The first time I read Benjamin was last year, when I was writing a paper on Aaron Siskind, an American photographer. I’d randomly come across an article by him (“The Author as Producer”), so decided to add it to my bibliography…only to have my professor comment that this was one of her favorite pieces, and that she was very excited that I’d found it and to see how I used it. Crap. That meant that I actually had to read it and at least partially understand it. I ended up being able to get the gist of it, but this week’s reading reminded me how hard it was. Even though it was difficult, I found this reading to be very interesting, especially because of the insight it gives readers into Benjamin’s mind. It’s one thing to read a polished essay that has been reviewed by editors and undergone several drafts, but it’s totally different to read these fragments (even more so since he wrote this while on the run from Nazis). Aside from the fact that I found this reading to be difficult (and sort of annoying…), I found it interesting and (sort of) enjoyable.
One quote that stuck out to me was in thesis 3: “nothing that has ever happened should be regarded as lost for history” (254). This, obviously, is very applicable to last week’s Fasolt reading, and to many other things that we’ve done in class. I’m not sure that I completely understand what he’s saying in this thesis. Are all events that happen in the world equally important to history? Probably not- I don’t think he’d say that the fact that I just ate goldfish is just as important as when Kennedy was assassinated. I think he’s more saying that nothing is ever irrelevant for history. Who knows: maybe me eating goldfish will somehow turn out to be important. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still never “lost for history” (254). This actually made me think about packrats- my grandmother is one of those people who hates to throw things out. She’ll give us random things every time we go to her house, just because she doesn’t want them but can’t bear to throw them out. She loves clipping out newspaper articles and sending them to people- it’s sweet, but really, just because I’ve been to India and study Hindi doesn’t mean that I need every article the NYT writes on India (or Indian food, traveling to India, etc. etc.). Anyway, my point was that for packrats like my grandmother, nothing is ever lost for history (literally, because they keep it all). But I don’t know that this is necessarily a good thing- do you really need to keep everything you’ve accumulated your whole life? I think that there is a happy medium between keeping everything and keeping nothing. Same with history: not everything needs to be actively remembered, but we should keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely discounted as irrelevant.
Oh Benjamin...I have mixed feelings about his writing. It brings up good points, but sometimes, its as if it is trying too hard, and being difficult on purpose!
ReplyDeleteAnyways, this passage reminded me of another one, Theses #5 on page 255: "For every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably."I think that Benjamin argues that only things that happened in history that are relative to today really matter.
I was also intrigued by Benjamin's idea that nothing should be regarded as lost for history. At first I felt confused, wondering how that could possibly be as (despite Descartes' claim) it is impossible for humans to know everything. But I think perhaps he means this more as a perspective than an actual fact. Since I'm interested in tracing my ancestors, I'll use this as an example. I'll probably never really find out much about them (unless I spend loads of money hiring some researcher to do it), mainly because I have the feeling that my ancestors were poor Italian/German/Irish peasants and thus didn't "influence" history. However, I know they existed, my parents know they existed, and somebody somewhere in the "Old Country" must know they existed (whoever and wherever that individual might be). Though I may not have the evidence myself of who they were, it's out there somewhere in someone's past. I don't have the records to prove it, but the knowledge is maintained in a far less bureaucratic form. Does this argue for some sort of collective unconscious, that everything can still be known, just not by each individual, where I might remember certain aspects of my family history and someone else will remember other parts? I'm not sure. I certainly don't have the answers. Of course, as you said, Kate, then you could argue what's important in history and what's not. But if nothing's lost, is everything important? Again, not sure. But I feel like Benjamin is arguing that though we see the past as gone and we can never find it, that maybe it would be better for us to view the past as not lost and more interconnected with our present then we tend to think. Though whoever my relatives from Europe were are dead, what they did still influences me greatly. Else I wouldn't spend so much time trying to figure out who they were.
ReplyDelete