Disgraced Sparknotes

In the play Disgraced, by Ayad Akhtar, Emily and Amir’s friends Isaac and Jory call into question each other’s identities and values as they contradict each other’s views on Islam, racial profiling, and other cultural issues. Throughout the group’s conversation, the couple focuses on one other’s factual inaccuracies, preconceived notions, and moral judgments, calling into question their respective opinions and political ideologies. Akhtar uses Jory and Isaac’s questioning of each other’s credibility to explore Jory’s doubts about Isaac’s liberal intellect and Isaac’s doubts about Jory’s sense of fairness, ultimately revealing that one’s perspective on race and religion is not dictated solely by heritage or upbringing. Throughout the conversation,
Jory challenges the evidence Isaac uses to support his arguments, calling into question through her opposition the broadmindedness Isaac prides himself on. Isaac is eager to assert his worldly knowledge, claiming early on that he “love[s] Spain” and “ran with the bulls in Pamplona” (56). Jory, who knows him well, sharply responds, “You did not run with the bulls” (56), immediately rejecting his claim. By bragging about an activity as thrilling and dangerous as running with the bulls, Isaac reveals his desire to not just appear to be, but to actually be experienced, daring, and well-travelled. Jory’s immediate dismissal of Isaac’s claim suggests her certainty about its inaccuracy, emphasizing her commitment to facts and evidence and her unwillingness to take Isaac’s claims at face value. Isaac then admits that he merely “watched people run with the bulls” (56), acknowledging his exaggeration in presenting himself. Akhtar’s use of the word “watched” attaches an outsider’s perspective to Isaac, despite his apparent desire to be the sort of person who would actually participate. Later, when discussing France’s banning of the Muslim veil for women, Isaac claims that he “happen[s] to know a few very brilliant Muslim women who choose to wear the veil” (60). Jory again questions Isaac’s firsthand experience with the matter, asking him “who [he] know[s] who wears the veil”, and after he fails to specify, she accuses him of “making it up” (60). Akhtar uses Isaac’s claim and Jory’s subsequent questioning of the accuracy of his story to reveal Isaac’s desire to be broad-minded and have firsthand knowledge of the subject. Jory’s cross-examination of Isaac suggests an accusatory tone, and her demand for evidence suggests her doubts based on Isaac’s repeated exaggerations. While Isaac’s efforts to portray himself as a liberal and well informed man are seemingly harmless, his fabrications inspire opposition in Jory, who is equally determined to refute Isaac’s claims due to his lack of concrete evidence. As the scene progresses, Isaac also challenges Jory’s views, revealing his negative perception of her emphasis on order and ultimately questioning the fairness of her judgements on race and religion.
Early in the conversation, when Jory commends Amir for offering himself up to be checked in airport security, Isaac tells her that such an act encourages “racial profiling” (50), as if she needs to be informed. Jory responds sternly that she “know[s] what [racial profiling] is” (50), likely due to firsthand experience as an African American woman. Isaac’s comment suggests that he considers himself better informed on the subject than Jory (ironic considering that he is white) and questions her experience as a black woman. Later, when Jory defends France’s banning of the veil by saying that, “you do have to draw the line somewhere” (59), Isaac responds, “Okay, Mrs. Kissinger” (59), as a way of criticizing Jory’s political beliefs. Jory's willingness to “draw the line” suggests that, in the pursuit of order, Jory permits some components of religious expression but not the more controversial ones. Akhtar references Henry Kissinger’s extreme emphasis on order over justice, as embodied in his quote “When faced with choosing justice or order, I’ll always choose order” (59). Isaac criticizes Jory for exactly those priorities, which he believes to be flawed as a result of his liberal mindset. As an African American woman, Jory may be expected to be more outspoken and impassioned for justice than Isaac; however, she instead idealizes order, believing that the more radical aspects of certain religions should be controlled to keep the peace. Through Isaac’s challenging of Jory’s beliefs, Akhtar emphasizes Jory’s more conservative perspective the way it contrasts from what might be expected of a young black woman
today. In the end, Isaac and Jory’s challenges of one another come down to conflicts between their personal identities, each of which is surprising in the respective character. Isaac, a fairly successful white Jewish man, is defensive of the rights of other religions, including Islam, and chooses to portray himself as a well-travelled and tolerant liberal. Jory, a young African American woman who grew up in a ghetto (and probably faced her share of adversity due to her race) values order over justice in an effort to maintain the peace, despite the potential loss of personal freedoms. Akhtar uses the inherent contradictions in Isaac and Jory’s personal experiences and political viewpoints to convey a larger point: cultural heritage by itself does not always dictate personal views.