In choosing between the two topics to write about (Kafka v. Plato), I figured that I'd go with the fresher of the two. As I see it, the seniors have read/discussed Plato since our first year at Rhodes (The Republic, The Cave, etc. etc. ad nauseam)
So instead of rehashing those discussions at the risk of becoming trite, I thought I'd expand upon Kafka's essay. And, given that it's only a paragraph long, I don't see a need to summarize it.
I'll jump right in...
In class, we readily criticized the man at the gate. Initially, this may be understandable. After all, the man ceded authority to the "gatekeeper", restrained his own freedom unnecessarily, and never saw what was behind the gate. But let's take a step back.
Maybe that sounds eerily familiar...
We make those concessions all the time. We continually cede authority to the state and give up liberties to authority. Take, for example, invasive body scanners in the airport.
In the last year and a half, airports have begun using full body scanners to improve security. These scanners take a fully-body image of passengers, allowing TSA agents to see (literally) the most holiest of places. And, to justify peeking at your privates, they point to national security. The invasive body scanners have been roundly criticized by Civil Rights groups and average airline passengers.
But no worries, surely this injustice wont stand. Surely the Court's will end this tomfoolery. Well we're in luck. The Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on this issue and upheld your privacy rights. In 2010, the Circuit Court of Appeals/Arbiter of Justice/Defender of Freedom stated, "The need to search airline passengers “to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.”(Clinton v. Hendricks and Lewis).
Wait what? That's right. The Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the use of these scanners. They won't be going anywhere.
In essence, like the man standing at the gate, we too grant enormous powers, forfeit sacrosanct rights, and defer unconditionally to an authority, with little question.
So, next time you're at the airport as you're stepping in front of the scanner, remember that the TSA agents aren't the only ones watching.
Kafka is watching too (and he isn't happy)
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, this post is HILarious! Secondly, I too believe that the man standing in front of the gate for the entirety of his life was a bit unnecessary. He took patience and obedience to the extreme. In a way he actually contradicted himself. He wanted to get to the law, but he had created some sort of personal law, or code of ethics, for himself through taking heed to the gatekeepers warning. When applying this to the real world, however, I think that, to a certain extent, it is necessary for individuals to cede authority to the state. In the case of the TSA example, for instance, some people may not have a problem with this because it can, in fact, be seen as the morally correct thing to do. So, then it becomes a question of, when is it necessary for us to give up our liberties and when is it not?
First off, hahahahahahaha I like the ending, Kafka would indeed be watching.
ReplyDeleteSecond, after reading your post, I was readily agreed with you. I was nodding and asserting the statements you made as I was reading them. But as I re-read, your post, my eye fell on “court,” which led me to wonder, can you really compare the two situations.
It’s like apples and pears, they are both fruits, green and sometimes yellow, but these similarities doesn’t change the fact that these are two different fruits. True, in the case of Kafka and the passengers are the airport, they relinquish power to the authority figure, and true this is mostly due to fear, but this doesn’t change the fact that the conditions in both these instances are different.
Let me begin with passengers at the airport, and let us evaluate the conditions in this case. The fear caused in this case could have many sources. It could be a fear to the emphasis put on terrorism here in the United States, which leads people to think that “well if this is what it takes to keep our country safe then fine” (In my opinion, if this was the only cause, then we would be exactly as Kafka was). But it could also be because if one was to protest, then he might miss his flight, or if he was to attempt to run pass and go through the TSA scanner, then he might be arrested. Passengers at the airport are aware of a real barrier, namely the cops. Act out, and you WILL get tased, cuffed, beat down, or worst … shot. How do they know this, from experience (doesn’t matter if that experience was gained directly or indirectly.)
In addition to all of this, this case was taken to court, which means that we did not just stand by and accepted our fate, but we attempted to fight. The only problem is, we fought this using a system that was already in place, a system that failed us (so maybe there lies the problem).
Kafka however did nothing of the above. He had no previous knowledge or experience of what the guard at the gate would be like, and thus has no excuse for being so passive.
Ivy,
ReplyDeletethis goes back to this 'social contract' we have we each other doesn't it? Due to the system that is already in place, agreeing to use the TSA scanners cannot really be seen as "ceding power to the authority."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIvy, yeah i think that's a good point. I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not suggesting that all authority is bad/unnacceptable. Rather, i'm suggesting that, in certain cases (i.e. cases involving the loss of sacred privacy rights), one must be very careful. Civil liberties are sacred. So when we hear about these controversial TSA scanners, i thinks it's a good time to reflect on Kafka's essay.
ReplyDeleteNellie, to your points:
First, I disagree with your first point. On the contrary, I think the Court is the perfect symbol of authority. It, alone, has no enforcement powers at all. The rulings it hands down are influential because we allow them to be. Granted, other institutions may enforce those decisions stringently with police/threats of imprisonment/fines. But the Court itself- the "authority figure" who rendered the decision- has literally no enforcement powers whatsoever. Instead, because we recognize the Court's authority (rightly so), we act accordingly when it decides on a case. That is, *we* give it power. Just like the man at the gate.
Secondly, the fact that one individual filed suit- in my opinion- does not constitute "a fight" or a rejection of the Court's authority. By suing the government over the TSA scanners, the petitioner is going to the same institution that made the initial ruling (the judicial branch), deferring to their judgment, and asking them to reconsider. That's certainly not a rejection of their authority. It's the opposite.
At first I wanted to clarify that I used court and judicial system interchangeably. So yes you are right when saying that just the courts in themselves have no power. But the judicial court, as part of three-legged table that is our government (the other 2 being legislative and executive branches) has a lot of power (of course with the support of the other 2).
ReplyDeleteBut this clarification I fear, won’t matter much to you, for (please correct me if I’m wrong) you believe the problem is that “we give” this judicial system the power that it has. I say you are absolutely right. Not only do we, but we need to. Can you imagine our society today without it?
Having admitted that, I continue to refuse to believe that our situation equals that of Kafka. When we go to airport, and stop in front of those TSA scanners, it is not because we are scared of the judicial guardian standing in front of the gate of law, it is because we have crossed the gate; we’ve seen, experienced, and have become part of what’s on the other side. And because of that, we have 'chosen' to stop and go through the TSA scanners, for we understand that, it is what we must do to maintain order. Do you not agree?