What is more fitting than Dr. Seuss and animals? And what bizarre unrealistic animal is more Seussian than a scapegoat? Now only a metaphor, the scapegoat was an animal used to take on the guilt and sin of a society or individual. Dr. Seuss' tale “What was I scared of?” is about a character who spends his time fearing a pair of pale green pants who wander nonchalantly into his world. This story effectively illustrates scapegoating within our society -- now and throughout history. As the protagonist cannot explain the pale green pants, he projects a negative perspective on the garment; avoiding and shunning the individual completely benign to the projection. Like similarly ignorant assumptions towards those suffering from stigmatized disease (both mental and physical), the pants are unfairly regarded as an object of terror simply because the protagonist cannot understand them. These assumptions, and their resulting actions, prove to become issues.
The problem: pale green pants. Are they a problem? One so much that a scapegoat is needed? The protagonist in the story sees the pale green pants as a problem. Well, one would be frightened if they happened upon empty pants in the forest. Instead of attempting to understand the situation and approach the pants, the protagonist attempts to get out of the situation using a scapegoat.
A scapegoat is someone punished or blamed for the errors and problems of others; essentially a means of escape from an uncomfortable situation. The protagonist finds himself experiencing (or about to experience) a situation unknown to him. In his mind is this vast problem of empty pants, which made his feelings opposed to what his experience. When this occurs, one automatically looks for the easy way out. The protagonist chooses to avoid said frightening pants by focusing all his time on his chores. He turns his chores into a scapegoat and uses them as an excuse for not facing the pants. He manifests the scapegoat to avoid the ambiguous option: the pants. This is, in fact, the reason for choosing his chores: a more familiar option. In the course of avoiding the pants, they become so persistant that he has no choice but to confront them. The protagonist comes to terms with the pants, banishing his ignorance and accepting the possibility of friendship. The pale green pants were not a problem, but the protagonist made them one, which he tried to solve by blaming his chores. It was only after his own realization that the protagonist came to terms with his own deception, understood the pants' humanity, and finally met his resolve.
People with mental illnesses, like pale green pants, are quite often misunderstood and avoided. Although they have an illness like any other, they aren't treated the same as any other. Unlike helping someone fight to overcome cancer, one might cross the street to avoid someone with schizophrenia. Simply because the pants aren't like any other he knows, the protagonist cannot accept them.
One of the biggest obstacles is the idea that the mentally ill are violent and threatening. There isn't an inherent reason for it (Dombeck 1), but still one half of people believe this (Mike 1). Even the media perpetuates this myth, focusing on rare stories of the mentally ill gone bad, as opposed to those who “get better and live productive lives” . In the same way, the protagonist avoids the pants because he thinks they are a threat to his lifestyle without any reasoning. He feels unable to do his regular nocturnal chores with the pants out there. In the same way, most people believe those with a mental illness should be “locked up” in an asylum (Mike 1).
With the pants open in society notwithstanding, the protagonist chooses not to associate with them, until the very end of the story. We aren't that different here: the majority of Canadians wouldn't marry someone with a mental illness, or even hire them as a doctor, lawyer, or child care worker (CMA 28). A third of the people in the UK believe this segregation is fine: that they shouldn't have the same right to a job as anyone else (Mike 1). There is no reason that someone with mental illness cannot go about their business, any more than pale green pants going about theirs.
This segregation hasn't been around forever, but it isn't a new idea, either. Looking back over 200 years, historian Michel Foucault noticed that Europeans started putting the mentally ill in asylums at the same time, and same places, as leprosy became rare. Mark Dombeck, PhD, noted that “it was as though the Europeans needed to maintain a scapegoated class” and that mental illness was used to fill the gap left by leprosy (2). One can only wonder what the character projected his anxiety on before the pants came along.
Leprosy, unparalleled in its history of shame and social reproach, has itself become synonymous with stigma (Dhillon 31). Like the pale green pants, patients suffering from the illness face enacted stigma, experiencing discrimination provoked by their condition. While simply avoiding said garments, the story's protagonist demonstrates the negative behaviour concentrated against those with leprosy. Unlike Seuss's narrative, common social repercussions span much further than avoidance; affecting marriage, employment, relationships and community acceptance (Rafferty 120).
Leviticus 13, of the old testament, claims that “a leprous man in unclean”, verifying an impression that has persisted for centuries (HP-TIME 1). Until the late 1900's, there was no identifiable cause of leprosy. Witchcraft and damnation were the common culprits, but cited origins shifted between locations; strongly influenced by the community's feared powers. Belief that leprosy patients were tainted both physically and morally led to a degradation of their worth, rationalizing the practise of ostracism and exile. Unaware of the pants' humanity, our protagonist does not realize the object of his fear is equally capable of fear itself. It is this disconnect of empathy that condemns leprosy sufferers to unjust treatment and harmful bias.
In 2008, one third of leprosy patients were dumped by their spouses, while nearly one half reported a drop in income due to demotion or loss of their job (Dhillon 120). The isolation experienced by patients is overwhelming, frequently producing the psychological ailments of anxiety and depression (Rafferty 33). In “What was I scared of?,” the pale green pants are so confused by their encounters with the protagonist that they burst into tears; demonstrating, however simplistically, the results of continued ostracism.
That being said, the negative motifs in “What was I scared of” are extensive: conceivably branching out further than scapegoating and the stigma of mental illness and leprosy. What can be gleaned from the story is that, while something can be interpreted as fearsome, it is not always so. The protagonist faces his fears, meets the pants and -- in the spirit of children’s literature -- makes a new friend. An obvious morality tale, Dr. Seuss poses an insightful question: if his protagonist can become friends with a pair of pale green pants . . . with nobody inside them, can’t we face our fears and embrace those things we so thoughtlessly dread?
No comments:
Post a Comment