Why is the thought of something living off of our bodies so unnerving? When the majority of people hear the word parasite they quiver and images of grotesque worms come to mind, but what draws the line between the parasitism of a hookworm and that of me and why is one worse than the other?
Comparable to the parasites in shivers, humans leech off of their surroundings in many ways. In means of food we cannot sustain ourselves, we crave validation on actions and thoughts, and long for some form of social interaction. It can be argued that these actions don’t benefit our surroundings in any matter. Our effect on those around us may not cause such a drastic change as a parasite that makes one thirst for lust and bring on rape, homosexuality, or incest. However there are those who live their lives in this way, and who is to say what causes them to be different from the “norm”. Are lifestyles where one enjoys/loathes rape, incest, and homosexuality a product of natural endorphins, or are they the product of information, experience, and ideas that someone has fed off since birth. It is difficult to prove one idea is correct over another, because societal relations play a large part in what is what is right and wrong. For that reason, the thought of humans as parasites is foreign. If someone compares many of their daily actions to the actions of a parasite the differences are small, especially if taken out of their respective context.
When is incest okay, when is polygamy accepted, and why is bride-burning tolerable? All of these actions are received by people in different religions, locations, or communities, and at the same time draw intense emotions of disgust and hatred in other groups of people. In comparing these actions to parasitism, we communicate our ideas about them in a way that is socially accepted. This context, makes them good or bad. The idea of context is ambiguous and always changing, as Derrida tries to explain to us.
In some prophetic way, it seems Darrida is trying to convince us that context only limits ideas and communication. If this is true than it is possible that by taking something out of context we will be able to understand it more clearly. Similar to the way experiencing a different culture can give insight or clarity to seemingly mundane tasks or experiences of everyday life.
So to take the concept of a parasite out of the context of a gross bug that lives inside an animal or plant and sucks it’s blood or what have you, and look at it in a literal definitive way as something, anything, that lives on or in a location… lets say Bellingham, or our Mother Earth… and it is nourished by this host with out killing it, maybe by eating the plants around the area, (the second part of that last statement is a little less comparable, with all the ideas of global warming, land degradation, deforestation, and so on floating around out there.) is it a stretch to call us humans parasites?
Perhaps we are the greatest of parasites, one whose actions seem so normal and accepted that how could they be compared to those of a lowly hookworm. How are we to say that the hookworm thinks any less of his actions, or maybe justifies how he lives by comparing it to how we live… Ehh well in comparison I’m not that bad, says the hookworm…
Never thinking in this manner before, it is now funny why the thought of a parasite living inside me is so repulsive and why a movie such as shivers evokes such strong emotions of a foreign being. One that is drastically different from me.
Although, it’s not that foreign to Marriam and Webster, whose number one definition of a parasite is:
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
No comments:
Post a Comment