Why Literature?

Why do we read literature?

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am currently reading Reading Lolita in Tehran and a question Azar Nafisi addresses in the book is the question: what does literature offer us? Throughout the book she extols the power of literature mainly as the ability to offer empathy, both to train you to empathize and to understand the world and issues through different lenses. She writes,

A novel...is the sensual experience of another world. If you don't enter that world, hold your breath with the characters and become involved in their destiny, you won't be able to empathize, and empathy is at the heart of the novel. This is how you read a novel: you inhale the experience.

So, is that why we read literature, and should it be the only vessel we have to understand the experiences of someone else; not only the writer but the oppressed when reading Invitation to a Beheading or the American Dream when reading The Great Gatsby? And what should we do when confronted with conflicting ideas of what is reality as perceived by two different sources?

An article written by the Washington Post called Sorry, Wrong Chador examines Iranian views of Reading Lolita in Tehran (the few that have had the ability to read it). Many do not agree with Nafisi's take, or think that it deserves updating. It is a powerful book, no one argues that, but if the basic facts are not universal, or even widespread, what do we take from it? There is a endless call for the 'right' story, so how do we choose?

It seems to me though, that more than one story can be correct. Throughout Reading Lolita in Tehran, and many of the books they read, there is a sense that somehow fiction and reality have combined to make something that is true in meaning but perhaps not exactly true in happening. An event, seen from four different sides does not have a right story, it has many different perceived stories. So, the power of literature comes from the ability to communicate those stories, together or separately, and the power for us to understand them. But in order to avoid a story that is one sided, we must take other stories into account, and remember that the true power of literature comes from the words and meanings embedded in them, so that perhaps a spoken version is just as powerful.

We must remind ourselves that a word once spoken, or written, it cannot be taken back, only built upon.

Equality v. Inequality

Yesterday I was reading Muslimah Media Watch (a blog dedicated to keeping track of how Muslim women are portrayed in the media with more than 20 contributors) and in this blog post Krista made a distinction that I think deserves a lot more attention. She wrote in reference to Bill 94 (a bill currently proposed in the province of Quebec, Canada to ban the niqab in any place of public service):

One issue that came up...was the difference between formal equality (everyone being treated in exactly the same way) and substantive equality (a more equity-focused concept, in which it is recognized that identical treatment doesn’t necessarily have egalitarian results). The argument here is that, while Bill 94 claims to treat everyone equally by requiring all people to show their faces, the result will have disproportionately negative effects on women for whom showing their faces in certain situations is just not an option; Bill 94, in other words, represents formal equality but will result in substantive inequality.

So, what is equality? If Bill 94 is passed, and it will not be the first of it it's kind if it is. It will not have an effect on everyone. When it comes down to it, it will only have an effect, a negative effect, on the small sect of the population that wears the niqab. That is, both mathematically and morally, the bill is unequal. If every single person wore the niqab, and it was banned, only then would this bill be substantively equal. However, only then would there be more of an outcry, if only because there would be numbers behind the plea.

This episode begs the question, can the government make every law they pass equal in its effects? Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. teaches us that it cannot. If everyone is brought down to the same level, we could be all equal (and affected equally by every law), but then the beauty of the human race would be lost. People are born unequal. That is how the world works.

However, coming back to Bill 94, how close can we get to equality before we cross over the line and make the world more unequal, even if it is only for a select few? Considering the differences between ' formal equally' (in its most extreme version in Harrison Bergeron) and 'substantive equality' must be a requirement. Equality is a word that is thrown around a lot, but true equality would be the kind where everyone was affected the same way. Those who proposed Bill 94 do not (I hope) have any hatred for people who wear that niqab, but I think policy makers have to be aware that they can easily be pulled into the recent wave of Islamaphobia and to remember that fear does not give grounds to effectively deny any human being their rights. I do not wear a niqab, and I do not know anyone personally who does, but still I am offended by this regression to inequality among people who live in the same neighborhood. I hope that the supporters of Bill 94, and other bills like it, stop to think about how to balance safety concern with equality.