The Theory Toolbox notes that “wherever we see a ‘fact,’ an interpretation has been there first” (Nealon and Giroux, 36). It also asserts that “after all, there’s no point in being ‘unique’ unless people know it!” (Nealon and Giroux, 43).
To say what I want to say, I invented Bob. You can picture Bob however you want; picture him as the Monopoly guy or Bob the Builder if you want. He’s not a real person.
When reading Chapter 4 of The Theory Toolbox, “Subjectivity,” Bob came across the sentence: “After all, there’s no point in being ‘unique’ unless people know it!” (Nealon and Giroux, 43). At this, Bob turned to his friend Fred (also fictional, picture him as Abraham Lincoln or Ghandi, whatever) and said, “hey Fred, read this. This is so untrue. I think there’s a lot to be said for my being unique, regardless of whether anyone knows how unique I am!” In response, Fred said, “Bob, why did you tell me that?” to which Bob replied, “I suppose I told you that because I want you to know that I disagree with The Theory Toolbox, my view is different.” And Fred replied, “well then The Theory Toolbox will thank you very much for proving it’s point.”
Bob’s view is in fact different from that of The Theory Toolbox; Bob believes that one’s uniqueness is valuable regardless of its recognition. However, Bob does not embody his belief, and really no one does. Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness is an unreachable ideal. In fact, insofar as Bob is at all concerned with being unique, he can never be unique.
C S Lewis, in a radio talk titled “Beyond Personality,” put it by saying “Even in literature or art, no man who cares about originality will ever be original. It’s the man who’s only thinking about doing a good job or telling the truth who becomes really original, but doesn’t notice it. Even in social life, you never make a good impression on other people until you stop thinking what sort of impression you make. That principle runs all through life from the topto the bottom. Give up yourself and you will find your real self.” I think the distinction between forced subjection and willing submission was largely overlooked both in The Theory Toolbox and in today’s discussion.
(Now meet Billy and Carl, also fictional.) Consider a boy, Billy, who is generally very enthusiastic about trying new things. When his family goes on vacation one year, he gets the opportunity to ride on an airplane. When it is time to board the plane, his father says to him, “Billy, get on the plane!” Well, the fact is that Billy has never been on a plane and is more than eager to follow his father’s instruction. Does that mean that he is a subject to his father’s authority? Perhaps. But there is a huge difference between Billy and his brother Carl, who has always loathed the idea of riding in an airplane and has to be dragged aboard by his father. You see, Billy has submitted himself willingly to an authority greater than his self, and in so doing, has become more fully himself. He has expanded upon and deepened his understanding of what it means to be Billy. Carl, on the other hand, will be sulking the entire time of the plane ride, wishing he were not there and thinking about what he could be doing elsewhere. He will neither expand upon his self nor gain a better understanding of what it means to be Carl. He will in fact lose an opportunity to better define his self.
This is a very basic and imperfect example. But you see the point. Authority exists; we can acknowledge it or not. The Theory Toolbox, and todays discussion sort of wrote off acknowledgement as irrelevant, stating that the bottom line, so to speak, is that authority creates, willingly or forcibly, subjection, and therefore, the self is doomed to be always subject to cultural and social authority. That may be, but I think it’s a rotten way of perceiving it, and that the real point has been missed. Acknowledgement and will is everything. Our attitude and our choices are what determine and uncover our selves.
