The approach is perhaps incorrectly named as most people who believe this way don't only blame the victim, but attribute them some responsibility, perhaps the decisive share, but with the majority of the responsibility going to the victimizer or the situation.
This method may be self-defeating as, when believers are victimized, they may blame themselves. However, they may be more lenient with themselves or they may have in fact been partly to blame and the self-blame can lead to better behavior.
While "blaming-the-victim" has a negative connotation, I believe the belief in a just world, with its implied corollary about those who are treated unjustly, is widely shared in the world. It would probably be hard to live with the perception that the world or are systems are not necessarily just, that injustice does occur frequently, that are statuses may not be just and so are not intrinsically permanent.
While I believe in freedom and the ability to pursue happiness, I also feel that humans have an obligation to try to learn and acknowledge the truth (this obligation is not something that should be legislated, as in many matters truth is subjective); while it may cause some discomfort, it is an important aspect to appreciating and preserving freedom and happiness.
The entertainment media has an interest in persuading people that we do live in a just world (so we feel justified in focusing on ourselves and not improving it), but sometimes entertainment products take so much for granted that their messages are laughable if not infuriating.
In the 2003 comedy Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey's Bruce Nolan complains that God is doing a bad job at running the universe, particularly with regards to him but also in general. God (Morgan Freeman) gives him his powers so he can go on vacation and the film sets out to show why it wouldn't be good for an ordinary human being to have divine powers.
Or not, though most viewers probably agreed with the film's viewpoint. There are strong questions about whether Bruce, a light-news reporter, is really ordinary. He's unusually well-off by global standards (given that many people are forced to live on a few dollars a day), which you would think the deity would be more concerned. While the film was chiefly intended for "Western" audiences, a deity as a character practically demands a wider focus, which this film chose to exclude.
The film almost touches on the point that, because Bruce is materially comfortable, he wants more. But as his position is considered average, it's really a false critique of all humanity. Powered-Bruce creates marijuana in the van of a rival reporter (which is considered to be funny, though laughing at someone for what is not his fault is questionable) while a grower of the plant would probably use his power to legalize the product, creating a benefit for all sellers, buyers and people in general as police forces could spend their time working against interpersonal harm. A prisoner deprived of liberty for having condemned views would probably gain liberty and only a little more.
On being scolded for his selfish acts, Bruce takes a lazy approach to benevolence-he approves the requests all people make in prayer. This leads to too many people winning the lottery, getting a low amount, and rioting.
Rather than use his power to pacify the people or at least heal the injured and repair the damage, Bruce despairs at the first time his power caused problems, the first sign that people have flaws. This is considered a good sign of humility rather than evidence of a lack of imagination and perseverance.
Bruce also faces personal problems as his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) believes he was too close to another woman and is too selfish in general. While it's been some time since I saw the film, if I recall correctly the other woman incident was not Bruce's fault but merely the choice of the other woman coupled with bad timing. Bruce could have argued that it wasn't his fault or that it shouldn't matter, or simply accepted that his true self and Grace weren't a good pair, but instead he laments that he can't persuade her to love her; he doesn't consider moving on.
God says he has the same problem in being unable to force people to love him without violating their free will, but this comparison only works if you consider the world to be just, if you consider that people have only unjust or petty grievances against God.
If, on the other hand, you think that Bruce's misuse of power and quitting at the first sign of trouble (the latter of which is considered good and proper humility) is no sign of failure for the human race and that it is unwise to give up ultimate power over a few troubles, you could well do a better job than either of the film's characters.
The best part of the film is that Carrey and Freeman's characters both have, at least at times, a rather malevolent sense of humor. Freeman's God claiming that Bruce only won a fight with a girl is in touch with the misogynistic attitudes that some attribute to the ultimate creator/ruler.
The end of the film's trailer (Bruce, in a high position against a dark power, exclaiming "My will be done!") suggested that, after comical beginnings, the protagonist would be horribly corrupted. While I've learned in the years since I watched the trailer that trailers are sometimes deceptive, what was promised would probably make a much better film than what was released. That a better film was suggested makes Bruce's quitting at minor troubles that much more disappointing and artificial.
Given that the world is so troubled, to present quitting after minor troubles as the good action seems to be a refusal to acknowledge the really bad problems the people of the world face, so that we can think that the world as it is is just, or at least the best it could possibly be.
No comments:
Post a Comment