Lenses

We all view things through lenses (I mean figuratively speaking, but I guess some of us do that literally too). "Putting on" lenses has become second nature to us as English students (huh, earlier this month I read a pdf about 12 AP Literary Theory, isn't that convenient). We use these lenses in not just our essays, but also in our discussions both in and out of the classroom, to converse with people, to (quite frankly) manipulate them, to politely agree, to pretend to understand and to say things that sound deep but that are actually meaningless. But these lenses are temporary; we use them briefly for the sake of argument or to consider a new perspective. 

However, something that has bothered me are the lenses we can't remove.  As much as we like to think of ourselves as unbiased, vehicles of unbridled thought and information, we are all still humans. Everything that is mentally processed through us is distorted in one form or another.

Think about it this way:

There's layers to it (like an Onion)

It's really hard to draw concentric circles apparently

So you have a thing, like let's say the Queen's death. Events like the Queen's death cannot be described completely, at least not in a way that makes sense. To isolate an event and to attempt to take in every bit of information and to explain every detail becomes hyperbolic, every bit of context that is needed to describe every last detail exponentially connects to more and more information to the point where said information becomes meaningless. 

So we have to simplify. We choose what to record: what information is considered important and what is not. Even calling it "The Queen's Death" puts an image in our minds. But 3:10 PM on September 8th, 2022 was not just the death of the Queen, but also the death of 'The Chieftain of the Braemar Gathering' (Yes, that's really a title she had). Calling her 'The Chieftain of the Braemar Gathering' definitely gives off less weak-old-lady-slowly-withering-away vibes and more like heroic-warrior-succumbing-to-a-Valhalla-worthy-fate vibes. 

                      image from BBC article                        

When the BBC released its report on the Queen's death, it was meant to be a completely neutral press release—something that was purely meant to inform the public, not project opinions onto them. However, looking at the BBC's stylistic choices, we can see that we are given a very biased view of the Queen. We are greeted with a saturated, high-contrast portrait of a fairly young-looking Queen Elizabeth, highlighted from a pitch-black background with her gaze pointed towards the light (get your symbolism here 2 for the price of 1, discreteness sold separately). We got descriptions of her going Gently Into That Good Night™, testimonials from other members of the royal family, and a towering list of her achievements. Yet despite all that, the impression that people will take away from this article isn't what's written on the page, but rather based on what is omitted: the lost information. 

Now of course, I'm not saying that the poor lady's public obituary should have devolved into some rant about the lasting impacts of colonialism and the superfluous-ness of the British Kardashians, but the void that is left by this lost information is filled with our own assumptions, which leads to biased conclusions. Framing the Queen in a positive light is fairly harmless, yet is still an example nonetheless of how omissions, whether deliberate or not, lead to biases, which in many cases can be detrimental.

Obiora*, not Oboria

In Purple Hibiscus (yes, finally at the part where I talk about the book club book), Adichie showcases effects that various lenses have on each of the characters. Looking at one central idea of the novel in particular, we have the character's views on conservatism and obedience. To start, Papa and Ifeoma are on opposite ends of the spectrum and all of the other characters fall somewhere in between. However, as the events of the novel unfold, we see that the various lenses of each character cause them to develop and react in their own distinct ways. As an example, I've highlighted the growth/change experienced by Jaja, Kambili and Mama. 

Jaja is probably the easiest character to analyze in this regard. He has an 'open' lens so he able to absorb the new ideas he encounters at Nsukka; Jaja becomes more independent, no longer vying for Papa's approval like he once did, and instead adopting the stoicism and maturity of Obiora to transform into his role as a protector and role-model. He comes out of the novel a changed person and is able to maintain that growth in the long term. 

Contrast this to Kambili, who has a much more 'closed' lens, one that does not allow for the same level of growth that we see in Jaja. Both Jaja and Kambili start the novel being fairly obedient to Papa, however, unlike Jaja, we see that Kambili is indoctrinated by Papa. She views him as being almost god-like, infallible and "incapable of sin" (Adichie 196). Her thoughts mirror those of Papa, as she constantly tries to interpret what she experiences through what she believes is his lens. 

For example:

Aunty Ifeoma stopped then, perhaps remembering that the rules were not ours. 'Tell me, why do you think your father doesn’t want you here?' 

'Because Papa-Nnukwu is a pagan.' Papa would be proud that I had said that. 

'Your Papa-Nnukwu is not a pagan, Kambili, he is a traditionalist,' Aunty Ifeoma said. 

I stared at her. Pagan, traditionalist, what did it matter? He was not Catholic, that was all; he was not of the faith. He was one of the people whose conversion we prayed for so that they did not end in the everlasting torment of hellfire (81).

 She alienates herself from everyone else because of her trauma, the trauma that Papa experienced as a child, both due to the stresses of growing up impoverished and because of the abuse he faced at the mission (67, 196). Although she shows short term growth, learning to express herself and laugh at Nsukka, Kambili ultimately reverts back to how she was at the beginning of the novel. Arguably, Kambili regresses even further 'back', now not only thinking like Papa, but acting like him too, chastising Mama for not covering herself properly (296), and the cycle of trauma continues. 

Mama is different to Kambili because although she shares a similar 'closed' lens, she hasn't experienced the same trauma Kambili did. We know this because she is able to maintain her growth as a character, no longer being submissive, even being able to build up the courage to poison Papa (290). 

Although we see growth in the characters in the novel, their lenses remain the same. 

If a person's lens is set in stone, then are they pre-disposed to act a certain way? 

Does that mean that factors outside of a person's control, like their upbringing and generational trauma, affect their ability to adapt? Much of the conflict in our world is due to our own lenses, the ones we can’t remove. Bias is inherent in everything that we do and in everything we see. It is through these lenses we are polarized with specific wavelengths of truth shut out: not able to be computed, not able to be processed.

“Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought” -JFK

Going back to the onion metaphor and the Queen, the more that an event/idea is processed, the more information is lost, and the less valuable that interpretation becomes. The more that an event is digested for us, going from record (BBC press release), to explanation (Healthline article), to interpretation (CNN op-ed), to extrapolation (J.J McCullough's video calling the Queen's death the end of a by-gone era), the easier it is for us to view through our lenses, blindly accepting it as fact.