Plagues and Loved Ones (uh ig tw: death)
For this one I wanted to talk a little bit about (as the title would suggest) how people manage relationships with their loved ones in times of contagion, and how The Plague's description of it matches what seems to be happening now. I think something that stuck out to me was the conversation Rieux had with Rambert as they discussed his inclination to escape. Rieux says to Rambert that he doesn't blame him for wanting to escape and reconnect with his girlfriend, and says, actually I don't know exactly what he says and I can't find the page, but from what I remember, he pretty much tells him that he respects Rambert putting his own happiness first and being there for a loved one, and says he wonders why he isn't doing the same himself. At the time I felt like Rieux was super lame, I mean he says this thing about how it's so important to be there for people and be happy but at the same time he's making no effort to do so, and he doesn't (at that moment) share any reasoning for why he doesn't, which left me with equal parts confusion and disappointment in his character. That being said, I do think it's commendable to put the common good above your own wants, even if those things seem extremely important to you at the time. Eventually Rambert comes around to this, and that's part of why I like him so much as a character, you really get to see him grow as a person, and a respectable one at that.
I think nowadays people are very much not like Rambert and Rieux. I've seen people complain on social media about not being able to spend time with their dying (either that or just super old) relatives because of covid lockdowns. Obviously covid isn't as dangerous as the black death, and I feel for these people, but as for what's right and what's wrong I really can't say. I think staying in quarantine separated from whoever it may be that you want to see for the good of the people is commendable. I think being by that person's side no matter what in a time of hardship is also commendable. But if by doing so you inadvertently make things worse for others, you lose my support. I think the situation poses a really interesting question about morality. Like, what makes your wife or grandma or girlfriend's life more important than the guy you passed on the street yesterday and the two kids he has at home. Maybe they have a condition that weakens their immune system and are thus more susceptible to covid. Is missing your wife enough of a justification to sacrifice those two children? Maybe your grandma is dying of cancer somewhere alone in a hospital and you feel like not being there for her in that moment is absolutely out of the question for you. I know if it was me, I wouldn't think twice to decide between my mom and some other random lady. Probably not even if it was 1 to 8. I mean a lot of this stuff is really situational. Like Rieux's wife was on her deathbed. Rambert's girlfriend was (i'm assuming) just chilling in Paris or something. To me it makes more sense to want to be there for the suffering wife than the girlfriend. Then again does it make sense to endanger other people for the sake of someone soon to be dead anyway? I mean those two sickly kids could have a whole future of success and happiness in front of them, whereas your sick grandma has all but finished her time here. Does the fact your grandma has a relation to you tip the scales? Personally I don't like it when people justify irresponsible behavior with "oh but the death rate is like so low" because you really don't know what other people's situations are. Like sure the death rate is low but what about the people who's loved ones have health conditions? I could go on and on but I'll end it there. I think whatever people may choose, they should think about the pros and cons to both options before they make the choice. Specifically I think they should consider the absolute worst possible outcomes. Single dad has to watch his kids slowly die of covid or grandma dies alone. Which are you more ok with? I mean I'm blowing things out of proportion I suppose but if everyone starts saying "oh I can go out and do whatever because: I don't have covid/the death rate is so low/I don't care about your family, I care about my family" this whole virus situation will just keep getting worse. Would your grandma be ok with those sickly kids dying on her behalf? I don't know, just some things to think about I guess.
I like your mention of Dr. Rieux and Rambert's discussion regarding Rambert wanting to put his own happiness in front of his own safety and (to your later points) the safety of others. Dr. Rieux has been trapped in this cycle of "a never-ending defeat" and "suffering" but he knows that he lies at the center of responsibility in dealing with this plague. He can't really break away. But he commends Rambert on realizing the purity and value of love. Of course, Rambert does see Rieux's perspective and eventually change his mind, but I still found it pretty understanding. To your later discussion points about the harsh reality with Covid, unfortunately I think people do just make the excuse that "this won't affect me" and/or "the mortality rate is so low" because that's easiest. It's harder for people to empathize with the potential gravity of their decisions, especially with the extremity of Covid compared to the extremity of Plague: as we know, huge difference. Nice post bro.
ReplyDeleteI agree with and to make another point, we are all more interconnected in society than they are in this book. If people want to see their dying relative one last time, it is more feasible nowadays online than the characters in the book could. It is hard to think about what is best for everybody sometimes and I think you are right that Rieux and (eventually) Rambert embody this idea a lot. They have their own concerns that they set aside for what is best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteObviously, because we have the internet today, physical isolation from our loved ones does not have as much of an effect on our mental health as it did on the characters in this book. However, it definitely does have an effect. I agree that, in this pandemic, people should try to put the common good before their own desires whenever possible, no matter how hard that is for them. Your post makes me think of the "abstraction" idea that is discussed in the book. After Dr. Rieux's refusal of Rambert's request, he comes to the conclusion that the "abstraction" is necessary. He believes he cannot have pity on individuals like Rambert and their own personal struggles if he wants to help solve the larger issue of the plague. In other words, he must ignore the personal suffering of individuals in order to save the general public as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point! Not everyone can be as morally commendable as Rieux, but at the same time, their actions affect others and it's not fair to put others at risk besides yourself when there's a contagious disease going around. I think it really depends on what you consider as the greater good- time spent with your loved ones or sacrificing that time to avoid spreading sickness.
ReplyDelete