When I hear the quote "Politics and sentiment don't mix," I immediately think of Marxism. Satrapi and her family were self-proclaimed Marxists and so I would understand why Marji's father would make this statement. One of the main ideals of Marxism, besides that of the necessary revolting, is that the needs of the people are taken care of, rather than the wants. Heeding the wants of the people can not be afforded. Individualism must be sacrificed for the greater good of the whole. Without greed being an issue, the society is one unit. Great things can be accomplished and everyone is taken care of. Sentiments can not come into play here because the issue is about what is necessary, not what is wanted.
When politics becomes personal, leaders may think irrationally. They think of what it is that is personal to them and not about what might be good for their country. Rash decisions are made and the whole country may suffer as a result. I believe Marji's father saw the truth in this. He means to say that politics and sentiment should not mix because it makes for ill leadership and is jeopardizing for the whole country.
I think Marji's father's statement was meant to have another meaning as well. Satrapi's family, while interested in Marxism, does not practice it, and neither does the country in which they live. Their country is run by a dictator and they are in the midst of revolutions and wars. In situations like these, emotions are fragile and also frequent. However, in cases of dictatorship, the sentiments of the people are trivial and only power seems to matter. Many lives are lost and wasted because of war and the greed of leaders. From looking at the past political history of Iran and of many other countries, it is obvious to Marjane's father that the leaders do not have time or interest in caring for their people.
The ethics of politics aside, sentiments, especially in the case of the people of Iran, will be a prime issue. In Persepolis, Satrapi's family could not put their emotions aside, nor should they have. Their lives were in danger and they had to be ever careful of everything they did so as to not get in trouble with the "law." They tried to live as best they could in the given circumstances. It is obvious that Marji, her mother, and her grandmother were more sensitive when it came to politics and that they believed that if they felt strongly enough about the issues, it might do some good. They went to demonstrations for a time but I think they stopped because they knew this was a battle they could not win. Although they hated that they were even in a position that would cause them to worry for their lives and freedom, they knew the cold truth of what Marji's father had said. Politics and sentiment do not and should not mix. However, it is also a truth that politicians are not dealing with a country full of robots; they are dealing with humans. Sentiments will be present no matter what. While leading a country should never be personal, in the case of the people of Iran, politics seem to be the cause of sentiment.
I like the idea that politics were the cause of sentiment. It shows the irony in Marj's father's statement. They were so mixed that one caused the other.
ReplyDeleteAlso in the dictatorships politics and sentiment only mix for the leaders and then the people of that nation must just blindly follow wherever the dictator's sentiments lead them, leaving their own behind.
I really enjoyed your thoughts to the topic. And agree with it all.
I completely agree with you when you say that Marji's father believes that the result of mixing politics with sentiment is irrational thinking and decision making. The primary objective of any political leader is to think and act according to public good. Employing this notion of public good inevitably should diminish emotionalism and the inconsistencies and clouded judgment that tend to follow. It is the best method of leadership because it takes the focus off of self (feelings, thought, offenses, opinions, etc.) and places it on collective good. Marji's father understands this and is trying to communicate the importance of clear and unbiased judgment when making political decisions in order to ensure optimal stability.
ReplyDeleteThough we say sentiment must not be allowed to cloud the judgment of leaders, without it there would certainly be a less dynamically evolved social, political, economic climate today - when considering the diversity of thought with respect to citizens. The little ways in which the Satrapi family sought to push the envelop (like the party that they had, and the way they drank, etc.) kept them spirited and helped fuel the needed revolution.
So, I agree with your thoughts. I think your response is well written.
I like that you brought Marxism into play; that tickles my political fancy (though I am far from a Marxist). Your response to Persepolis is well written and I can’t find a point in which I differ. It is interesting how Marjane creates a social commentary about Iran that has striking similarities to the “church and state” debate in America. On an idealist level, church and state should be separated, but logistically, it is an impossibility. Why? Because people need meaning in their lives and, in turn, feel that their decisions should be meaningful. So, “church and state” and “politics and sentiment” are actually pretty close; we are affected by the need to be meaningful just as much as we are by the need to be, by which I mean “have sentiment”. My point is that Persepolis can be an allegory for just about any kind of society. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Marji’s father might not actually believe what he said. It might be that his comment was only a defense mechanism, either for himself or for Marji. I mean that he was either trying to confirm himself TO himself, or that he was trying to instill a principle into Marji. This is just a little theory of mine, but I think we all “make up” alternative scenarios in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you mentioned the effect of emotional responses from political leaders. I definitely agree that too much feeling and not enough thought on their part can be of great detriment to society. But I do think that a healthy dose of humanity and empathy (as well as ethical sensibilities) are necessary for someone to be a good leader.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I believe that freedom from such an oppressive society as that in which Marji grew up is a need and not just a want. Maybe Marji's father agreed with some aspects of Marxism, but he certainly seemed to be fighting for freedom. He also wanted to provide Marji with an education superior to what was offered to the general public. I guess what I'm trying to say is I agree that the Satrapi's were not practicing Marxists.
I agree that if politics were decided strictly on sentiment, political leaders would react irrationally. When making decisions for a country, state, whatever, you cannot let your personal judgment affect your decision making; You're suppose to do whats best for the people. I like your use of comparisons between people and robots. This is very true. No matter what decision is made, someone/some group of people are going to disagree. Thats the human condition: to have your own opinions and your own actions. You cannot please everyone, it's simply impossible. So, perhaps only a lone wolf or a hermit would not be effected by the revolution. If he or she did not have any relatives or close friends or neighbors, then the deaths of innocent lives would not effect that person nearly as much as someone as Marjane and her family who were well connected with their community. I also like your comparisons with Marxism.
ReplyDelete