In the fog of a mid-winter cold, I find myself whistling "I Should Care," a lovely, insouciant ballad that
establishes an atmosphere of emotional ambivalence from the opening line. It's been recorded many times since it was introduced by the Tommy Dorsey band in 1945 for the film Thrill of a Romance. In fact, it was recorded four times that first year. The young Frank Sinatra sang it, and it's a favorite of pianists, with Bud Powell, Thelonious Monk, and Kenny Barron among its many interpreters.
We might expect the opening line, which is also the song's title, to be followed before long by "... but I don't." yet further expressions of diffidence follow. The vocalist embroiders the theme with, "I should go around weeping...I should go without sleeping." She (or he) goes on to report that "...strangely enough I sleep well," though here a minor caveat is introduced: "except for a dream or two."
We might expect the opening line, which is also the song's title, to be followed before long by "... but I don't." yet further expressions of diffidence follow. The vocalist embroiders the theme with, "I should go around weeping...I should go without sleeping." She (or he) goes on to report that "...strangely enough I sleep well," though here a minor caveat is introduced: "except for a dream or two."
So does she care
after all?
The contours of the tune work toward the same ambivalent
effect. It's been described as "strongly chromatic, with several
deceptive resolutions." My own untrained gloss would be that the tune is slippery. It's not easy to whistle.
The melody seems to drift off the mark, descending by slow steps through a
harmonic field rich in melancholy and yearning.
What's really at issue here? It's a break-up, of course, and
the last two lines fill in the story as the melody reverses direction, ascending
to a high note:
"Maybe I won't find someone as
lovely as you..."
Mistakes made, love lost, self-protective indifference. keeping
a stiff upper lip. The challenge lies, I think, in making the song sound light and wistful, before
it finally folds back on itself to reveal its emotional core.
"But I should care ... and I
do."
My favorite rendering is a recent version by the
Italian vocalist Diana Torto with the Kenny Wheeler Big Band. Her voice is playful, maybe a little coy. And the big band sound that follows
immediately upon the final confession, "...and I do." carries an
explosion of romantic feeling, though the musicians are nevertheless obliged at
that point to follow the descent of the chart into melancholy ambivalence once
again.
Yes, I should care. Well, caring is what people do. The social fabric
consists of myriad threads of affection, loyalty, enthusiasm, duty, and
heartfelt concern. Some are reciprocal, others not. In any case, such
connections serve as the foundation of our self esteem and the burden of our
days. We care instinctively because we find natural affinities all around
us—loved ones, friends, exciting events and activities, beautiful works of art. The cultivation of such things is what give our lives body and direction. But we also care because we
know we should. To turn away from
someone in need would be a crime, a transgression against humanity, a betrayal
of our nobler selves.
Yet we do turn away, every time we drive past a
panhandler at a freeway exit, for example. We might feel bad about it, yet hold
back due to a calculus of sympathies by which we
overlay both our fellow-feeling and our suspicious
streak with a skein of tightly reasoned arguments as to what the most effective
distribution of our charitable resources might be.
Powerball winner Roy Cockrum tells the story of a time when
he was in holy orders, and handed out cash to a homeless person who had turned
up at the monastery gates. One of the senior brothers pointed out that there
would be a line of people the next day, after word got around, and then he
would be able to help nobody. "That is where I was trained that boundaries
are essential," he said. "There are people in need all over the
world. I hear from such people every day. Every day. But without boundaries, I
have nothing left."
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Jesus envisioned a universe
where loved ones and abject strangers are treated alike—an odd
vision, if you ask me, which expands but also dilutes the meaning of the word
"love." Love is a preferential thing, an act of judgment
and discovery, inexplicable and profound. Happy is the man (or woman) who has
succeeded in developing a social universe rich of such reciprocal pleasures and
obligations, shared values and interests.
One of the values active in such a world should be to extend those pleasures to individuals who have never had the benefit of such an environment. Though it's only one element among many, we love and admire people due to the breadth of their compassion.
One of the values active in such a world should be to extend those pleasures to individuals who have never had the benefit of such an environment. Though it's only one element among many, we love and admire people due to the breadth of their compassion.
I was thumbing through Jean-Paul Sartre's youthful novel, Nausea, the other day, in the course of
another errand, and I came upon a passage near the end of the book where the
narrator, Antoine Roquentin, is desperate. He's lost interest in everything,
his friends bore him, and he finds himself withering:
Now when I say “I,” it seems hollow to me. I
can’t manage to feel myself very well, I am so forgotten. The only real thing
left in me is existence which feels it exists. I yawn, lengthily. No one.
Antoine Roquentin exists for no one. That amuses me. And just what is Antoine
Roquentin? An abstraction. A pale reflection of myself wavers in my
consciousness. Antoine Roquentin . . . and suddenly the “I” pales, pales, and
fades out.
This is a classic existential lament, gussied up with abstractions but also harboring a truly poetic element. I was impressed by it when I was in high school. It struck a chord.
... Outside there were streets, alive with
known smells and colors. Now nothing is left but anonymous walls, anonymous
consciousness. That is what there is: walls, and between the walls, a small
transparency, alive and impersonal. Consciousness exists as a tree, as a blade
of grass. It slumbers, it grows bored. Small fugitive presences populate it
like birds in the branches. Populate it and disappear. Consciousness forgotten,
forsaken between these walls, under this grey sky.
In the same year that Nausea appeared (1937), Sartre's one-time teacher and elder
contemporary, Gabriel Marcel, described a similar metaphysical uneasiness more
analytically in an essay with the heady title, "Value and
Immortality."
It seems to me probable that metaphysics
amounts to nothing else but the activity by which we define an uneasiness and
manage partially (and, moreover, mysteriously) if not to remove it at least to
transpose and transmute it, so that far from paralyzing the higher life of the
spirit it tends rather to strengthen and maintain it... . To be uneasy is to be uncertain of one’s centre, it is to be in search of
one’s own equilibrium ... If I am uneasy about the health of one of my
relatives it means that the apprehension I feel on their account tends to
destroy my inward stability ... Uneasiness is the more metaphysical the more it
concerns anything which cannot be separated from myself without the
annihilation of this very self.
Marcel sums up these observations in the following terms:
A
secret voice which I cannot silence assures me in fact that if others are not there,
I am not there either. I cannot grant to myself an existence of which I suppose
others are deprived; and here “I cannot” does not mean “I have not the right”,
but rather “It is impossible for me.” If others vanish from me, I vanish from
myself.
In their different ways, Sartre and Marcel expose an obvious truth: the
interconnectedness of beings and the fundamental role played by the threads of
the social fabric in our sense of ourselves. But the word "social"
might be out of place here, in so far as it connotes norms and conventions that
don't necessarily answer to our deepest personal need for connection, for recognition.
Sartre went on to fashion a career out of dissecting
alienation, shame, and other attenuated states of mind, while
Marcel explored the more complex dialectic
at work in mature relationships. But be that as it may, I find it intriguing that at the end of Nausea, when the protagonist is at his wit's end, feeling that he
has neither past nor future, he gets a lift from a recording he hears of a woman (Bessie Smith?) singing a jazz number:
He sees glimmers of salvation in the recording; he's moved by it, and he celebrates the efforts of the singer and also the songwriter, whom he envisions sweltering in the summer heat as he pens the tune on the twenty-first floor of a New York skyscraper.
Some of these days
You'll miss me, honey
He sees glimmers of salvation in the recording; he's moved by it, and he celebrates the efforts of the singer and also the songwriter, whom he envisions sweltering in the summer heat as he pens the tune on the twenty-first floor of a New York skyscraper.
She sings. So the two
of them are saved: the Jew and the Negress. Maybe they thought they were lost
irrevocably, drowned in existence.
The metaphysics of caring can get a little thick—to the
point of hysteria and cliché. Let me give you an example that might be easier
to relate to: that cold I was talking about. My head is full of cotton and I don't really care
about anything. I can lie on the couch for half an hour without being bored or
thinking about anything. Nor is this a condition of Zen-like
attentiveness. Rather, it's a condition of vacuity. And the little voice that
would normally being urging me to get up and do something, or questioning my
ambition, my sense of self, is silent.
But a few minutes ago I stepped to the window, looked out at
the melting snow on the yew bushes just outside, and felt a flicker of
emotion. I could feel my eyes, my self, reaching out more actively to things I've
always cared about—the passing birds, the beauty of the morning. I could feel
myself becoming active and engaged again.
I guess caring about a yew bush isn't such a big deal. But
you've got to start somewhere.
In the last two days, I've given two ninety-minute talks
about travel to audiences totaling more than two hundred people. I did it
because I said I would, and I said I would because I thought people might enjoy it. I also enjoy it--enjoy spinning narratives on the fly, guided only by the images I'm projecting on the screen. Small
town restaurants, the glory of the mountains, oceans, and deserts, long frigid
nights in the tent, the smell of sage in the air, the interesting people you meet
along the way. Those attending seemed to enjoy this kind of story-telling, too. After
the second talk, which was open to the public, a woman came up to me and said,
"Will you be teaching your Minnesota course again next year?"
"Well, I don't know," I replied. "That's a
long ways off."
"I hope you do," she said. "I wanted to take
it this year, but it filled up in ten minutes."
Would any purpose be served in distinguishing between things
we care for (which are people, animals,
and plants) and things we care about,
such as coin collecting or cross-country skiing? I don't think so. More
interesting, perhaps, would be to examine the difference between things we care
about naturally and instinctively, and those we care about because we think we
should. Alongside the joyous interest we would place the troubled concern of which Marcel speaks, and
the obligatory efforts that a thinker like Kant might urge us to undertake, driven by a sense of duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment