This Week's Community Response

Once again, just posting this here so that I can have my development of thoughts in one space:

Last week, I conducted a close reading of Ray Smith's relations with his brother-in-law focusing on an argument regarding the family dog. I concluded that the disconnect between the two involved a deep disconnect concerning fundamental values, here specifically economics. Ray valuing the freedom of all living things, and his brother-in-law valuing the traditional concerns of capitalistic consumerism and property values. In this week's readings I chose a very different passage from Maxine Hong Kingston's Tripmaster Monkey to compare and analyze back to my earlier close reading of Kerouac's The Dharma Bums:

..."I think that it is fucked to make contacts rather than to make friends. I don't like contacts. What do you say to one? 'What are you offering?' 'To what or to whom is your end connected?' A party is a party...What good am I to you and your associates?" Wittman meant that he didn't want to do business whatsoever. There has got to be a way to live and never do business. (116)

Wittman Ah Sing is arguing with his friend Lance Kamiyama at Lance’s party of “Young Millionaires” and “business men,” where almost everyone seems to be conducting one form or another of experimentation—either with L.S.D., watching a “snow show,” or even simple socializing. The party, according to Wittman’s above complaint, was created in order for the people in Lance’s broad social circle to meet and connect in order to network and develop business relations. In Wittman’s objections to treating people like “contacts” (“What are you offering?,” etc.), he expresses his valuation of human beings as subjects, not objects. As a “contact,” a human being is nothing more than a means to an end, not the end itself. According to Kant, treating a human being as such is immoral.Although Kant’s theory only concerns persons, Wittman’s valuation of human life does relate back to Ray Smith’s valuation of Bob the dog’s freedom. Both Ray and Wittman value life and freedom. Ray treats the dog, a fellow sentient being, as an end in himself. Ray, unlike those making “contacts” at Lance’s party, does not value the objectification of sentient beings nor does he value the effect that a traditional, business-like approach has on society as a whole. Later in the party scenario, Wittman narrates that others might say of him, “He believes in voluntary poverty” (129). Thus, not only does Wittman argue against making “contacts,” but also does not wish to place himself (through his business connections) as one more body coinciding with the consuming capitalistic agenda.

In placing a value on the traditional ideas of wealth and worth (like Ray’s brother-in-law), Wittman would be subjecting himself to a concept which he considers immoral—the use of other persons as means either as clientele, business partners, or ways to advance himself up the economic ladder. Being aware of the immoral effects of capitalism and discussing them over the topic of business contacts, Wittman illustrates the importance of resisting the alluring (yet dehumanizing) possibilities of the traditional valuation of wealth.Thus Ray’s dispute over the freedom of a dog and Wittman’s dispute regarding his disgust with making business connections both argue against the same societal structure—traditional values of wealth in the context of capitalism. Kingston’s narration expresses Wittman’s desire of “there... [being] a way to live and never do business.” This desire can easily seem like a disillusioning utopian dream—so far removed from our current socioeconomic relations and practices. Although such drastic societal changes could not occur easily over night, they would not occur without visionary minds and compassionate hearts like those of Ray and Wittman.