The Crippling Conventions of Civilization by Grave Langella

When thinking about relationships that exist throughout society, we are inclined to think that there is a certain level of love, safety, and rapport that is upheld by each partner, helping to create a healthy and balanced environment. Although these expectations are set in some people’s minds, it is very common for people to view relationships in a completely different light, expressing their belief that a relationship is all about gaining power and control—not about respect and kindness. Viewing relationships in this way originated years ago, where it was established that, in any circumstance, a man is superior to a woman. With the establishment of this idea, women’s actions and thoughts were easily neglected and seen as futile to the progress of society; therefore, there came an understanding that men secured a significant role in the prosperity of civilization, and women were there to simply aid the commanding men whenever necessary. As the appropriation of women’s thoughts and feelings grew as time went on, a clear distinction between the roles of men and women in society was established and executed for many years. In Lina Wertmüller’s film Swept Away, the gender roles fixed in society are reflected onto the relationship between Rafaella and Gennarino as they are stranded on an island without moral guidance or sense of cooperation. Through the relationship of Rafaella and Gennarino, there is a clear portrayal of the differences between genders in society, which lead to unhappiness and the overall corruption of love and affection.

In the first scene of the film, gender inequality is instantly recognizable. As Rafaella is engaged in an acrimonious argument with her husband about politics, he immediately asserts his dominance and discredits everything she has to say; through his dominant actions, which make Rafaella feel inferior, viewers are quickly exposed to the gender inequality that dominates relationships between men and women during this time. Throughout her argument with her husband about politics, Rafaella expresses her disapproval of the Communist party. Upon hearing Rafaella’s remarks, Gennarino, an unkempt crew member on the yacht, exclaims, “If that damn bitch doesn’t keep her mouth shut, I’ll murder her. She’s getting on my nerves” (Wertmüller 7:21). Through the actions of Rafaella’s husband and Gennarino’s superfluous comment, it becomes evident that Wertmüller is immediately exemplifying the disparity between men and women with the hope that viewers arrive at a new understanding of how gender inequalities affect society.

Because of the negative feelings that Rafaella and Gennarino establish towards each other while on the yacht, their feelings of misery are inevitable once they find themselves stranded on an island together. While on the yacht, it was evident that Rafaella held more power over Gennarino due to her immense amount of wealth; however, once they get on the island, the ownership of power changes, placing Rafaella and Gennarino into situations they have never found themselves in before. With the realization that Rafaella no longer has monetary power over him, Gennarino starts to use the power he is given for being a man and begins to order Rafaella around, making it clear that she is of less importance than him. Having no other option but to respect Gennarino’s newly established power, Rafaella begins obeying his every order, finding that if “she speaks her mind or does something without his permission, Gennarino hits her and berates her” (Knight, par. 3). Because of Gennarino’s disturbing treatment, Rafaella tries to figure out a way to survive, “so she changes her behavior to match [Gennarino’s] expectations,” hoping that he will then have no reason to carry out “his constant sexual, emotional, and physical abuse in the name of male superiority” (Knight, par. 1).

Viewers are able to see this change in Rafaella’s behavior as she tries to avoid starvation by kneeling to the ground, lowering her head, and placing Gennarino’s hand atop of it, in order to satisfy his need for control, with hopes that he will give her a portion of the rabbit he just killed. Through Rafaella’s submissive actions, it becomes evident that there was a clear shift in power once getting on the island, leaving Gennarino with control that is unwavering and clearly established— even during times of starvation and disparity.

The way in which gender roles manifest on the island can be seen as a result of Rafaella and Gennarino’s cultural backgrounds. Due to the immense amount of wealth that she has, Rafaella is able to buy herself anything she desires in life, leaving all of the dirty work to those who are below her in societal standards. With the mindset that she holds the highest position in society, Rafaella never gives Gennarino a chance on the yacht and expects him to do everything for her, especially when she notices that he is a Communist crewmember. On the other hand, Gennarino views Rafaella as the main problem within society, believing that she is one of the many people that take all of the money in order to become wealthy, leaving the lower class with nothing. Looking at Gennarino’s way of thinking, viewers can connect it to be the main reason that he decided to join the Communist party in the first place, and a reason why he holds such a strong belief that everyone should have the same amount of economic power within a society. 

In addition to these strongly established viewpoints that Rafaella and Gennarino had before getting onto the island, the gender roles that exist within society are also a main reason as to why they so “strongly reject the power to join” (Gordon). If cultural backgrounds and gender inequalities had no influence on Rafaella and Gennarino, the possibility of their cooperation and the formation of a relationship would have been much more likely because they would not have had such drastic differences separating them from what they needed to do in order to survive under such harsh conditions.

Taking a look at the differences that stand in the way of Rafaella and Gennarino’s unity on the island, it becomes clear that those discrepancies are what prohibit them from ever reaching true love—not just between themselves, but with anyone within society. With all of the presumed thoughts and indisputable disparity between genders, it becomes very difficult for people to truly fall in love with someone for the right reasons. For women, it was very common to simply fall in love with a wealthy man so that they could buy their way through life; whereas men would fall in love with the woman that became the most subservient to his demands. Examining Gennarino’s feelings for Rafaella through this lens makes it obvious that he “can never love Rafaella because he lacks the ability to think of her as something other than a tool to be used purely for his own pleasure” (Knight, par. 5). The way in which Rafaella and Gennarino can not find any form of true love between each other on the island is not something that happened unwittingly; this inability between men and women was always prevalent, but was just highlighted as a main socio-economic imbalance on the island.

Socio-economic imbalances have, unfortunately, been something that people have had to deal with for many years; in Swept Away, Lina Wertmüller portrays these imbalances through Rafaella and Gennarino’s disparate relationship. On the island, Rafaella and Gennarino found themselves in very unhealthy circumstances, where Gennarino was constantly holding his power over Rafaella, making it known that she was of lesser value than him. Looking at the relationship between Rafaella and Gennarino, it becomes evident that cultural practices and gender roles that flourish within society can have drastic negative impacts on people and the way in which they behave and think. If Rafaella and Gennarino were not bound to societal standards, there would have been a greater chance of them flourishing and gaining a relationship on the island; however, because they were both, at some point, blinded by the need for control, they were unable to open up to pure human happiness and love.

Works Cited

Gordon, Paul. Class Discussion. 1 Apr. 2019.

Knight, Lindsay. “‘Swept Away’ : An Illusion Of Affection Stretched Too Thin.” Taking Giant Steps, 2018, https://giantstepspress.blogspot.com/search?q=swept+away.

Wertmüller, Lina (Dir.). Swept Away. Perf. Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato. Romano Cardarelli, 1974.

The Delicate Art of Communication by Ashley Orellana-Melendez

It is truly a beautiful thing to feel understood. As social creatures we crave this kind of companionship; it is in our nature. We are most comfortable in environments in which we can share our ideas, values, and beliefs with others free of the fear of being oppressed or judged. As a result, we seek out this safe haven anywhere and everywhere that we go. However, while this level of human communion is a common goal amongst our species, it is not easily attained. The problem that often arises is that we listen to react instead of listening to understand; we speak with the intent to dismiss instead of uplift. Lina Wertmuller’s Swept Away subtly hints at the breakdown of communication that has been occurring in Italian society. Through displays of both physical and verbal abuse, Wertmuller ably proclaims the lack of understanding as the root of sociopolitical turmoil. This film shows that communication is one of the most powerful weapons in our arsenals that could lead to devastation and destruction if abused.

In order to completely grasp the message that is being transmitted through Swept Away, it is vital to understand 1970’s Italy. At the time, Italy was a hotbed of social and political activism. Stark differences in the end goals of many individuals lead to the division of the country into two extremist parties, Socialists and Communists (Weston, par. 23). And while both groups were on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum, they did share one thing in common: the inability to give an inch. This impotence on their behalf opened the floodgates for violence. Bombings and shootings began to take place under guise of the greater good.  “Right and left wing extremists took arms to try to transform the Italian state according to their own visions” (Ancos, par. 4). In the midst of these countless acts of domestic terrorism, the Italian 1970s were fittingly coined with the term “Anni di Piombo,” which translates to “Years of Lead” in English. As these events continued to occur, it seemed as though compromise was unattainable, creating an atmosphere of severe animosity. 

It is evident that Wertmuller draws inspiration from the tensions that were rising in the 70s. The opening scene cleverly mirrors the hostile undertone of the Years of Lead while portraying the breakdown of communication that continuously plagues generations. Swept Away opens with a compilation of beautiful oceanic shots. The camera shifts from boats gliding along the water to families of people snorkeling and exploring caves. The scenic views are backed by an acoustic soundtrack, creating an ambience of serenity. Just as the wave of tranquility begins to set in, we become disoriented by the squabbling of Rafaella and her husband. The camera veers away from the picturesque coastline and becomes fixated on the bickering couple. The two argue over political issues such as abortion and divorce, failing to see eye to eye on these matters. It does not take long before their somewhat civil dispute turns into a full-fledged yelling contest. The husband, representing the Communist party, goes from saying “Alright, Rafaella let’s enjoy this beautiful place—please, it’s a paradise just as you said” in an attempt to diffuse the quarrel, to shouting “That is nonsense! You’re crazy, try and discuss something you know” (Wertmuller, 00:04:03). This dramatic change in tone from prudence to condescension causes viewers to feel uneasy, leaving us with the urge to pick a side in this argument. 

Not only does this scene expose viewers to a broken form of discourse, but it also reflects the communication styles that were prevalent amongst members of both the Socialist and Communist parties at the time. Rafaella, a progressive socialist, continues to push on the leftist front and shouts out to her husband, “You Communists are all the same. To conciliate the priest, you were ready to oppose passing a divorce referendum” (Wertmuller, 00: 04:15). It is clear that she has an undeniable passion for social reform; however, the way she goes about voicing this passion falls flat due to her inability to keep her feelings in check. This is known as the “attitude barrier.” It occurs when one feels strong emotions like anger or unhappiness, resulting in the halted effectiveness of communication. This barrier makes one less productive and cooperative (Vu, par. 9).  Her husband responds to her remarks angrily, saying, “Thanks to ten million Communists votes pushing the whole thing through, you’ve got divorce in Italy!” (Wertmuller, 00:04:19). Instead of recognizing the effort that the Communist party made to get divorce laws, Rafaella brushes it off and moves on to the next item on her list. She says, “Yes, that’s fine, but how about abortion? No one mentions it!” to which her husband replies, “How ignorant you are. You don’t seem to understand anything. The Communists are considering a bill right now on abortion. But you can’t mean free abortions! Now look.”  Perhaps predictably so, Rafaella retaliates with: “Free, that’s right! All abortions at no cost, or you must allow us the right to advertise contraceptives on TV.” Having had enough, the husband dismisses her and says, “Screw off; go on, Rafaella” while motioning her to leave him alone. It is important to note that the two failed to come to a consensus, as if they had learned nothing from one another. After having gone through that whole ordeal, they are both still stuck in their ways.

This short but intense interaction parallels the real-life exchanges that happened between the rival political groups of 1970s Italy, due to the fact that they were also unable to work towards a solution together (Weston, par. 18). It can be said that this scene is not exclusive to the communication, or the lack thereof, between the Socialists and Communists at the time. In a way, this small part of the film is a call to action that is still ringing in the ears of today’s generation. The only real difference, though, is that instead of debating divorce and abortion, we are struggling to come to a terms on immigration, gun laws, and so much more. The same problem remains: we fail to let go of our addiction to being right in order to effectively express our ideas. As a result, we move further and further away from compromise and closer to mutual devastation.

As the plot progresses, we are introduced to a new dynamic: the interactions between Rafaella and Gennarino, an alpha Communist crew member. Starting out as an emotionally strained relationship, Rafaella demeans Gennarino in every interaction. She lets her stereotypical thoughts take control of her conversations with Gennarino. After a while, it seems as though she purposely approaches him in ways that are sure to ruffle his feathers. For example, she makes Gennarino re-cook the spaghetti to her liking. Later, she makes him change out of his shirt because it is too “sweaty” and “smells.” These bossy behaviors on Rafaella’s behalf are clear exploitations of her social power. Wertmuller portrays this class gap by keeping Rafaella and her friends on top of the boat while keeping Gennarino and the crew below. Because he is getting paid by this “rich bitch,” Gennarino cannot express his disdain towards her. Instead, his anger fills up within him for as long as they remain on the boat. We soon see how their inability to express themselves in a respectful way leads them into devastating territory.

The idea that ineffective communication largely contributes to our social troubles is further reinforced by the physical abuse that is shown once they are marooned. One afternoon, Rafaella gets the bright idea that she wants to take a swim. She not so nicely asks the captain to have one of the crew members set up a dingy so as to take her out into the ocean for her plunge. Out of pure misfortune, Gennarino was ordered to carry out the task. As he is setting up, he notices a change in the tide and tries to persuade Rafaella to reconsider her swim. A thick-headed person, she refuses to pay mind to his concerns and decides to go anyway. Rafaella’s failure to listen results in the two getting shipwrecked. 

Upon landing on a remote and deserted isle with no civilization binding them, emotions begin to run higher than before. After having had enough of Rafaella’s “bitchy” remarks, Gennarino snaps and begins to clobber her. As he strikes her, he says things like, “Now you’re going to pay for every single one of them, you ugly social democrat whore!” (Wertmuller, 01:08:15). With every beating that he administers, he associates a different hardship that he has gone through. He says, “That’s for causing inflation and not paying taxes” as he smacks her, and “That’s for raising the prices of meat and cheese, and the fares on buses and trains and the cost of gas” as he kicks her around. Here Gennarino has lost the levelheaded civility of resolving matters through discourse. He engages in violent deeds because he has exceeded his breaking point. This act of using brute force represents the fallout of violence that resulted in the Years of Lead. But in this case, instead of fighting back, Rafaella attempts to stop Gennarino from striking again by using reason. She says, “But why take it out on me? All of that isn’t my fault” (01:09: 45). Gennarino, though, continues to assault her and demand obedience. We should consider his actions as a vain means of communication that transcends its basic textbook definition. To communicate entails so much more than just speech; body language and physical signs can often say just as much, if not more, than words. 

Healthy and stimulating conversation with others is one of the principles that our society was built on. Without it, we probably would not have made it out alive of the Stone Age; it is key to our overall survival. The open forum to discuss our thoughts and ideas is the fundamental cornerstone of civilization. Swept Away shows that when we cease to communicate effectively, we open ourselves to a world of emotional and or physical hurt. It is when we flip the switch and decide to listen with the intent of understanding a fellow soul and speak with the desire to elevate that we reap the vast joys that come from the delicate art of communication.

Works Cited

Ancos. “Life in Italy 1970s to 1980s.” Life in Italy, 16 Jan. 2017.

www.lifeinitaly.com/history/life-italy-1970s-1980s.

Vu, Max. “What is effective communication?” Web.

www.maxcommunicationmotivation.weebly.com/communication-effective-vs-ineffective.html

Weston, Fred. “Italy on the Brink of Revolution- Lessons from the 70’s.” Web. 22 Sept. 2017.

www.marxist.com/italy-on-the-brink-of-revolution-lessons-from-the-70-s.htm

Wertmuller, Lina. Director, Swept Away. Performances by Mariangela Melato and Giancarlo

Giannini, Medusa Film, 1974.

An Abused Woman’s Colonization and Declaration of Independence in SWEPT AWAY by Ariana Farajollah

The only sensation crueler than physical enslavement is its mental impact. Many individuals experience one or the other, but the female protagonist in Lina Wertmüller’s film endures both. Swept Away depicts the tale of capitalistic cruiser Rafaella and communistic crew member Gennarino. Despite her earlier mockery of Gennarino, Rafaella is forced to seek out his survival skills when the two get stranded on a Mediterranean island. In a wild turn of events, passive Gennarino becomes disturbingly dominant, demanding sexual favors in return. As a result, the character of Mariangela Melato forms a positive attachment to her captor, portraying many signs that point in the direction of Stockholm Syndrome. However, this condition hardly insinuates that women are inevitably, continuously doomed.

Abusive relationships result in long-term effects and under this umbrella lays Stockholm Syndrome. Without either of the two realizing it, the disorder creeps up to the couple caught in captor-captive relationships. Mental disorder therapist Julia Layton describes the cause of the syndrome: “In a traumatic and extraordinarily stressful event, a person finds herself held captive by a man who is threatening to kill her if she disobeys him in any way. She may be abused — physically, sexually and/or verbally —  and have trouble thinking straight” (par. 1). Rafaella undoubtedly fits all of the criteria. In Rafaella and Gennarino’s case, the couple is unexpectedly trapped in the middle of the ocean. To surmount it all, the event is especially anxiety producing due the fact that the individuals share a mutual contempt for one another. For instance, Rafaella complains that the fish Gennarino so painfully caught emits a horrific odor and thus justifies her propelling it overboard (Wertmüller 0:25:19). Stripped of her privilege, Rafaella struggles to feed herself and proceeds to ask the scruffy man for assistance. Gennarino smirks, agreeing to find sustenance under the contingency that she participate in sexual intercourse with him (Wertmüller 0:59:33). When Rafaella disobeys, Gennarino rapes her and threatens to keep the food to himself, thereby indirectly killing her (Wertmüller 1:08:19). In short, under stressful conditions, Rafaella’s Syndrome is caused by the sexual onslaught and refusal of food when she expostulates his request.

The Milan-bred blonde sheds her high maintenance character and transitions, instead, to a self-sacrificing slave. She becomes attracted to Gennarino’s abuse of power and begins to view it as a positive display of masculinity. At this point, Rafaella exhibits symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome. Prime Health Channel’s website states that one common symptom is “showing admiration for abductors” (par. 6). She forgoes all resistance of torture, replacing it with confessions of love and proposals of marriage (Wertmüller 0:1:23:07). Critic Tania Modleski describes the situation best: “[Rafaella] luxuriates in her lover’s abuse and even surpasses him in devising more exquisite sexual degradations for herself” (par. 7). Rafaella’s change in temperament and abnormal positive attachment to her “master” provokes Wertmüller’s audience to diagnose the submissive woman with Stockholm Syndrome.

Despite the façade of an erotic sex life the beached couple has curated, the relationship lacks substance. One reviewer comments, “…there's no love between the two….Wertmüller's simply created a situation in which no other options exist for Rafaella” (Rembrandt, par. 2). Forced to remain close to Gennarino for survival, the captive accepts that her situation will be exacerbated if she resists. When opportunity arises for the pair to escape the imprisonment of the island, Gennarino insists they do so out of insecurity (Wertmüller 1:48:00). He seeks validation of Rafaella’s romantic feelings towards him. However, the woman regains the snooty essence of her character, recognizing that their relationship would crumble under the circumstances of the civilization due to their artificial affection. Thus, Rafaella chooses to desert her suitor, evidencing the notion that she never truly loved him, and that her mind was, in fact, merely colonized by the influence of Stockholm Syndrome.

Frustrated by the fashion in which the female director chooses to portray the symbol of feminism, the audience may question society’s view of a woman’s destiny. They ask if this is the lot women are squared off to in society and if submission to man is the only passageway to survival. Critic Roger Ebert argues that Wertmüller is attempting to relay the message that  “woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male” (par. 5). However, I must disagree. Although women are susceptible to caving into weak points — just as men are, might I add — they are just as readily prepared to overcome the struggle. Similarly, Rafaella endures complete dominance and abuse from her captor; however, her resilience allows her to break free from the shackles of her mental illness by leaving him immediately after the two reach civilization. Of course, initially, Rafaella appears oppressed, but the disturbing progression of the film merely serves as a set-up for her victory, or declaration of independence. In her analysis of Swept Away, student Samantha Storms stresses the sentiment that “the negative light that is shed upon women such as Rafaella is not a symbol of inhibition, but an indication of forward movement and progression within a corrupted, subjugating culture” (par. 6). Women are individuals who are not damned to be the oppressors in society, but rather, are inherently the advancers.

Colonization of the mind is powerful. Left with no option but to rely on evil Gennarino for survival, the young woman guiles her mind into a synthetic lust, evidencing a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome. A declaration of independence is even more powerful. Rafaella slips from her captor’s chokehold and evolves into an emblem of female empowerment. The flip from Rafaella’s tainted mental state to an account of female empowerment speaks volumes regarding Western culture. Lina Wertmüller’s iconic piece Swept Away causes her audience to question society’s views on mental health and a woman’s place — or lack thereof — and, furthermore, serves as a catalyst for social progression.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. "Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August Movie Review (1976) | Roger Ebert." RogerEbert.com.

Romano Cardarelli, 20 Feb. 1976. Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

Layton, Julia. "What Causes Stockholm Syndrome?" HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks,

            29 Aug. 2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.

Modleski, Tania. "Wertmuller’s Women." Jump Cut Review of Contemporary Media.

            Jump Cut Review of Contemporary Media, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.

PHC Editorial Team. "Stockholm Syndrome - Causes, Symptoms, Cases and

            Treatment." Prime Health Channel. Prime Health Channel, 6 Oct. 2010. Web.

            18 Apr. 2017.

Rembrandt Q. "Swept Away (1974)." Letterboxd. Letterboxd, 2 May 2014. Web. 19

            Apr. 2017.

Storms, Samantha. "Passion’s Dark Side: Roeg’s Walkabout vs Wertmüller’s Swept

            Away by Samantha Storms." Taking Giant Steps. Kirpal Gordon, 08 Dec. 2016.

            Web. 19 Apr. 2017.

"Running Off the Rails" by Shoujing Zheng

 

 

Many people have convinced themselves to believe they are who they are in order to cater the favor of the society. The minstrel believes he comes to the world to ease people’s mind with his magnificent melody. The butcher believes his existence is for cutting pork or shark fins. The lawyer believes he is the defender of justice. As Alan Watts, a British-born philosopher, points out, “Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe.” Yet this realm of nature has its own limitation, which confines most people to a fenced enclosure during most of their lives, like a transparent dome above everybody’s head. Normally the dome is hard to perceive. Even though people do realize its existence, most of them try not to touch it because of the overwhelming force coming from the society. The force, which keeps the wheels of people’s train-thought on their rails, is known as a taboo.

I grew up under such a dome, a meticulous and artificial wall determined by my country. My father’s generation used to be fed with the information that China is the strongest country in the world while the people living in capitalist nations are waiting to be emancipated by the great proletariat. With the passing away of Mao and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the propaganda finally declined and people began to realize how poor they were and how this country desperately needed to develop its economy. Nonetheless, the dome is still there: the main news agency is still run by the state, and people cannot found other parties and only join the communist party. The constitution provides us with the most munificent rights in the world, the right of freedom, the right of parade…. Yet those empty promises just exist in the books. Indeed, we live in intersting times.

I began to gradually get the sense of the taboo after finishing my University Entrance Examination, a special Chinese exam that compels students to spend every available minute of their high school time studying if they want to go to a prestigious university in China. In order to find out the truth that the government was hiding, I read and watched almost anything I could get. I spent so much time, and so many efforts, that the learning experience of Frederick Douglass speaks to me so well when I read about his story: “I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead; and but for the hope of being free, I have no doubt that I should have killed myself, or done something for which I should have been killed.”

I also associate with the movie “The Matrix.” Although the hero Neo always feels that something, a tiny portion of his life, is too abnormal to believe, he would never have imagined that human beings, lying unconsciously under the icy boxes while stuck in the illusion of enjoying civilization of modern life, are actually under the control of the ruthless machine. Neo suffers from great pain and numbness after he confronts the unbearable truth, which pushes him into the transformation from just being a normal and mediocre person who is under the manipulation of the captor to an omnipotent savior. That is what Neo has gone through when he tries to figure out the truth of life. Just like Douglass, I didn’t handle the blocked information very well. The anger caused by feeling fooled and the pain caused by fear occupied my life at the same time. What I feel towards Neo is envy. He is chosen to fight against the taboo while in real life most people can do nothing but become a coward filled with hatred. After all, life is not a movie.

But I don’t want to be a hater, nor do I want to be a coward. There are many ways to cope with censorship, and leaving is one of them. Frankly, this is one of the reasons I chose to become an exchange student and study in America. When I read “The Ballot or the Bullet” by Malcolm X, I admired his guts to boycott the discrimination by shouting out: “I’m one of the 22 million black victims of the Democrats, one of the 22 million black victims of the Republicans, and one of the 22 million black victims of Americanism.” Yet the nationalism he advocated to remove the taboo is too violent for me or for normal people. The nationalism may work well for black people fighting for their rights in 1960s, yet the last time Chinese people tried to join a march for liberty and democracy, it led to difficulty.

While I came to America, the sense of loss, across the Pacific Ocean, came along with me. Avoiding shall never be an ultimate solution. It may ease the mind for a while, but it hides somewhere deep in the heart like a volcano waiting to erupt again. You have to face it in a nonviolent way, be optimistic and stayed open-minded. Like Watts said: “Faith is, above all, openness—an act of trust in the unknown.”

Openness is actually what Watts implemented in his life. As a westerner, he embraced Buddhism and Hinduism, which obviously contradict Christianity in a lot of aspects. He criticizes commitment, saying, “Irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world.” An open mind liberates Watts from the confinement of taboo, a dome that is so effective that people have stayed inside it for hundreds of years.

With the help of an open mind, a seemingly unsolvable problem tangling me for a long period is resolved. The government may be tenacious about the absolute governing over its people, and is very sensitive about any movement that threatens its governing. The first step you need to do is still hold the open-minded attitude. After accepting a fact for what it is, you can start to learn about it and try to communicate or interact with it. Total repudiation can only ruin all the progress that has been made so far and result in a retrogressing crisis. If you want to liberate your own people, you have to liberate yourself through an open mind first.

No matter whether you live in China, America, or anywhere else in the world, there was, is and will be a transparent dome. The society can never be perfect, so the impetus for making today better than yesterday shall always exist. Individuals can never be perfect, so people have the desire to learn so as to overcome their deficiency. The taboo should not be the blasting fuse for violence; it should be the start for improvement. An open mind can create a tolerant society which allows different voices. If you get tired of keeping the wheels of thoughts on the same rails all the time, why not try to run off the rails for a time or two. Maybe a whole new rail can be found by a movement that someone claims to be dangerous.