What is the difference between a duchess and a flower girl? It is the idea around which Pygmalion was written, and almost a century ago, made a movie about.
Is it about the way they carry themselves, their posture, their speech, their used vocabulary? In this case it would be from within, a way of acting. Actually, it is the impression they make on other people, but an impression can be created, faked. It is what was tried in Pygmalion and it worked to a point. The real person was still left inside the fake shell of a person, a sad remnant of that which was. Sure, the quality of life was improved, even love was found, but it was the flower girl who grew on the love interest, not the fake duchess. In any case, what changed was people's perception of the flower girl, which is an another facet of this question.
Colonel Pickering had a nice attitude towards people. Pleasant, respective, everything you would hope for in a man. He treated even the most common flower girl as if she were a duchess. He was the kind of person that could be liked by everyone who met him. Henry Higgins was the opposite, he would treat any duchess as if they were common flower girls, unworthy of his great intellect. He had no time for common courtesy, all he cared about was getting the information through without a chance of misunderstandings or needless communication. Neither of them really cared who they were speaking to, they treated everyone the same regardless of status, behavior, attitude or the way they looked. They were the 'gods' of the tale, uninfluenced by outside happenstances, yet vulnerable to caring about their creation. That is the only thing that could change Higgins' attitude.
In the question of 'who are we' we then have the following observances: the way we act and look change people's attitudes towards us, people's attitudes towards us change the way we act, our actions show our attitudes. Therefore let it be known that actions and attitudes change the shell of the person at the very least. However, let's not leave the effect different attitudes have on the personalities these attitudes are directed towards marginalized. After all, every encounter, every happenstance that crosses us changes us, and we are the result of all past events that have occurred in our lives.
But who are we? Are we the shell of appearance and action that can be observed by others? Are we the attitudes incited by our presence? Or are we something deeper, some kind of hidden variable that could be defined as a 'soul'?
No comments:
Post a Comment