Summary Of Lawrence Weschler's Vermeer In Bosnia

Justice and Individualism

In “Vermeer in Bosnia,” Lawrence Weschler challenges us to consider the prosecution of war criminals in unusual ways. He describes his observation of the preliminary hearings of The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal and, at the same time, discusses many of Vermeer’s paintings. The concept of intersubjectivity is emphasized throughout the essay. The term “intersubjectivity” generally means a condition somewhere between subjectivity and objectivity, one in which a phenomenon is personally experienced yet by more than one subject. However, Weschler interprets this term as an experience closely linked to the concept of individuality, autonomy, or self-sufficiency. To be more specific, the author claims that how Vermeer views his subjects and depicts them in his paintings and how the “ordinary people,” including the art critics, view the same Vermeer’s paintings are different because of individuality. In other words, each person perceives and interprets Vermeer’s paintings, such as View of Delft, The
Girl with a Pearl, Girl Asleep, and Officer and Laughing Girl, in different ways because he or she is a distinct individual with a unique background and experiences.
Weschler presents Vermeer’s perception of his own paintings through an indirect way of briefly recounting the painter’s life: tragically, this great painter lived through the horrors of the several wars, including the Thirty Years’ War, and suffered from the religious conflicts. Additionally, as a result of France’s assault of the Netherlands, the Dutch economy was devastated, directly affecting Vermeer’s bankruptcy and his early death (Weschler 779). Vermeer, who led his life in the middle of turmoil and chaos, sought peacefulness and serenity, or “invented peace,” and depicted this vague, imaginary concept in his paintings. In fact, the painter’s achievement to imagine a world of silence and serenity at a time when every part of Europe was being torn apart by national hatreds and religious persecution and then to make that world into existence through his art is so great that “It’s almost as if Vermeer can be seen, amid the horrors of his age, to have been asserting or inventing the very idea of peace (Weschler 780).” In this sense, those magnificent paintings are more than mere technical triumphs; they are, in fact, triumphs of the human spirit. Despite the true intention of Vermeer to paint his subjects in search of his own peace, many art critics deem his works as mere “instances of these sorts of moralizing genre images (Weschler 783).” In response to the shallow interpretation of the art critics, Weschler stresses that their lack of understanding of Vermeer’s works indicates their lack of recognition of individuality of each subject in the paintings: “… this person is not to be seen as merely a type, a trope, an allegory. If [the subject] is standing in for anything, [he or] she is standing in for the condition of being a unique individual human being, worthy of our own unique individual response (Weschler 783).” The author underscores that each subject matter in the paintings is an individual with distinct characteristics, backgrounds, and experiences. Thus, it would be wrong or even unjust for us to draw a broad conclusion about the subjects as a whole. Just as we want other people to regard us as unique individuals and to see us from various angles, we should treat and regard the subjects in the same manner.
On the surface, it appears that Weschler merely talks about the greatness of paintings of Vermeer and their impact on various individuals. It also seems that the author simply asserts that due to intersubjectivity, which stems from individuality, individuals interpret or perceive the same subject matter in their unique ways. Beneath the surface, however, he employs the example of those paintings to invite us to see justice in a new way. Moreover, through his observation of the case of Dusko Tadic, one of the accused war criminals, at the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, Weschler persuades us to re-envision racial stereotypes and deep-rooted blood wars.
The author asserts that individuals, rather than groups, are the guiltiest or the most blamable of the horrendous atrocities. In other words, we need to absolve ethnic groups of heinous crimes so that we begin to hold individuals responsible for their own misdeeds. This claim is illustrated in the following sentence: “There [Tadic] was, not some symbol or trope or a stand-in for anybody other than himself: a quite specific individual … a man of whom, as it happened, terrible, terrible allegations had been made, … stripped of any rationales except his own autonomous free agency (Weschler 785).” The author states that Tadic is put on trial because he, an independent and free individual, has committed crimes, not because his superiors or some of his colleagues told him to so. Hence, in keeping with Weschler’s claim, whatever the cause or source of their crimes is, each war criminal, not just few individuals blinded by the political and economic gains, is guilty of what he or she has done.
Yet, despite the significant role of individuality on the actions of each individual, is it true that only individuals are responsible for their deeds? Is it possible that groups are also responsible for the actions of individuals?
On July 1950, my grandfather and his fellow villagers were captured by North Koreans who were rapidly taking over South Korea. Because North Koreans required people to carry and hide their armaments in the tunnels situated up in the mountains of Daegu (one of the most Southern cities in South Korea). Suddenly, my grandfather who never left his rural and secluded town was driven into forced labor and worked in the tunnel for five weeks. Yet, as the North Korean administrators’ brutality worsened, the laborers acknowledged that if they stayed there any longer, they could die in any moment.
The group, therefore, organized a clandestine meeting to contrive a revolt. My grandfather who had never killed anyone in his life and had no intention of harming others did not want to participate in the rebellion. However, he had no choice but to succumb to the group’s decision of stealing the North Koreans’ weapons and fighting against the enemies. As a result of this revolt, my grandfather somehow killed approximately fifteen North Koreans. Does this incident make my grandfather responsible for his action? In other words, does the killing make him a horrible murderer who deserves to be punished for his decision of assassinating the North Koreans?
Discussing the nature of violence and war criminals, Weschler affirms that we cannot and should not claim that a whole group of people who committed war crimes is responsible for the atrocities of a war, in this case, Yugoslav War.
The reason is, as Weschler states, “Such interethnic violence usually gets stoked by specific individuals’ intent on immediate political or material advantage, who then calls forth the legacies of earlier and previously unaddressed grievances. (Weschler 784)” The author emphasizes that violence is often fueled by few individuals’ greed of political power and material gains. Hence, when we judge the immoral crimes of war criminals, it would be too rash for us to simplify or generalize that each individual of the criminal group bears the guilt and the responsibility of the war crimes. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the actions of individuals are often influenced by the pressure and the expectations of
society.
In “Aria: A Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood,” Richard Rodriguez describes growing up in a bilingual and a bicultural world. He reflects on the tensions he experienced at school; if he continues to speak in Spanish and remain sheltered in his native culture, he cannot be fully accepted in this English-speaking world. Hence, he learns English. However, on the process, as he speaks in English, he “suffer[s] a diminished sense of private individuality,” meaning that he feels an abrupt and complete loss of individuality and family closeness (Rodriguez 508). Although Rodriguez, as an individual, has a choice of not speaking in English and not fully distancing himself from his family, he is forced to adapt into the English-speaking society in order to obtain “the social and political advantages [he] can enjoy as a man (Rodriguez 509).”
This loss of a part of Rodriguez’s identity provides a valuable answer to the question of whether groups are equally responsible for the individuals’ actions: although it is Rodriguez himself who decides to make a transition from the Spanish-speaking world to the English-speaking world, the fundamental source of his transition and thus his loss of his “private individuality” is the group of English speakers. Hence, he would refute Weschler’s claim that individuals are the sole perpetrators of their deeds.
In “Just Walk on By,” Brent Staples illustrates the reactions of people walking on streets in response to seeing an approaching black man. In the beginning, Staples explains his first experience of having a negative reaction to his presence: a young, white woman ran away from him while he was walking casually behind her almost a block away. At this moment, the author realizes that the way he dressed, his overwhelming height, and long hair frightens people, especially Caucasians. The author believes that people avoid coming in contact with him because they fear that he may harm them. Regrettably, through these experiences of racial discrimination, Staples gradually loses his individuality. Moreover, he does not seek to prove his true self, an innocent and respectable person, to others. Instead, as if it is his responsibility to conform to the expectations of society, he “beg[ins] to take precautions to make [him]self less threatening (Staples 155).” In other words, Staples intentionally behaves just as others want or expect him to and dresses just as others deem “normal” and pleasant.
Based on Staples’s experience of racial discrimination, can we say that it is merely the fault of few individuals to be frightened of the presence of Staples or, in other words, to discriminate him based on his race and gender? When Staples states that “the fearsomeness mistakenly attributed to [him] in public places,” he implies that it is the public’s opinion, not that of few individuals, to regard him as a hostile person (Staples 154). Hence, individuals’ negative perception of the Black males is attributed to Caucasian-dominated society as a whole, not to the individual members of society. This statement evidently contradicts Weschler’s idea that individuals should hold responsible for their deeds. It appears that Weschler’s main assertion is flawed in a sense that in some occasions, individuals’ actions are either directly or indirectly influenced by a group’s perception. Supporting my assertion, Jim W. Corder points out in “Aching for a Self,” “if we exist, we exist over yonder, not in our own creations, but in other people’s perceptions of our creations (Corder 139).” The author states that our existence is accredited to how others think of our “creations,” which signify, in a metaphorical sense, our actions. In essence, he stresses that the individuals’ deeds are shaped by the others, specifically their views.
For a long period of time, I have believed that that my grandfather is a murderer. I hated him. I was ashamed of him. So, I rarely talked to him. Now, he is dead, and finally do I understand that he is not entirely guilty of assassinating the North Korean officials. Although I must acknowledge the fact that his murder was objectively wrong and unethical, he is not the sole perpetrator of his deed.