In some aspect both men may be egocentric. We think of this as a negative word and character trait. It could be applied to Hitler who thought only of himself without regard for the feelings and desires of others. So, Schindler and Wallenberg certainly would not be in that association. Yet egocentrism can also be defined as actions centered on or arising from one’s experiences and perspectives. Would a shrewd businessperson be considered egocentric? They would need to be insightful and clever as Schindler was to advance their careers and businesses. He was sharp-witted, which would take some consideration of the feelings of others, though. But he did reveal at least a high self esteem. But ego-centrism would not apply to one who became so aware of the plight of the Jews with a desire to risk one’s own life for others. But if it were ego-centrism it shows that one’s situation and life experiences can be used for good. If Schindler and Wallenberg did have the tendency toward self centeredness, it served them and the Jews they rescued well. Their sense of self was so strong that they could stand up to the German military rank and demand answers. It’s hard for me to imagine someone that wasn’t ego-centric to stand up in such a way. But it was also brave even when it came to bribing someone for who knew when they might turn on you. But money and prestige earn respect; and they seemed to know it. But in the end for both men to lose everything, Schindler his fortune and Wallenberg his freedom and his life; would not reveal ego-centrism, but self sacrifice.
So in thinking how an individual would respond to genocide, the actions of Schindler and Wallenberg is contrary to what we are taught about respect for authority and good behavior. They stood up to authority and used tactics we would not deem good such as bribery and lies. But ultimately they worked for good. The regard for following rules of authority would have attributed to the inaction of the Jews or other law-abiding citizens. But when the rules of those in authority are contrary to morality, then we must muster up the strength to take a stand. Schindler and Wallenberg’s business experience allowed them to have the wit to stand up to the Germans and use the power and wisdom they had to help those in need, and in such large numbers. But they still had to make the choice to act. However their consciences did not seem to allow them any other choice when they saw the atrocities first hand. However many individuals who were not so self-confident or business oriented or ego-centric still stood up against an immoral authority and did what they could by hiding and feeding individuals in their quest for the freedom to live their lives.
Your discussion of egocentrism is intriguing. However, you need to apply that definition to specific scenes in the film. You generalize too much about the two men, but you don't support your generalizations with specifics. How was Schindler's business sense very different from Wallenberg's
ReplyDeleteI've never thought of egocentrism in quite that way. At one point you argue that a 'sense of the self' was what was ultimately needed to stand up against these people, but I would argue that part of a 'sense of the self' is your own human nature. And one of the most basic human natures is the need and want of survival, something that was clearly ignored when these men stepped up to the Nazis and their movement because they wanted survival for others much more than survival for themselves. That goes against all instincs and it goes against the self.
ReplyDeleteYour argument about how Wallenberg and Schindler work towards a better good, despite some of the bad they had to do along the way, ties into a few of the points I tried to make in my blog and in another comment. I think is definitely one of the most important aspects to get out of the film. It does seem to make the viewer question what constitutes "good business" and to what extent and at what costs is it acceptable to push the limits too? I really like how you apply this to the Jewish mindset as well by stating, "The regard for following rules of authority would have attributed to the inaction of the Jews or other law-abiding citizens." It almost seems fair to say that immorality or immoral acts can be justified as long as there is a greater good that is the goal or objective. For both the Jews, Wallenberg, and Schindler. the objective had to remain that people be saved no matter what the cost. It is all just a very complex social, philosophical, and business-oriented dynamic.
ReplyDeleteGudan: Comment on Gommel's blog on Schindler and Wallenberg
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that a lot of people have mentioned Schindler’s bribes as an element of his seedy past or at least as a tactic that most people today would not condone. Although I agree that in almost all situations, bribes are obviously bad: we associate them with things like corrupt government or business. However, I feel that in certain, often extreme, situations, bribes become a necessary evil. In Bent as well, I was not horrified by Max when he took money from Greta/George to leave Berlin. In these situations, things such as taking and using money for bribes or buying and selling on the black market become survival tactics. Another example of this would be the thriving black market in Japan following World War II, without which many people would’ve died of malnutrition. I don’t mean to say that Ms. Gommel or others who mentioned Schindler’s bribes are overly moralistic or think of them as wrong – I don’t want you to think I’m misreading your blog. I just found it interesting that so many people mentioned it. I think I did in my blog, too; I’ll have to go back and read it. I just hadn’t realized until reading everyone’s how it stood out to me. In the films, it just felt right. Bribery was part of Schindler’s cards that saved lives. Maybe not all of his financial operations with the Nazis were so morally excusable, but it was his skill at knowing how to use money and goods to manipulate people that helped him in his life-saving endeavors. Personally, I thought his philandering was more of a damning mark on his personality than anything else. His wife supported him in so many ways, and yet he was unfaithful to her.
I never thought about Schindler and Wallenberg being egocentric until you brought up this point. And now I question what seemed to be the dominant motive of Schindler in his good deeds. At heart and soul, Schindler was a businessman. He was a businessman who’s main who saw one goal. That goal was not red, nor was it gold, it green (yes, I’m using American money here as some sort of way to be poetic). In Schindler’s factory, he wanted the maximum amount of products made by his Jews so that he could profit the most. Taking this approach, I’ll ask the question; What conclusion can we try to make of Schindler’s thought process when the war was over? He could have kept all of the Jews at his factory to work, but he did not. At that point, the business mindset left Schindler and he became the humanitarian.
ReplyDelete