Marjane Satrapi’s father‘s loaded statement about how “politics and sentiment don’t mix” isn’t necessarily false, but I believe Satrapi thinks that this statement is more complicated than a simple “agree or disagree” matter. We are all aware that emotions and snap judgments can lead people to do things that are regrettable and dangerous, but also without the awareness of human emotions and sentiment, brutality and a lack of compassion emerges. However, as seen both here in this story and across history, political matters have been left to decision by green and self-interest, not by compassion and sentiment. This, I believe, is why Satrapi chose to write Persepolis, to merge to two so that we can see with our own eyes (literally, it is a graphic novel after all) what a lack of sentimentality does to a country, a family, and to one little girl.
The guardians of the revolution act out of their own self interest to kill and maim anyone they see fit. There is even a moment in the book where Satrapi’s father successfully bribes them with money so that they will not search his house for contraband. So these men are not acting out of religious ideology, but instead to feed their power hungry and greedy personalities. Many governments have acted in this way as well. Laws are always being passed and enacted that supposedly help the population while hurting the individual. In Iran, and in Persepolis, the government regulates people so that decency and religious morals can be upheld, this includes imprisoning and executing people who differ from what is deemed immoral. It is important to point out who is behind the revolution and who is gaining from it. In the film, we saw a scene in which Satrapi stands up during an assemble at the university to point out to her supervisors that women are constantly being suppressed in the name of decency, but men however are not subject to a dress code. We can see clearly here the hypocrisy in the rules and how the rules don’t seem to be interested in religious morals but only in making men feel empowered.
Satrapi wants us to look at our politics with an eye for humanity. After the terrorist attacks occurred, there was a great amount of anti-Middle Eastern thought throughout America. Many people sought justice and hastily proclaimed that anything Middle Eastern was to be deemed terrorist or evil, and this lead us to labeling an entire region as an enemy, or “Axis of Evil”. Satrapi uses this book to remind us that the terrorist, the region, the government, and the people are entirely different things, and we should not resort to simply lumping them all together. The story of growing up, while radically different from my own, was completely relatable. She was a child, just like we all were at one point, and when we make the decision to drop another bomb or fire another weapon, it affects her. So while it is easy to think of her, her parents, her neighbors, and her friends as blood-thirsty, anti-American, murders, it is much, much more difficult to accept the reality that she is a kid who likes to dress up, spend nights with her grandmother, listen to synthesized 80’s music, and hang out with her friends on lazy afternoons. Satrapi promotes understanding and hopes that one day that will be our foreign policy. We should strive to connect sentiment and politics in order to connect with our humanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your explanation of Satrapi's goals in writing the novel and message to readers is spot on. Sentiment adds a layer of humanity to politics, definitely, and I think that is why Satrapi intertwines the two throughout the novel. The effectiveness of the novel is almost wholly reliant on showing us the humanity of the "other."
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is, I think, the flip side of this is that a lot of governments use sentiment for political sway with people, just as Satrapi uses it for sway with her readers. What about the boy who was given the key in exchange for fighting in the war? Wasn't he lured by a kind of sentiment sold to him by people who wanted to use him for their own benefit? Who gets to control sentiment and for what purpose should it be used?
I agree the issue here is not black or white. Its funny that these governments are attempting to preserve religious institutions in the stead of personal freedoms. It is hypocrisy! Murdering people in the name of religious ideology with little sentiment. Its all backwards if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteKyle
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, a big BRAVO for pointing out that her father’s statement was loaded. It’s almost impossible to look at it in black and white (which is ironic since it was literally in black and white). I agree with your statement about emotions and snap judgments being dangerous to a country. On a side note, isn’t strange that he is saying that emotions and politics shouldn’t mix- yet I think he wants leaders to listen to what the citizen’s want, and the citizens show this in very emotional ways- protests, which are rebuked.
In your second paragraph you make a really good point about how the guards aren’t acting out of religious feelings, but greed. This reminds me of the scene with her uncle in the hospital, and a man who was a window washer is basically deciding the fate of her uncle. I think the aunt makes a statement about this window washer being too religious to look a woman in the eye, which I thought was funny. It’s almost like there are two male characters outside of Marjane’s family- one being overly religious, almost zealous, and the other being greedy. I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the rules you pointed out. I think the scene in the university id perfect. However, there was the scene in the movie where Marjane makes a man who she doesn’t know go to prison to escape getting arrested. Also, there are the scenes where Men are reprimanded for attending parties.
I agree with your last paragraph, she told this story in hopes of gaining understanding from people who don’t realize that not every person in Iran is the one of the ones we see on TV.
I enjoyed reading your blog!
Taylor