened maturity. He shows way more independence than most nine-year-olds (walking around New York City on his own as a prime example), and I think this is no coincidence. I believe Oskar likely would not act so mature if his father had never been a victim of the 9/11 attacks.

It is obvious throughout the novel that Oskar idolizes his father. And why not? He was a great dad who really loved his son. One thing that he says to Oskar is “Don’t act your age” (Foer 13) and I think that stuck with Oskar, especially after his father passed. Oskar probably felt like if he took what his father told him to heart it wouldn’t make him as sad (or heavy-booted) because he is carrying out his father’s advice and in that way Oskar is trying to make his dad proud.

I also think the whole traumatic experience of the 9/11 attacks forces Oskar to grow. Losing his father at such a young age, and by such horrific means robs Oskar of his childhood and innocence. In my opinion, and I think many would agree with me, it would be weird if Oskar did not act so mature and grown up and simply just continued a normal childhood after a life altering event like 9/11. This is comparable to the other characters we’ve seen in term one. Marji from Persepolis and Naomi from Obasan were both innocent children living a fairly normal life until they were struck by huge tragedy. Like Oskar, Marji and Naomi were forced to grow up quickly and show an elevated sense of maturity.

So perhaps this begs the question, do we only grow through tragedy? If we never going through any sort of traumatic experience, will we ever reach our full development? Of course, there are certain degrees of tragedy, and I’m not arguing going through a traumatic event to the scale of 9/11 firsthand is something everyone needs to go through, but I do think everyone needs to experience trauma on some scale to develop as a person.

As always, feel free to comment and thanks for reading!

Ben Ross