Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Zone of Indiscernibility

Hi guys, Im writing this blog because I wanted to get other opinions on what we discussed a little bit in class today; Ranciere’s “Zone of Indiscernibility."

First of all, lets talk vocab. When something is "indiscernable," it is difficult or impossible to perceive. So when Ranciere mentions this "Zone of Indiscernibility," he is simply making a category of things that he feels cannot be completely perceived. A few examples we had on the board today include: children, comatose patients, people with mental disorders, and immigrants. Some of these examples have a more obvious reason to be placed in Ranciere's zone, such as refugees. They flee their home country for safety, so it is hard to determine what rights, if any, apply to them (their rights are difficult to perceive). Children also have a fair reason to be placed in this category, as they do not have enough knowledge nor experience to make decisions on their own, therefore making their rights hard to be perceived as well. If a child commits a murder, are they tried as an adult or as a child? These thin lines are exactly what causes Ranciere's Zone of Indiscernibility.

I would like to know how all of you feel about the more difficult examples, such as comatose patients and people with mental disorders. In the case of comatose patients, you might want to reference Agamben on page 4 of Ranciere's Who is the Subject of the Rights of Man. Take note what he says about "sacred life."
Also, if you can think of any other subjects that should be placed in the Zone of Indiscernibility, feel free to mention those as well.


Thanks guys!!
(250 words)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think when dealing with the situation of comatose patients or those with mental disorders one must consider the argument of what a human is. If at any moment in time one falls into comatose then for that time one is not techincally a human, they cannnot think for themselves, and they cannot percieve the world around them with any understanding. The main problem with comatose is that people can be in a como for ever or only for three days, it then beceomes a question of how long the guardians wait before they think there is no hope. It is a very difficult situation and really has no deffinite answere.
When discussing people with mental disorders one is arguing that they are not human because people must think for them, take care of them, and make decisions for them. They cannot do it on their own ultimatley making them inhuman. I personally know someone who has a sister with mental dissabilities and when you talk to her you want to believe that they understand everything you are saying but they really cant simply because they are incapable. It is very upsetting but it is an issue people deal with everyday. Regardless of the situation, those with mental dissabilities are not human and truly fall into the zone of indisernibility.

Andrea Waterman said...

I agree with Nick on this. I believe many people consider people with mental disabilities inhuman without even realizing it. Since the Rights of Man are only protected and applicable under civil law, the law protects only citizens of a certain “human” status. For example, illegal immigrants or refugees do not have equal rights. Although people with mental disabilities aren’t shunned from the law, they don’t get to enjoy the same privileges as all citizens. For example, most aren’t legally allowed to drive a car and some can’t even live by themselves.

We also can’t prove if comatose patients actually exist. With his quote, “I think therefore I am,” Descartes argues that he can establish he exists because he can think about his existence. Do comatose patients think? Most patients who wake up from a coma don’t remember anything during their coma (about dreams or thinking). That just leaves them with a body, which is not part of a thinking thing. Therefore, they probably wouldn’t be considered human in the ideas of Descartes.

Sean Cantwell said...

I agree with both Andrea and Nick. People who suffer from a mental handicap are definitely considered inhuman. I recongized this personally when I volunteered at a camp for children and adults who were handicapped in numerous ways. The Rights of Man protect those deemed "human" under civil law; those who are mentally stable or mentally handicapped are restricted by certain terms, therefore having limited human rights.
I really like Andrea's interpretation of a person in a coma: are they human? They are certainly not thinking while they are in a coma. They are just a body without a mind, practically not existing.

Anonymous said...

I also agree with all of your opinions.
If someone cannot think, feel, or sense for themselves (as a coma patient) or CAN do those things but suffers mental disruption and interaction (such as someone with a mental disorder like skitzophrenia) than they need to be placed in a group that requires special attention and special rules regarding their rights.

Although we do not group these people together such as Ranciere did, I think there is a certain "acceptance" that we feel towards these people. We "accept" that they cannot perform things for themselves, but also show a high level of sensitivity. I do not consider them to be human, on the sheer basis that everyone else who is a human was made to perform on their own; we are complex "thinking things." A mind and a body working together is necessary, and when one is lacking, you are simply not a complete working human.

Until we have the technology to determine the severity of a person's illness and decide specifically what they can and cannot do, people with mental disorders or in a coma will continue to fall into this foggy Zone of Indisceribility.

M. said...

I believe in the case of children specifically its not that they are inhuman or void of their humanity, but humanity is a learned thing that is to come available when you are mature enough to understand the responsibilities (civic, social) and moral obligations that encompasses that. As for the refugees, I have always teetered with regards to this, because i don't know if i have any ground to stand on to judge them or their humanity. If a refugee flees their country it is never solely for abandonment of their respective nation state, its a bold risk they take in order to keep their families safe from political tyranny or in many cases for opportunities for a better life; i.e. living conditions, availability of nourishment, or job opportunity. By them seeking to attain self meaning and a better life for themselves and their families, that hardly seems inhuman, in fact it almost seems as selfless an act as you can have; and since humans are naturally proud and concerned with self regard, maybe it is better to be inhuman after all?

Kevin O'Neill said...

Ranciere describes those in the zone of indiscernibility as inhuman because of their lack of civil rights and thus lack of human rights. The refugees are without a country. Comatose patients and people with mental disorders need others to make decisions for them. Thus they are not given rights as a human.
Another intersting subject within the zone of indiscernability is felons. Felons are stripped of their rights ad treated as unhuman. This makes rehabilitation very difficult. While the argument that they deserve it is valid, there are those that were wrongly convicted and others that have truly made a change. Should they be given a chance at humanity?