Transfer Deadline Day: Should I Stay (heavy) or Should I Go (light)

Today was transfer deadline day in most European football (soccer) leagues, and many clubs and players moved frantically to sign deals and submit documents to league headquarters. In soccer there are two transfer windows a year—one each in the summer and winter. The summer window generally lasts three months (6/1-8/31) and is crucial because league campaigns start in mid-August. Transfer windows are opportunities for clubs to either reinforce their squads or completely ruin their season (e.g., when a mass exodus of players happens without replacements coming in). They are also opportunities for players to take on a new challenge or get a pay bump. The transfer window is a gift that keeps on giving because of its drama. On clubs' official social media pages, fans anxiously comment "announce someone!" Players make shock moves (e.g., Brazilian footballer Neymar moved to Paris for $264 million), snakes (players who betray a club) are born, rumors are fabricated by the media, and there are so many other twists and turns. The emotions of deadline day have inspired me to connect the world of club sport with the theme of lightness vs. weight.

In every professional club sport, most players transfer to other teams. In this sense, many players are "light". That lightness is sometimes for the good or the bad. It is good when players move for development and trophies/championships. It is bad when they move for money or the way in which they exit is disrespectful. On the other hand, players who stay put in one or two clubs for many years can be considered "heavy." In these days, "heavy" athletes are an extreme rarity simply because there aren't many players who value loyalty over money. The question of staying or moving teams is one of the most difficult and entertaining topics in club sports, and I am still not sure if "lightness" or "weight" is better in this regard.

Weight vs. Lightness, Instagram vs. Snapchat

When thinking about the posts about social media, I thought of another, perhaps more trivial, example in our lives of the dichotomy between lightness and weight as conceived of in The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Instagram vs. Snapchat. The two social media apps are very popular services based around sharing pictures, but have very different approaches to posting that appeal to a sort of heaviness and lightness for Instagram and Snapchat respectively. Pictures people post on Instagram stay on their profile indefinitely and can be viewed at any time by any of your friends. ON Snapchat, pictures are either posted to be viewed for only 24 hours and then disappear or are sent individually so that they can only be viewed for a few seconds. While the feeling of permanence of Instagram posts, which can be deleted, and the ephemerality of Snapchat stories, which can be screenshotted, are somewhat illusory, the contrast of how these apps works reminded me of the split between Nietzsche's eternal recurrence and Kundera's conception of lightness. The apps can therefore provide a sort of comparison of how people act under these artificially imposed conditions of lightness and heaviness. How this bears out in reality is pretty similar to what we have discussed in class on a more metaphysical level: on Instagram, people generally give their posts much more weight and are more careful about what they do, while on Snapchat, people are more likely to be less serious and might care less about what they post, in a spirit of "Einmal ist keinmal". This is obviously not a super serious example, but I think it provides a sort of interesting experiment of how perceived heaviness or lightness to people's actions can affect their behavior.

Photography in Relation to Tereza's View of the Body

We have discussed how Tereza despises the human body, particularly her own, and prioritizes the soul. I would like to mention a meaningful scene that has not been brought up in our discussions.

On page 68, Tereza heads to Switzerland with some of her photos of the invasion. She offers them to a magazine, but the editor does not accept them. He reasons that they are outdated and that the Swiss care no longer. Then a woman comes into the office and presents a nudist beach article. The editor fears that Tereza would be shocked by the images and says, "Of course they're completely different from your pictures." Tereza replies, "Not at all. They're the same." Here Tereza equates her pictures of the Russian invasion with nudity. While the Soviet government lied that the occupation was "fraternal help" to a fellow socialist state in the grip of counter-revolutionaries, her photographs exposed the truth beneath the surface. Then the woman tries to comfort Tereza: "There's nothing wrong with the naked body. It's normal. And everything normal is beautiful!" However, it can be inferred that Tereza is disturbed by the woman's words because she has a flashback to "the image of her mother marching through the flat naked." The reason why Tereza hates the body is precisely because of its uniformity/normality and her oft-naked mother, and this woman is suggesting that being normal is beautiful. Tereza cannot stand the idea.

No school tomorrow 💪

The Body: A Means of Uniformity or Individuality

Tereza's opinion on her body throughout the novel is very clear. She despises it because she feels that her body makes her like everybody else. To her, the human body is not a source of individuality and expression but rather a means of blending in and adhering to convention. In some ways, it is not her body itself that bothers Tereza but the underlying message of homogeneity that comes with her anatomy.

However, although I understand the basis for Tereza's notions, I have to disagree with her perception of the body. I would argue that the body is a means of individuality and self-expression rather than uniformity.

Although unfavorable, it can be agreed that one's first impression of another is almost entirely based upon physical characteristics rather than elements of the soul such as personality and character. If someone were to spot you in a crowd, they would solely base their perceptions of your identity off of details such as your clothing, mannerisms, and behavior. Furthermore, your identity is impacted by elements such as skin color  In this way, elements of your physical appearance separate you from the rest of the crowd. If your shoelaces are untied and your hair is unbrushed, a stranger might characterize you as careless or disheveled.


This example also leads to another point made by Tereza. Tereza further expands upon her reasoning against bodies by describing the involuntary aspect of the anatomy. Of course, occurrences such as the rumbling of one's stomach are involuntary, but there are many aspects of one's physicality that can be controlled. Referring back to my previous example, shoelaces and hair are both characteristics that can be decided by a person and contribute to one's outward appearance.

Again, I understand Tereza'a viewpoint, but I also think it's important to note that there are more aspects, particularly aspects that can be controlled, which impact one's physicality and determine their individuality.

A dog's lightness

Simmlar to tomas' teenage dream life, to love a care-free light life is similar to that of a dogs life. Dogs seem to put off the aura of never-ending happiness; they life simple loves and don't have to live up to any social standards, they are light. I feel as if Tomas and Sabina aspire to live out their lives as dogs, to go through life's tasks with ease and not have to worry about living up to society's restrictions. Sabina and Tomas are trying to live up to the easiness and simplicity of a dogs life.

Art as a form of Protest

Art as a form of resistance to the United Soviet Socialist Republic is a common motif throughout Unbearable as Lightness of Being. Teresa takes pictures in the streets as the tanks are marching into the Czechoslovakia. Tomas writes article compares Oedipus and the USSR. Tomas says that they are similar, in that they both had good intentions that turned bad. Oedipus when he discovered that he had done something bad however gouged his eyes out for killing his father and sleeping with his mother. The USSR however has not punished themselves for straying from their original intentions. There were many forms of art that Czechoslovakians used to protest the USSR invasion of their home country. One of these artists was Milan Knizak. Milan was a performance artist, sculptor, and musician during the 1960s protesting the USSR takeover. 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/88ONydyRX7c/hqdefault.jpg

https://artconnect.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/attachments/114315/original.jpg?1479992109

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQe-X35hG6TXa9YpgC5C8TeMOTdc7pW5-FFwIlZ5QKKC1fIDSe

These are a few examples of his art. This last one was a painting he did, using his art to critique the Soviet Union. He uses the hearts inside the Hammer and Sickle sarcastically.

Weightless Sabina and Her Betrayals

The narrator's discussion of recurrence and lightness versus weight in the beginning implies Kundera's opinion about the main dichotomy of the novel. To him, Nietzsche's concept of eternal return is false because he believes that life occurs only once, which makes it light. Parmenides considered lightness positive and weight negative, which Kundera again challenges. Instead of viewing lightness as a sweet thing, he deems it unbearable. Eternal return and weight may be nerve-racking, but they give meaning to our lives. On the other hand, lightness is only sweet for a short amount of time. For example, we love to skip school and kill time, but soon enough there comes a time when you yearn for a meaningful life. Most of us want our lives to be valuable and significant. In fact, Kundera's thoughts are demonstrated right in the title: Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Sabina, the lightest character, is an evidence of the emptiness of living a light life. Her betrayals are sweet for some time, but after she betrays Franz (and love) by leaving him from Geneva, she realizes that her betrayals will sooner or later come to an end and that she does not have a clear goal for doing what she does. Also, she fears being buried in a grave as she feels no clear attachment to any land/country and dreads the prospect of being covered by weight. Her lightness has made her move constantly, and one can even argue that she has betrayed her own country.

"Her drama was a drama not of heaviness but of lightness. What fell to her lot was not the burden but the unbearable lightness of being." (122)

"The goals we pursue are always veiled."

"Sabina was unaware of the goals that lay behind her longing to betray. The unbearable lightness of being—was that the goal? Her departure from Geneva brought her considerably closer to it."

Tomas' Teenage Dream

Tomas has a very teenage outlook on life: he prefers to have the freedom to sleep with women rather than admit love, he lives a sort of "meaning less" life, and he is fairly careless. Tomas truely enjoys just sleeping with a new woman every night and not letting his realationship with the women go any further than a sexual attraction, similar to the attitudes that some teenage boys have towards relationships. Another common teenage attitude is prefer to live a restriction-less life. Tomas has the attitude of enjoying life without restriction and having a careless outlook on his life, thus Tomas acts like a teenage boy.

Isolation in a Totalitarian Society

As we discussed in class, under a totalitarian society, creative activities are strictly imposed upon by states to prevent resistance and the assembly of dissidents. Due to this imposition on self expression, people tend to feel an isolation from society and must find different activities to channel their individuality. While we were going over these topics in class, it struck me that there might be a correlation between this constraint on self expression and the acting out of several characters in the novel, particularly Sabina. Clearly, the impact of the totalitarian society is evident in the uniformity and, as Ms. Quinet said, "airbrushedness," or lack thereof, in Sabina's artwork. Sabina was trained at the academy to cover up imperfections and only reveal a superficial layer of sublimity. Because of this background, Sabina felt the need to revolt from her societal norm and express herself through her artwork.

However, I think this behavior extends to other characters as well in a less direct manner. In a way, Tomas acted out and escaped the norms of his society and political constraints through his extensive sexual endeavors. His sexually active lifestyle could be seen as a form of self expression and certainly provided him a sense of individuality. 

Tereza is also deeply affected by the constraints of the Soviet occupation, particularly its influence on her own form of self expression: photography. Tereza realizes that her photography has the ability to reveal to the rest of the world the events occurring in her own country. Photography becomes a way for her to express herself and her nation despite the harsh restrictions under a totalitarian society. 

Decisions

Only living once prohibits humans from testing their choices. Decisions are final, and there is no way to see if you made the right decision. Beings are limited in this way. Kundera on the other hand is able to move past this boundary through the novel. He uses the four characters and their different backgrounds and views on life to test decisions in life that normal humans cannot. Tomas lives a very light life in which he and doesn’t think about, whereas Teresa lives a heavy life and puts a lot of weight into the smallest details. One thing related to the idea of life as an experiment as Kundera does is the idea that we are all living in a simulation. You may be quick to throw out this idea, but it is more plausible than you may think. One day as technology advances further and simulations become more like human life and the universe, eventually a simulation of our universe will be created. If we are one day able to simulate our universe then that simulated universe will one day be able to make a simulation of their universe and the cycle will continue forever. If this is true then it is not like that our universe is the one that started it all. I know that it is not super related but the idea as life as an experiment reminded me of this.

The unbearable lightness of being bad and boujee

Early today, I was listening to one of my personal favorite songs, bad and boujee by the rap trio, migos. The song describes how one of the rappers "women" are "bad and boujee". I thought to myself, Tomas is a "bad" character and Tereza is more of a "boujee" character. Tomas is "bad" because he enjoys a life that does not require him to attach meaning to anything, specifically woman. Tomas does not let any of his relationships with woman go further than a physical attraction, thus he is "bad". To be boujee, one has a "need for luxury and materialistic items"; Tereza is not necessarily in need of gaudy things; however, one who has a need for materialistic things has attached some sort of meaning to these materials. Tereza prefers to attach meaning to aspects of her life; henceforth, Tereza is to some extent "boujee".

Recurring Words

The very concept of motifs recurs in The Unbearable Lightness of Being (which in itself is interesting).  So do the simple words associated with those motifs, which I think is an strong stylistic choice on Kundera’s part.  For example, the concept of “lightness of being” comes up time and again in the novel; but so does the simple word “light,” in many forms.  This light sometimes refers to “light” as in feeling weightless, but it also refers to “light” as in visible light.  One example of that is the lamp described at the end of the novel.  Another word that recurs is “unbearable,” which carries a weighty significance throughout the novel because of the title.                                                         

Romanticizing of the Other

            Throughout the novel I found the romanticizing of the occupation of 1968 intriguing, especially that which came from Franz. I found Franz’s comments during the “words misunderstood” section of the novel concerning the occupation to be especially revealing of the outside perspective of the event.

            National identity often goes hand in hand with the experiences, and specifically the bad experiences, that a country endures. For Sabina, the occupation will always be a time of grueling turbulence. Moreover, it will be an intensely personal experience that incites a further connection with her country.

            Franz does not have this outlook. It is easy for him to see the occupation nearly as a work of fiction. His need to feel as though he has a degree of knowledge about everything presented to him promotes him to feel as though he is in a position to talk about such an event in a familiar manner. His familiarity makes his conversation with Sabina all the more shocking. His tone is not one questioning the realities from someone knowledgeable on the subject, or lamenting a country seeing a loss of identity, but one of false nostalgia.

Sisyphus's Rock

            Early in our discussion of The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the story of Sisyphus and his rock was brought up. To me, the rock represents all of the things that ultimately have little or no consequence in our futures; moreover, it is human nature to involve or even obsess over things that are seemingly inconsequential.  I find it interesting as well that the characters in the novel have a rock of their own, specifically Tomas and Tereza, whose identities are tied up in their pursuits.

            The rock that Tomas is condemned to push with no return may be his sexual exploits. While he might not see it as a condemnation, everyone who lives within the realm of Tomas’s affairs end up having little or no significance in his life. Sabina is the only mistress who has a lasting, significant impact on him, but even she transcends the circle of affairs. It is, after all, Tereza who is the most dictating force in Tomas’s life outside of himself, and it is she whom he dies with.

            Tereza’s efforts are consistently expended on attaching sentimentality unto everything she can. She tries ardently to make even the smallest things weighty and meaningful, such as coincidences and her routines. Her efforts to impose meaning, however, are proved somewhat inconsequential when she moves to the country. There, her former routines and all of the little things she deemed meaningful fall into the void of her past, and the truly meaningful things are the ones that stay with her, like Karenin and Tomas. Ultimately, however, the unbearable lightness of losing her tethers is exposed after her death, as it gives rise to the idea that even the most meaningful things to us are still subject to our mortality, which is the fall of Tereza’s rock.

A Work Against Kitsch

Throughout the Unbearable Lightness of Being there is an obvious sense of negativity concerning the concept of kitsch, especially with Sabina. Sabina herself is guided by the avoidance of kitsch, and the artifice that comes with it.

            However, if you look at the novel as a whole, the entire piece is a work against kitsch. Milan Kundera maintains a complete honesty throughout the novel, discussing things that would be considered crude and unglamorous. Kundera consistently avoids any form of escapism, which would bring about a façade, and narrates the stories of four distinctly real people (distinctly real meaning that they are not void of our natural human tendencies and imperfections).

            Kundera’s characters aren’t necessarily characters that would appeal to the general public either. From a personal perspective, people might find Tomas’s sexual exploits distasteful, Tereza’s attachments overbearing, Franz’s obsession with women disturbing, and Sabina’s lack of concern with communism compared to kitsch unbelievable. However, contradictions are what bring about personal identity, and personal identity in the enemy of kitsch.

Independence vs. Dependence

I feel pity for Tereza and her plight, but not in the same way Tomas pities her. Tomas sees Tereza as a helpless child, a representation of the children in need of rescuing in many ancient myths. I see her as a woman absolutely consumed by love that she can’t even establish her own independence akin to Sabina. Sabina is emotionally stable, a thriving artist leading her own life, however questionable it may be. Tereza “offers her life” up to Tomas and endures his betrayals. I find it unfortunate that photography, to Tereza, primarily meant “getting at ‘something higher’ and living beside Tomas" since her street pictures of the Soviet military occupation are so significant. When she departs Zurich and returns to Prague, she does so secretly hoping he would follow her back (she admits this herself). She equates herself with her “weak” country and goes back to said country despite its state of political turmoil and oppression, which is so illogical and dangerous. She can barely see herself as an individual. She can't love herself. Though Tereza and her mother are not the same person, they are dissimilar personalites living awfully similar lives. I feel echoes of eternal recurrence in this instance, but I know it does not coherently apply here.

Beauty by Mistake

When Sabina and Franz venture to New York, they discuss the differences between European beauty and New York’s “unintentional beauty.” Sabina uses “beauty by mistake” as the basis for her art; New York is “something different, something mysterious or abstract” like the red trickle of paint that becomes her “Behind the Scenes” painting. Franz wonderfully discerns and appreciates “the alien quality of New York’s beauty” but it is unfamiliar to him. He in turn yearns for Europe. While their discussion of two different kinds of beauty reveals something about the two characters themselves, I have found myself thinking of Tereza and Tomas as well. Throughout the novel, Tomas is in pursuit of the “one-millionth part” that differentiates other women from their gender. In a way, the chase has a “premeditated quality to it” like European beauty and Tomas has made it his “long-range plan” to obtain it. Beauty of the “one-millionth part” however does not apply to Tereza. Similar to New York’s fortuitous beauty, Tereza is unintentional, which reinforces the play between fate and chance. Tereza’s soul emerged from the ugly (only ugly to Tereza, who condemns the human body) rumbling of her stomach for Tomas to behold, and after “six fortuities” Tomas loved her. Whether Kundera intended this or not, the discussion between Sabina and Franz about Europe and New York, in terms of beauty, reflects Tomas’ struggle between loving Tereza and wanting to pursue the “one-millionth part.” That is not to say Europe is better and more appealing than New York or vice versa but that they are both different. Such is Tereza’s beauty and the women Tomas beds. But Tereza’s grief is not beautiful. Tomas’ infidelity is not beautiful. Because Tomas lives in lightness, he refuses to refrain from acting on his desires for Tereza’s emotional stability and because of Tereza’s heaviness, she cannot accept his erotic adventures. The complex “lightness/heavy opposition” throughout the novel informs the beautiful, ugly and political aspects of reality and who people are at their core. 

Public and Private Spheres in the Internet Age

Branching off from Ally's post about mass surveillance and Chloe's on the idea of living in truth, I was thinking about how these discussions are in some ways different in the context of the present day with the rise of the Internet and social media. With these new technologies, I think in some ways the public sphere is encroaching upon the private one now more than ever. We are all constantly connected to our social circles and even when you are alone on the internet, you are still being monitored, so we have less and less time that is truly private. I spend a considerable amount of time "alone" on my computer, but even at those times I am constantly interacting with people and being tracked by sites. Even if time on the internet can feel private, knowing that your actions are being monitored can influence your actions or even, on some level, how you think.

Similarly, with new social media and other technologies that allows us to remain connected to other people, we have less and less time to be truly alone and outside of our social circle. Constantly documenting our lives on social media exposes us to the gaze of everyone who has access to our accounts. I doubt that many would feel that they are "living in truth" on their Instagram accounts, where people post for audiences of hundreds of people they may hardly know. If we accept Sabina's view that we cannot "live in truth" while outside of our private sphere, I think it's important to consider how the rise of the Internet and social media potentially encroaches on this private sphere in a detrimental way.

Invasion 68: Prague – Josef Koudelka

In the midst of Soviet invasion that ended the Prague Spring, Tereza went out on the streets with a camera to "preserve the face of violence for the distant future" (67). She photographed Russian soldiers, tanks, corpses, and protestors. This post explores Tereza's perspective as a photographer through the photos of Josef Koudelka, a hero of photojournalism.

Exhibition in New York City

Koudelka is a Czech-French photographer and former engineer who mostly photographed Gypsies until Russian tanks invaded his home country on the night of 20-21 August 1968. Like Tereza's shots, his pictures of the invasion were smuggled out of Prague and published abroad. The photographer fled Czechoslovakia in 1970 and did not publicly admit ownership of the shots for 15 years. They were credited to "Prague Photographer." Starting in 1984, he has opened exhibitions in numerous cities including Prague, London, Paris, New York, and Moscow.

Young Czech killed for having tried to drape his flag over a Russian tank.
A total of 108 Czechs and Slovaks died.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/arts/design/14geft.html?mcubz=3

"While he has been lauded for the courage it took to photograph during the occupation, Mr. Koudelka finds the praise misdirected. 'The courageous here were the Russians who went to Red Square to demonstrate against the Prague invasion,' he said, adding, 'Prison was the only way out of Red Square.' (Eight protesters were jailed after unfurling protest banners in Moscow after the invasion.)"

“[The Russian soldiers] were more like me, the same age, maybe a little younger. I felt sorry for them because I knew they were not guilty. The Russian politicians were guilty.”

"Many of the soldiers did not even know what country they were in, he added. 'Some thought they were in Germany,' he said."

Man shows soldier a newspaper. Soldiers do seem they have no idea what they are doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/oct/26/josef-koudelka-prague-spring-photography

"[Russia] is the only country in Europe where my invasion pictures have never been published in a full story in a magazine; just odd images here and there. If, after this exhibition, they remain unpublished, I will know Russia is not a truly free country."

"[Koudelka's photographs] exposed the official lie that the invasion was 'fraternal help' to a fellow socialist state in the grip of counter-revolutionaries; and, as a puppet Soviet government took control, they became a testament to lost hope."

"If young Russians come to look at this exhibition, if they see their fathers and grandfathers in the faces of these soldiers, if they see their own faces, and they think, 'I never want to be manipulated like that, to invade a peaceful country', then these photographs will have served a purpose."

Extra photos (not by Koudelka):

"young girls in unbelievably short skirts provoking the miserable sexually famished
Russian soldiers by kissing random passersby before their eyes" (67)

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K7O3RHXD417&VBID=2K1HZS5PXWB4U&PN=1#/SearchResult&ALID=2K7O3RHXD417&VBID=2K1HZS5PXWB4U&PN=1