The South: A different take on Civilization vs Barbarism
So we had a really great discussion on Borges's The South. I think we all agree that there was a difference between Dahlmann's self in the city and the country. I found it interesting that while he was in the city, he yearned for the country and the ranch. After he leaves for the ranch, you kind of forget about the city, but he always has a part of the city with him, his book - the Arabian Nights (or One Thousand and One Nights). But he eventually forgets about the book as he is caught up in the countryside, and he leaves the city behind. The city is similar to civilization and the South is the "barbaric" part of the country.
This brings a thought to my mind. Every person struggles with civilization vs barbarism.There is that side of a person that yearns for civilization, for cities, and people. Elegance, a higher form of life. The strength of this is different in each person, just as the barbaric side is. The barbaric side is the side that pulls Dahlmann to the country. He seeks quiet, tranquilly, adventure, a valiant death. Who would choose a death on a hospital bed over a death defending your rights or your beliefs?
Now, back to the story. Dahlmann had lived in the city his whole life. In a way, he had fulfilled that "civilized" part of him and his "barbaric" side was pulling him toward the country. That, combined with the fact that he didn't want to die a death in a hospital bed, was why he took the train out to the South.
I was hesitant to use the words civilization and barbarism - though for the sake of clarity and lack of 2 opposite words that are similar I did.
I really wanted to respond back after reading your blog for this week because you brought up many details that I did not consider in my previous blog, and I concur that I could have definitely used some that you mentioned to expand my own. I think the point you made concerning the fact that he brought part of current day ( the book ) into the past with him is a valid one. To me it is almost like an anchor. I also found your suggestion that we are looking for a balance between our "civilized" self and our "barbaric" one interesting. In class Stephanie mentioned how the boarder between the city and The South is blurred in the story. We really do not know where one truly ends and the other begins. Perhaps this is a statement that we often find ourselves in that area of confusion one which way we should go. My conclusion is that, as you said, the past belongs in the past. We can venture back into the past to learn from it, but ultimately we need to live our lives pushing forward into the future. Another point that comes to mind is that he went to the South to die. Technically he did not know he was going to perish there, and technically we do not know if he actually did, but the way I have interpreted the story was that he imagined the South and went there to die. So therefore, it might be appropriate to step out of the blurry area and into the past, and the "barbaric" way of life, when we are going to soon become a part of it.
ReplyDelete