One thing that we've been talking about a lot during class is the way in which Libra depicts our obssession patterns. We are constantly looking for patterns in the information that is given to us, despite whether or not there is even a pattern to be found. I liked the way that Mr. Mitchell put it today - he said it's like the way that we impose constellations on random collections of stars. Are stars really meant to look like frying pans? Probably not, but we're always trying to find something familiar in things that we don't understand, or things that are bigger than us. Can you give me one other reason for the existence of math?? Because god knows it makes no sense, we just pretend it does so we can explain all the other things that make no sense (ironic that we explain confusing phenomena with even more confusing formulas !!).
We've talked about how the event which Libra is centered around - the assassination of JFK - is a shining example of this aspect of human nature. After the assassination, investigation after investigation continued to dig up dirt on, not only Oswald, but anyone who had ever even stepped foot in his vicinity. Despite the overwhelming collection of information though, we were left with no definite answer. We like to think that with our fancy technology we can do anything, solve anything, find anything, and yet, we couldn't find an answer. So, what did we do when we couldn't find an answer? We looked for patterns anyway. We crafted narrative after narrative, conspiracy after conspiracy, to the point where the entire event has just become a jumbled, uncertain, unsolved part of our history.
So, what the assassination of JFK, and through the transitive property, Libra, shows us, is how the value that we impose on history, is its ability to explain something. A running discussion/argument throughout the semester has been - does history have to be subjective, and is there a way to represent history in a more scientific way, as a set of non negotiable, historical data points? ie - 3:00 PM on April 18th 2018 : Lili eats icecream, 7:00 PM on April 18th 2018: Lili takes a nap, 11:56 PM April 18th 2018: Lili falls asleep writing blog post., etc. I'm not sure what our conclusion was on this issue, but I think Libra definitely offers one perspective, which is that, we could have all the information in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make it good history. Because, really, no one cares whether or not Oswald and de Mohrenschildt had lunch every other Sunday. Maybe they do a little, but what they really want to know, is why Oswald killed JFK. Who helped him. What point they were trying to make. The entire reason we make conspiracy theories in the first place is because we want explanations, not facts or pinpointed moments in time. Everyone might not agree, but what I think JFK's assassination proves, is that, yeah, we can have a list of names and dates, but the value of history doesn't lie in these facts, instead it lies in the narrative we form from these facts.
We've talked about how the event which Libra is centered around - the assassination of JFK - is a shining example of this aspect of human nature. After the assassination, investigation after investigation continued to dig up dirt on, not only Oswald, but anyone who had ever even stepped foot in his vicinity. Despite the overwhelming collection of information though, we were left with no definite answer. We like to think that with our fancy technology we can do anything, solve anything, find anything, and yet, we couldn't find an answer. So, what did we do when we couldn't find an answer? We looked for patterns anyway. We crafted narrative after narrative, conspiracy after conspiracy, to the point where the entire event has just become a jumbled, uncertain, unsolved part of our history.
So, what the assassination of JFK, and through the transitive property, Libra, shows us, is how the value that we impose on history, is its ability to explain something. A running discussion/argument throughout the semester has been - does history have to be subjective, and is there a way to represent history in a more scientific way, as a set of non negotiable, historical data points? ie - 3:00 PM on April 18th 2018 : Lili eats icecream, 7:00 PM on April 18th 2018: Lili takes a nap, 11:56 PM April 18th 2018: Lili falls asleep writing blog post., etc. I'm not sure what our conclusion was on this issue, but I think Libra definitely offers one perspective, which is that, we could have all the information in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make it good history. Because, really, no one cares whether or not Oswald and de Mohrenschildt had lunch every other Sunday. Maybe they do a little, but what they really want to know, is why Oswald killed JFK. Who helped him. What point they were trying to make. The entire reason we make conspiracy theories in the first place is because we want explanations, not facts or pinpointed moments in time. Everyone might not agree, but what I think JFK's assassination proves, is that, yeah, we can have a list of names and dates, but the value of history doesn't lie in these facts, instead it lies in the narrative we form from these facts.
I think this blog post is excellent, and it really is frustrating not to know for sure what really happened. I think an extension of your idea is that "Libra" is asking us to consider a lot of historical events and to consider what really happened. Obviously the JFK assassination is perfect for conspiracy theory, but plenty of things can be over-analysed to an extent that what really happened becomes questionable. We all want a narrative, and we also all want a narrative that is perfect and explains everything. We know the official story: Lee Harvey Oswald, lone gunman, acted alone. But it doesn't explain everything so it eats at us that we can't be sure.
ReplyDeleteThat makes a lot of sense. What you said about having a whole series of data points describing history reminds me of that guy Nicholas Branch. His assignment is to essentially gather up a bunch of data points and put them in a CIA file that's so classified he'd probably be the only person who would ever read it. Yet, he's doing it for a reason: every event, according to the most anal people, must be explained, and someone obviously thought that all the conspiracy theories weren't good enough. But still, he can't make sense of his data; he can't decide what's significant and what isn't. Maybe, then, all those anal people are wrong; history needs no explanation, because there just isn't one there.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! I think the reason why the Kennedy assassination is so intriguing is because we don't know exactly what happened so we don't know what the true 'history' is and that gives a lot of space for people to create different narratives to fill in the gaps. I think something like the assassination of Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth has less of the history and narrative debate because his motives were very clear and at the time, the facts weren't so accessible as they were for the Kennedy assassination.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this take on human nature - we always need to have a reason for everything that happens. We can't just let something slide as "tha'ts just how it is." I think this is both good and bad. Bad in the manner that you explained it, that we can devote years and so many lives to trying to figure out about the JFK assassination, but truly in the end, perhaps it was all just because. Just because. I think it can also be good, because human curiosity and wanting to explain everything is why we have modern medicine, and why our court systems can bring criminals to justice. There's two sides to the coin!
ReplyDelete