Take, for instance, a man whose project in life is to tell jokes and make people laugh and happy. The world he strives to create is a world of laughter and happiness. Unfortunately, one day he tells a joke with this project in mind, but the receiver of the joke finds the joke unfunny and offensive, to the point where the receiver of the joke is upset. This man then, at least momentarily, took part in creating a world of unhappiness. Perhaps this incident is rare, and the man goes on through life by pursuing his project by telling the same jokes and all is well. However, what happens if the same jokes continue to upset others in similar ways? The man is then an actor of unhappiness in the world, creating a world that is tragically opposed to his original project of laughter and happiness. The man is left with the choice of either continuing to make people unhappy, or to change his jokes.
The point is that the intentions of the man in question are irrelevant, for the concrete measurements of his jokes and actions in the world are a force of unhappiness to others. Consequently, this man is, at least partially, defined as a man who brings unhappiness, not laughter, to others. Facing this he still can change his jokes to alter his projections into the world. Life is but adjustments. We adjust so our intentions match their concrete impact in the world, which can only be defined by others. Furthermore, it is the continuous struggle to have our self-perception match other’s perception of our self, for only then can we guide our actions to create the concrete impact that our intentions seek to fulfill. Man starts with an intention, a project that is enacted through an action, and a meaning that is ultimately given by others, the witness.
Despite all this, is it really so simple? Is there no accountability of the witness to our actions? Is witnessing, the decoding of others’ actions, not an action itself? This is something more fluid and transactional. There must be a responsibility on the witness to properly apply the correct meaning to actions, for our reactions also determine a world just the same. This complexity is best illustrated in cases of oppression. The French interpreted the terrorism of the Algerians as acts of murder and chaos, without understanding the intentions of liberation in their actions. The failure of the French to do so left the French oblivious to the concrete oppression of the Algerian situation that in fact was propagating the terrorism. The oppressor is often the unreliable witness to the acts of the oppressed, for the oppressed’s acts often carries an intention and meaning prescribed by the oppressed that rebels against the oppressor. The oppressor remains oblivious to his oppression of the oppressed, because he sees the oppressed as inferior, and how can one oppress one that is unequal? Consequently, the oppressor remains oblivious to his own situation in the world. Therefore the witness must also strive to understand the intentions of the actor, so as to understand the situation that ultimately causes the actor’s actions and also the situation that is the witness’ own.
But the Algerians still must ask themselves – were our intentions of liberation obscured in the acts of terror? Like the man whose project is to make people laugh and happy, perhaps we should change our jokes, change our methods and actions to fulfill our project. The ultimate question, which there is no objective answer, is what action can best bring about the world we wish to construct? Instead of violence, MLK lead by civil disobedience in the civil rights movement -- the white oppressors faced with peaceful actors who didn’t enact their intentions of liberation with violence. The white population viewed the images of docile, peaceful black people being beaten and brutalized as they harmlessly assembled – attacked with dogs, beaten with sticks, and sprayed with fire hoses. Those images revealed the concrete violence of the oppressors toward an oppressed. It was then clear to many white people -- the oppressing witness -- that the civil rights movement was not a cause defined by violence and brutality but one that was victim of it by whites, and thus the white witness finally realized the black cause of bringing recognition to blacks’ situation of oppression.
It is ultimately alarming how ambiguous our actions truly are – meaningless without the witness. Like being itself, the action’s existence precedes its essence. Intentions of the actor merely creates its existence, but the witness gives the action -- and thereby the actor – his essence. So often our actions betray the notion of our self to others, but what actually is our true self?
We live in a world of negotiated meaning of our selves and others. We must be both conscious of how others perceive us, and how we perceive others. A person’s actions are measured and defined by the witness, just like a comedian’s jokes are measured and defined by the audience. The actor must be conscious and critical, always looking to adjust his actions to best represent his project. The witness, likewise, must remain conscious and critical of his reactions so as to best understand the concrete situation that provides the actor the need for his project; ignoring such is ignoring the world that the witness too is situated in. We exist as beings bound to one another, our freedom tied to the freedom of others. The burden of responsibility to create meaning in the world lies with comedian and audience, actor and witness.
