There’s an odd narrative thread in Greta Gerwig’s 2017 Lady Bird. The titular hero lives out her senior year of high school against the backdrop of the Iraq War. Characters watch the war’s escalation on televisions while debating boyfriends, mothers, friends, school plays, and sex. But the war has no direct bearing on the narrative—it is static to lower-middle class economic desperation in the aughts United States; a violent echo, a joke and a punch line, like the posters around Lady Bird’s school encouraging students to remember 9/11.
Except for one scene.
Lady Bird loses her virginity to a boy who reads Howard Zinn, hates Dave Matthews, and rolls his own cigarettes. All the tics of suburban aughtian “rebellion.” She is under the impression that he is a virgin too. Afterwards, he lets her know this wasn’t his first time. She gets upset. He can’t understand. “I just wanted it to be special,” she says. “Why?” he asks. “You’re going to have so much unspecial sex.” He then gets upset when she gets even more upset. “Do you know how many innocent civilians have been killed today?” he asks, pointing to the television and news of the Iraq invasion.
“Different things can be sad,” she says. “It’s not all war.”
War has a way of negating the particular. When used rhetorically, extreme violence shuts down conversation, or, worse, turns it into an endless series of self-justifying repetitions. It does not clarify; it excuses. Politicians point to military sacrifice as often as they can for a reason. Partisan advocates on Facebook wax hysterical about the suffering of our fighting forces for a reason. To point to mass violence distorts particular violence, makes it absurd—trivial and sentimental. Impossible.
But the particular is everything.
The boy Lady Bird sleeps with hates anything mainstream. Lady Bird also tries to separate herself from her peers and family. Not only does she take on a pretentious name, but she wants to leave California, to escape the horrors of suburban Sacramento, her given life, for something else, anything and anyone else other than the here and the now, this present.
Her boyfriend’s father is dying of cancer. Lady Bird’s father is dying of poverty. Her priest is dying of grief. The larger sweeps of history, these violent abstractions, weigh down on the details of experience. Make them silly. Banal. Sacramento rather than a sacrament.
Greek tragedians assumed pain brought wisdom or spiritual growth (pathei mathos). This is not necessarily true. Suffering can also make it impossible to think clearly about the relationships around us—it can pervert rationality, turn us into monsters possessed by the infinite and incapable of loving the finite. Worse, when we reference pain that is not ours—greater pain, greater suffering, bigger wars, bigger genocides—we risk excusing the specific pain we ourselves give on a daily basis.
“O Reason not the need,” King Lear begs his daughters. “Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous./Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s.”
Confronted by his daughters’ irrefutable logic, Shakespeare’s Lear warns that if we abandon ourselves to mathematical logic, if we insist on necessity, on reducing our experience to the quantifiable, proportion out our pain and empathy, we become blind to what we are, what makes us different than everything else that is. Deprived of particular wants, desires, and love, our human life becomes “as cheap as a beast’s.”
Lady Bird takes increasingly stupid risks to escape her life. She sabotages her mother’s love by insistently pointing out her mother and father’s failure as parents, their inability to meet the economic expectations of American “success.” As she does her name, she denies the life she has been given. But, in the end, Lady Bird discovers a mysterious opening in the curves of her hometown roads, the lives lived there, the memories living there. She stops setting up a false contrast, what the rhetoricians call an either/or fallacy. She takes her given name. She accepts the “isness” of experience. She is able to say thank you. To be grateful for existence.
“You’re going to have so much unspecial sex in your life,” her boyfriend says.
This is true, but it misses the point.
In the last few month’s allegations of sexual assault have dominated the headlines. Many in the United States are waking up to the particular pain silently endured by many for decades. This is a positive development. But the counterassault will soon come. Propagandists and their media teams will point to the big and the broad and the violent. They will talk much of the real world, of the truth, of people suffering in the Middle East and Middle America. They will scream about the big picture, about men in positions of power making hard decisions. They will tell us many stories about War, of missile-button pushing and beaches stormed. They will teach us about History. They will preach Necessity.
They will say you don’t know how good you have it.
Many of the accusers will begin to doubt the validity of their own pain. The victims will begin to wonder if they were selfish to be hurt in a world where people die in horrible ways and suffer so many horrible wrongs. How can their pain be special when there is so much pain? How can these violations mean anything in a world defined by greater violence? Greater violations?
But this misses the point. Pain is not quantifiable. And those who attempt to do so should wonder why they feel the need to do so, what they want to celebrate and what they want to excuse.
Like King Lear, Lady Bird, this confused suburban teenage girl, is a fool. She knows she is a fool and she persists in making a fool of herself because she cannot see any other way out (I was often reminded of Terrence Malick’s Badlands, another story of American youth finding a dangerous self in a wilderness of media, poverty, and self-loathing). And she wants out. The other characters—the priests, the nuns, her mom, her father, her brother—endure great pain, great tragedy. She dances on, this fool, knowing nothing of death, of civilians dying halfway across the world, of the suicides in her midst, thinking only of herself and her pain and her escape.
But is her dance foolish? Are her trials necessarily lesser, less substantial, than those who deal out and insist on pain because they see the world as so much pain? Should her agony be measured out, meted, compared, excused and denied by the pompous ineluctability of History and War? Don’t her experiences, the extremity of her definite emotions, contain the radical possibility of all that is singular and incomparable? Can different things be sad? Is it all war?
Lady Bird begins with the very last line of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath—“she put her lips together and smiled mysteriously.” In the novel, Rose of Sharon’s baby has just died. She feeds a dying man with her breast milk. Her lips. Her breast. Her smile.
Faced with the immensity of history, the refuge of the particular is not escapism. It is the thing itself. And so too this satisfying movie. It is the thing itself. Life.
“Faced with the immensity of history, the refuge of the particular is not escapism. It is the thing itself.” I’m hanging that above my desk.
I’m with Andria. And this…this was an amazing, deeply empathic twist: “But is her dance foolish? Are her trials necessarily lesser, less substantial, than those who deal out and insist on pain because they see the world as so much pain? Should her agony be measured out, meted, compared, excused and denied by the pompous ineluctability of History and War? Don’t her experiences, the extremity of her definite emotions, contain the radical possibility of all that is singular and incomparable? Can different things be sad? Is it all war?”
Hi Andria, thank you for your kind comments! I had the immense privilege to have Mr. Carson as my English teacher 4/5 years ago, and I loved every second of it. He really helped me develop my argumentative skills and has been one of my favorite educators I’ve ever had. I enjoyed the essay very much and I love philosophical topics, so this is my way of offering gratitude and appreciation for his hard work here and as an educator.
The intersection of the vast and the deeply personal are interesting points to consider. How quick are we to judge the pain of others as being unfounded or of less-worth when we ourselves are but mere mortals, living alongside them in this simultaneously bizarre and bodacious world? Such an intersection is a core aspect of my faith tradition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We often speak of Christ performing an “infinite Atonement” that is also deeply personal—a Christ that suffers for the whole world, but not merely a collective; that suffers not only for the sins, mistakes, and follies of humanity, but also for our pains, sufferings, and sicknesses—our own, personal pains, sufferings, and sicknesses.
What is thrown into the mix that spices it up is gratitude. In this we find a sort of paradox—our pains matter, yet we should also be grateful for what we do have and remember to, as the hymn says, “count your many blessings” (No. 241, “Count Your Blessings,” Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Take the example of Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail in Liberty, Missouri. Joseph Smith and some of his companions were imprisoned there due to violence directed at Latter-day Saints over fears that political control would be lost to the Latter-day Saints. This jail had a ceiling so low one can barely stand in it. No bedding was provided. Food was of low quality and often poisoned. It was the coldest part of the winter. The Governor of Missouri had issued what’s known as the “Extermination Order,” an executive order claiming it was the duty of the citizens of Missouri to either kill or force Latter-day Saints from the state.
While in the jail, Joseph Smith received what make up sections 121, 122, and 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of scripture of various revelations given to Joseph Smith and successors in the presidency of the Church in modern times. In section 121, Joseph Smith pleads with God for the suffering Saints, begging God to know how long they must suffer and for their deliverance. God responds, saying, “my son, peace be to thy soul” (D&C 121:7). What is very important as it relates to Lady Bird is God comparing Joseph Smith’s sufferings to those of Jesus Christ: “The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?” (D&C 122:8). Interestingly, however, in the next section (123), the Saints are told to gather and publish an account of all the sufferings and abuses they received and to seek redress from the federal government.
Here in these sections we see the issues at the heart of this essay. Joseph Smith, who is suffering through all of these trials, has his pain compared to a pain far worse (keep in mind the Latter-day Saint belief in the infinite nature of Christ’s Atonement), and yet, unlike what happens with Lady Bird, this comparison is not used to deprecate his pain, but to give him hope and remind him that he is not alone in his trials, for some part of that pain felt by Christ was Joseph’s own. Since Christ has “descended below them all” (D&C 121:8) and overcame it, it is He that is in the perfect position to lift Joseph back up. Another point of dissimilarity is that, again, the Saints were encouraged to seek justice for their sufferings, whereas Lady Bird is offered no trace of justice.
It is perhaps here we find the key to the paradox and the problem of comparing pain. In one word, it is empathy. If we cannot summon empathy, then we must at least have sympathy. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of classical theism’s tenet of divine impassibility. In chapter 7 of the Book of Moses (part of another volume of scripture called the Pearl of Great Price), Enoch sees God weeping over the wickedness and pains of humanity and asks “how is it thou canst weep?” (Moses 7:31). God’s answer, so poignant, so simple: “these are thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands…unto thy brethren have I said…that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and hate their own blood” (Moses 7:32-33). If we devalue each other’s existence and are without affection, we have become subhuman, and if God Himself is impassible, how can He be anything but subpersonal, much less superpersonal?
Christ is spoken of as the “Good Shepherd” in the Bible. He is a shepherd over the whole flock, yet He is one that will leave the ninety-and-nine for the one. Whom better than God to know and see the big picture but also know how to comfort and provide for the one? As King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon says, “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend” (Mosiah 4:9).
Does this mean that we throw our hands up in the air and say “I don’t know, leave it to God to figure out” and not try? Are we to give up? No. If God gave us brains to use and hearts to feel, then certainly it would be a disservice not to do what we can to “comfort those that stand in need of comfort” (Mosiah 18:9).
Just like everyone else here, I am a mere mortal. I don’t have all of the answers. I cannot fathom every situation and know perfectly how to apply such lofty principles. I can only do what we all can do: trust in God and help each other as we grow and seek to become ever better.
Hi, Jedidiah, I’m one of the editors for Wrath-Bearing Tree, and I just wanted to thank you for this really thoughtful and well-written comment. I think your perspective on the collective and the individual is really an interesting one when it comes to ideas like empathy, pain, and justice, and I’m glad you took the time to comment here.