Janae’s Blog

“Just Asking”, an article written by David Foster Wallace is a piece of writing that inquires what the American dream actually is and what the people of America are willing to do to obtain it, what sacrifices they are willing to make, and the alterations in lifestyle and acceptances of controversial beliefs they are willing to make.

Wallace begins by focusing on the death of the 2973 people killed as a result of September 11^th, and questions if America had viewed their deaths as “‘sacrifices on the alter of freedom’” instead of “victims” of “atrocities”, would America be saying that there is a certain expectation that people have to die in order to uphold the freedoms that we have? And that in order to continue the lives that we the American people lead “great sacrifices” need to be made? Wallace then goes on to state that 40,000 plus people in America are killed in domestic highway accidents, and yet we accept those deaths as common place,  tragic yes, but an occurrence that can’t be prevented, or that is worth the risk because “the mobility and autonomy of the care are evidently worth that high price”. Wallace uses these examples to show the general thinking of the American people, and the justifications they use to decide what constitutes what is important or acceptable in society today.  The deaths that occur as a result of an automobile accident are accepted and vastly less important that those that occur as a result of terrorism because acts of terrorism happen less frequently than an automobile accident, therefore people react more strongly to the attack than an accident. Wallace wonders what would happen if we accepted the fact that occasionally “some hundreds or thousands of us may die in ghastly terrorist attacks”. Would America be more willing to make the sacrifices of “personal safety and comfort?” Or would is even the notion of such a concept “monstrous”?     

Following the thread he has created of what is acceptable sacrifice of life, Wallace then segues into questioning how the times have changed that we are now unable to have “serious national conversation sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice”. He’s trying to make the point that Americans don’t like to hear the word sacrifice in-a word whose connotation means giving up something and Americans don’t like to give up what they have. Whether that something be material or abstract, willing sacrifice is not common in today’s society, and while positively viewed very few people are actually prepared to follow through with the idea. Wallace the directs readers into the thought that the lack of communication about sacrifice does not foster trust in public leaders because they make decisions that protect the general population of America from having to make sacrifices, leading to serious consequences, such as that they are blind to decisions that are made. Wallace asks if a series of political movements such as the Patriot act I and II, Executive Order 13233, and the Military Commissions Acts were worth it. If we were to have come to the conclusion that these were beneficial to us, and “helped make our persons and property” safer, could we honestly answer if they were worth it, because there was no involvement of the people in the decision. Wallace closes with these last questions “Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?” Wallace has drawn a full circle in his article that America has become so selfish and concerned with only what affect ourselves that we allow things to occur that are direct contrast as to what America was initially founded on. His point that America is selfish was proven by his reference to the lack of willingness to sacrifice, and that as such we know turn a blind eye to occurrences in government because we are more concerned with our own personal well fare, and couldn’t have a more flippant or ignorant attitude as to how we maintain that welfare. We get angry, upset, and are shocked when something happens to disrupt that, such as a terrorist attack.

Wallace uses questions to provoke thought and questions from the readers. His phrasing of “Why can’t we” or “Would we” and “What if we” force the reader to think and to draw conclusions in their own mind, to formulate their own opinions. As such, they can either agree with Wallace’s line of thinking, or come up with a counterargument. Even if they disagree with Wallace’s personal view, at least they are actively thinking about the subject which was Wallace’s purpose all along. To leave readers with an open-ended article that leaves room for discussion.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS