After reading and discussing this week, what really stuck with me was the dichotomy between the good of the group and individual survival. In both The Informer and Uptight, one character, out of desperation, chose to sacrifice another in the movement for money. Their willingness to give up on the movement for money to survive and start a new life demonstrates the desperation that poverty creates. Guilt over the deaths of their friends has an interesting effect on both of these characters, though. Although they both originally intended to use the money to get out of their current situation and start a new life with their significant others, they both use the money to get drunk and cause chaos throughout the night. At the end, they both claim that they had no idea what they were doing, and did not know the effects of their actions. Both still want to be accepted back into the group and try to be loyal to the movement, even after their mistake.
The behavior of the characters in both The Informer and Uptight elucidates the inner conflict between the individual and the good of the group that seems to exist in all movements. Movements are born out of chronic problems within a society, and economic issues are usually always a factor. One of these movements’ goals was to end the cycle of extreme poverty and economic inequality in these communities, but the poverty that they were fighting drives some of the members to act out of desperation. The members are loyal to the movement and are willing to do so many things to be accepted back into the group, but they also give up on it when they are offered a way out of their poverty and problems. Most of all, I think these works perfectly demonstrate that individual need will always take priority over the human desire to be accepted and belong to a group with a greater cause.
I really enjoyed your blog post, and I think what you said about desperation was particularly interesting. It would be nice to think that everyone would fight for the greater good all the time, but we see very often that when push comes to shove people often take the easy way out so that their individual burdens are lifted. It may be a little bit of a stretch, but this made me think of what Dr. King said in his speeches about middle class black Americans. Although these people were facing the same horrible racism as lower income black Americans, they seemed less eager to join the civil rights movement. Perhaps that’s because they believed they had more to lose, or perhaps it’s because they didn’t associate with other black Americans. Either way, it makes me wonder if black Americans as a whole had been granted greater economic freedom during the 1960s and 70s, would the fight for social justice have stopped? Would black Americans, out of desperation to change their, and their children’s futures, accept the environment of hatred and racism if they were suddenly allowed to have better jobs (like how Gypo betrayed the cause by informing to the police in order to help himself financially)?
The economic factors influencing collectivism versus individual liberty are quite interesting – the more that people despair economically, and are given limited opportunities the more they are prone to agitate for communist or socialist policies. This was the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan instituted in Europe during the years following the second world war. I also believe that the corporatocracy we are currently living within here in the United States is another significant influence on why we are experiencing a rise in socialist movements here within the United States. Overall, freedom and opportunity seem to accelerate individualistic tendencies, whereas hard times seem to promote a more collectively oriented social movements.
This was also one of the biggest themes that struck me while reading/watching the texts. This seems to be a really complicated and interesting issue because it is one that is extremely easy to judge from the outside, but much more complex in the actual situation. It’s easy to read/watch these texts and condemn Gypo or Tank, and there is certainly some space for this criticism, but its a lot more difficult when you’re actually in that situation. This was especially interesting considering both movements that the characters betrayed were against a form of oppression or poverty. However, each character, especially Gypo, took the more direct route out of poverty for themselves. However, it seems that they quickly wasted it on and that is where it becomes easier to criticize them. They may have chosen the direct route because they have reached a certain point of despair where it is hard to believe in anything anymore, but we really can’t be sure without standing in their shoes.
I enjoyed your blog post, perhaps because it was something I spent a lot of time thinking about as well. These works did a wonderful job of bringing the individuals in a movement to center stage. When we look back on history we mostly hear about the leaders or main events, but we do not have much on the people joining the movement, those in the lower ranks that sacrifice so much to fight for what they believe in. Perhaps since fewer people are focused on them and their actions, their individual need takes a priority over their cause in the works we were given this week. And yet, I cannot agree with your generalization that “individual need will always take priority over the human desire to be accepted and belong to a group with a greater cause.” In my opinion, it depends on if someone joins the revolution for the better of the entire group or just to better their own lives. I wish we could discuss this idea during lecture due to its relevance to our different works. For example, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, MLK wrote about people holding back the movement and he included “a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security, and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses.” It’s interesting to see who turns their back on a cause they either used to fight for or would be expected to fight for because it benefits them individually. In regards to the works from this week, it is especially interesting to see the individuals’ inner turmoil and difficulties when grappling with their actions or lack thereof.
I also thought it was interesting how all of the texts portrayed the individual’s desire to belong. The stark contrast of this desire with the need to survive is very evident. I think that the characters each went through a breaking point that caused them to act in a moment of weakness. When Tank believes that Jonny Wells no longer trusts him, he goes to the police. Gypo, on the other hand, simply wanted a meal and a place to sleep. Both of these men regret their choice and deal with their guilt throughout the entire movie. They realize how important their respective movements are and do not want to further hinder the groups they betrayed. Both of these men could have gone to the police and divulge more information about the revolutionary groups, as they were under protection. However, they chose not to. This refusal to inform again makes me believe that they truly believed in the cause they wanted so desperately to fight for. For this reason, I believe that individual needs may not always take priority over the human desire to be accepted as you’ve stated. There are many people in this world who have laid down their lives for the causes they have believed in. Although I do agree that the desire to belong is a strong one, an individual may not always be swayed by their own desires. When it comes to human actions, I think the use of the word “always” is a bit too definite. Humans are unpredictable. Although many of us may act in a certain way, there are always outliers. Especially during these times of riots and revolts, I think that people are prone to act in ways they never would have previously imagined.