aL xin's corner
Curriculum VitaeOriginally written for EXPOS 20: Philosophical Films.
Nietzsche, in On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, describes plastic power as the ability of an individual or society “to grow out of itself…to heal wounds, replace what is lost and reshape broken forms out of itself” (10). Nietzsche claims that too little plastic power results in obsessively historical behavior that stifles the ability to live with past experiences. On the other hand, those with great amounts of plastic power can adapt and overcome not only traumatic events but can also obtain “a kind of clear conscience” after committing atrocious acts. He then describes how plastic power is tied with the ability to create a horizon, or a well-defined line to differentiate between the remembered and forgotten (10).
This process of selective forgetting, he argues, is essential for living a fulfilled, productive life. However, Nietzsche does not elaborate on how “forgetting” is accomplished. Though we may unintentionally let memories slip away, we cannot willfully choose what to remember and what to forget. To apply Nietzsche’s concepts, a clearer illustration of how people can take responsibility for processing their memories is required. We can accomplish this by looking at examples of how individuals have moved past distressing events.
In The Act of Killing, a documentary directed by Joshua Oppenheimer, we are given an unusual perspective on the 1965-66 Indonesian genocide of accused Communists and ethnic Chinese. Oppenheimer, in addition to conducting interviews and filming daily life in Indonesia, provides an opportunity for the individuals who carried out the mass killings to recreate the events for a movie. The process of directing, editing, and scripting the film reveals how the perpetrators have come to terms with the massacre. Anwar and Adi, two ex-gangsters and confessed killers, view their involvement in the genocide with very different mentalities. Though both seem at ease with their past, as the documentary continues, Anwar undergoes a moral crisis while Anwar remains unperturbed by the process of reexamination. The diverging paths of these two former mass executioners illustrates that forgetting, as Nietzsche uses the concept, is not a blunt tool to suppress memories, but is instead a method of reframing history so that it can no longer be damaging to life. With this definition of forgetting, we can better understand how someone with a large degree of plastic power can be skilled at living past trauma.
Because human beings cannot normally forget their troubles at will, it seems that the closest equivalent would be ignoring troubling thoughts. However, as demonstrated by Anwar’s increasing emotional turmoil, attempting to avoid the past is insufficient. Though Anwar Congo is initially shown as a proud national hero respected by his community, by the end of the documentary he is deeply disturbed by what he has done. While his ability to suppress supported his conscience for decades, it fails after being challenged by his experience in playing the part of a victim while filming. Thus, he demonstrates that supporting life by forgetting cannot be limited to ignoring the past.
In the earlier portions of the documentary, Oppenheimer illustrates that Anwar has, up until the process of directing a film about the genocide, successfully used willful ignorance to process his actions. At some level, he understands that he would not be able to live happily if he acknowledged that he killed innocent people that posed no threat to him or society. He also understands that he would not be able to come to peace with the fact that even if those he murdered were not “innocent”, they likely had guiltless families that loved and depended on them. To cope with this moral dilemma, Anwar constructs a thin justification to explain how the purged communists were monsters that threatened his freedom and therefore deserved to die. To apply this reasoning, Anwar has to ignore what would otherwise be obvious facts and counterarguments. He ignores that the government asking him to carry out his executions must also restrict his freedom and that defaulting to violence as a means of resisting infringement on freedom leads to lawless, ungoverned society. Additionally, he ignores that the people he kills must also enjoy their freedoms, including the freedom to live. We see an explicit example of Anwar avoiding uncomfortable evidence when talking with Suryono, his neighbor, about adding plot elements to the film. Suryono tells Anwar and Koto, (another ex-gangster and executioner) how he hid in his house as he heard gangsters take away and kill his Chinese stepfather. He recalls that he and his mother worked alone to bury his stepfather’s body by the side of the road while his neighbors refused to help out of fear of retribution. Though Suryono attempts to act light-hearted and downplays his experience as a small detail that might be included in the film, it is hard to deny that he experienced great loss and grief. Anwar, in response, dismisses the story as too complicated and unnecessary and decides against including it in the film. His rejection of Suryono speaks to his process of tuning out the human tragedy involved in the massacre.
However, this mentality is unsuccessful because the human ability to forget impactful events is imperfect. As illustrated in Anwar’s increasing disillusionment with his project, a person cannot create a well-defined horizon through evasion alone. In the pivotal scene where Anwar pretends to be strangled by Koto, his horizon disintegrates. Despite his initial success in putting up his blinders, he becomes incapable of maintaining the distance between himself and his victims. He begins to question the assumptions that allowed him to live happily, wondering about how his victims felt and reflecting on their pain and fear. Later, Anwar revisits the rooftop of the building where he carried out many of his killings. While he previously unashamedly and cheerily demonstrated his execution method of choice, on his second visit he is distraught. As he walks along the rooftop, he repeatedly retches in between reflecting on his involvement in the massacre. Ignoring reality is not a flexible enough for Anwar to rely on for life.
One may counter that Anwar’s situation is exceptional because being asked to reenact his past is an unusual challenge. Ordinarily, someone would not be forced to renegotiate their narrative and their horizon would not be challenged and broken. However, even when Anwar appears happy, he reveals that he is still unsettled by his history. Throughout the film, Anwar describes his nightmares, which he attributes to an instance where he decapitated a man with a machete. Though Anwar claims that he killed monsters, which he mentions in his discussion of the Indonesian propaganda film demonizing the communist minority, being haunted by his victims suggests that he feels horror at his actions. More than fifty years after the massacre, he struggles to sleep and considers his nightmares significant enough to be included in the film. Even without Oppenheimer’s interference, Anwar’s admission of struggling to come to terms with his past actions demonstrates cracks in his strategy of suppressing the past.
While Anwar’s method of ignoring the past is incapable of creating a stable horizon, Adi, who enters the documentary halfway through to assist Anwar in his film, provides an alternative that more effectively deals with history. Adi removes the influence of history on his current life not by ignoring details but by separating himself from the past. Unlike Anwar, Adi is forward with the immoral reality of his complicity, denouncing the murder of innocents as the worst possible crime against humanity. However, while Anwar crumbles under this realization, Adi continues moving forward. We only receive a brief glimpse into Adi’s situation, but the documentary suggests that Adi has been able to live successfully. In the middle of depicting Adi getting ready for filming, Oppenheimer includes shots of Adi taking his family to a relatively upscale shopping mall. Additionally, our first introduction to Adi is at the airport, implying Adi has physically and metaphorically moved on from his past. The separation of his current life from his historical actions is best illustrated in his discussion with Oppenheimer about redressing his crimes.
Adi, when considering the past, makes use of Nietzsche’s ideas on historical justice. Nietzsche describes the process of auditing history as invariably revealing the absurdity and violence of human nature and thus certain to undermine the process of living (38-39). Adi echoes a similar sentiment in his conversation with Oppenheimer while driving, revealing that he removes himself from the burden of past guilt by affirming the futility of revealing past crimes. He dodges Oppenheimer’s point that his actions were war crimes by pointing to examples throughout history of the United States engaging in similar atrocity - the war in the Middle East, the displacement of Native Americans - and makes the point that nobody can reasonably call the United States into an international court of law. Adi, though, makes a slight misinterpretation in his argument, claiming that “nobody talks about” the United States’ war crimes. On the contrary, many educational institutions place heavy emphasis on the darker aspects of American history while also implicitly acknowledging that asking for the government to make amends would not be productive. This reality also connects to Adi’s point about winners and losers. When discussing Anwar’s nightmares, Adi tells Anwar that he shouldn’t be bothered by the ghosts of his past because they lost and are weaker than him. This emphasis on power further clarifies Adi’s why Adi’s mentality is effective. Not only does he believe historical justice is futile, but he views himself as a “winner” and is secure in the belief that his victims have no power to enact historical justice even if they would like to. In this way, he can use plastic power and confidently draw a horizon with a line differentiating his past actions from his present life.
Adi’s thoughts on the massacre illustrate the most effective interpretation of forgetting history for the sake of life. Anwar’s horizon, which relied on ignoring and suppressing facts, was breached by intrusive guilt and harmful memories. Adi, in contrast, lives unfettered by history. By claiming that historical justice is both pointless and impossible, he demonstrates plastic power and frees himself from consequences stemming from previous actions. Forgetting, for him, entails making himself untouchable by history, allowing him to acknowledge the past while simultaneously considering it insignificant. Notably, though, Nietzsche’s analysis does not focus on the interaction between individuals when building their horizons. Though Adi’s method has been productive for him and may apply to others freeing themselves from their past atrocities, it is an open question as to how it impacts those he victimized. Whatever the answer, it is of no consequence to Adi. With his plastic power, he has nothing to fear from anything occurring outside of his horizon.
Nietzche, Friedrich. Peter Preuss, translator. “On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life.” Hackett Publishing Company, 1980.
Oppenheimer, Joshua. “The Act of Killing”, Final Cut for Real, DK, 2012.