In The Man in the High Castle, Wyndham-Matson claims that out of his two almost identical lighters, one was in the pocket of President Roosevelt when he was assassinated and one wasn’t. One has “historicity” and one is a copy. However it is almost impossible to tell the difference between the two, although President Roosevelt’s lighter is worth thousands of times more than the fake. All that he has to differentiate between the two is a certificate of authenticity. He asks his guest if she can feel the historicity of the historical lighter, and of course she cannot. But I think historicity could be a valid concept, depending on the significance of an object to a person; however it is less of a feeling and more of a memory connected to an object.
As we talked about this in class I began to consider myself whether “historicity” is important to me. Honestly, I think it is. If I were to order a signed poster from my favorite singer, I would want it to be authentic. It would have no meaning to me if the singer hadn’t signed it herself. It would not have any “historicity.” I know that you cannot technically feel the historicity of an object, but if I knew something was authentic I would feel more connected to the actual person (in this case). For this very reason I would never order a signed poster on the computer. I would want to get a signature in person so I myself could know for sure that the signature was authentic. Not only that, but by getting it signed in person I would have a memory to connect myself with the signature. The signed poster would have more meaning to me than one I could buy online even if I knew 100% that the one on the computer was authentic.
Now if I had this poster, it might not mean much to most people, however I do think some of the historicity could be transferred to another fan of the singer. If I told my story to that person about how I got it signed and what it was like meeting the singer, they would also feel connected to the signature on the poster. They might be also able to feel its “historicity.” However if that person told their friends the story of how I got the poster signed, and those friends told their friends (I know this is an unlikely situation, but just roll with it), there would be a growing disconnect between each of these new groups of people and their knowledge of my poster and in turn, some “historicity” would be lost. It is my guess that it would mean far less to the 100th person who hears of my poster signing adventure than the 2nd person because they would have learned from a friend who was not there to witness the actual event.
I can see how it would be almost impossible to truly feel the “historicity” of a historical object, unless you were actually a witness of the event. If Wyndham-Matson had actually been a witness to the assassination of President Roosevelt, he might not have been kidding about being able to feel the “historicity” of the lighter. The lighter would in that case be a trigger for a memory and it would have significance that a replica would not have. However if I held that lighter (if I was in the world depicted in The Man in the High Castle of course), I would not be able to connect the lighter with my own memory and I probably wouldn’t know why it was more important than the replica. But if Wyndham-Matson had told me a firsthand account of Roosevelt’s assassination and how he had come to acquire the actual lighter (assuming that it was the real lighter and that he was trust worthy), I might have felt differently about the lighter. The “historicity” would be there.
I guess, once again, it has to do with the "emotional truth" of the account. The firsthand account of a story might would hold more emotion which would subsequently dilute down the line. The truer the emotion, the more it "makes the stomach believe."
ReplyDeleteObviously, we'd all want an item with "historicity" because in our eyes the object has significance. However, this post begs the question--If you believe that the object is authentic, even when it's a fake, does it matter that it is actually fake? Specifically, if someone gave you a signed poster that they signed but you believed was real, isn't that just as good as an actual real poster? You achieve the same level happiness with both objects because you believe each one is the same.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree. For a lot of items, historicity only has weight to it if it was personally experienced. Memory, whether it be an actual one or a false one, is the only way we can assign importance to otherwise empty symbols.
ReplyDeleteWith the poster scenario, Mike argues that you would feel the same level of happiness with either poster. I would argue that you would still feel a sense of emptiness. The poster may or may not be real just like the signature, but as a fan, wouldn't the true joy be in being able to have the account of having the poster signed? The signature is important because it triggers the memory of the occasion which it was signed. Having the memory of it adds a level of intimacy to the autograph.
Example: I have a collection of plushies. One is a set of the Beijing 2008 mascots, with a seal of authenticity. I also have a small panda bear plush toy from when I was in the third grade. I might go up to you, let you hold both and say, "Which one is worth more?" You would probably reply, "The one with the seal." BUT that would also prove that historicity has NO REAL VALUE because I didn't buy the mascot plushies in person; the symbolism of the Olympics is in no way fully captured despite being a souvenir item. The panda bear, which might look like an average child's toy, is precious and unlike some other plush panda toy. You would never be able to sense the historicity that it was mailed from Oklahoma as part of a care package in response to 9/11 and that it serves as a reminder of being a witness. It doesn't have any proof of authenticity. It doesn't have any clear indicator of the event. But that's because you're not the subject of the memory.
I understand where both sides of this historicity and value argument are coming from. If something is signed, it shouldn’t matter whether we witnessed the signing, the fact remains that it is authentic. But what if we feel authenticity needs an emotional aspect? Then we may need that memory to consider that object to be authentic. My only question about Sabrina’s response is if the signature is only important with an associated memory, how is that signature valuable to others if we aren’t willing to consider it’s value without an emotional connection? For example, not everyone has the associated memory of Roosevelt, but we can’t deny the value of the lighter in his pocket.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that everyone’s disagreement is stemming from authenticity interpreted at an individual level versus authenticity interpreted at a collective level. We established in class that for something to be “authentic,” you need an overriding consensus, a reliable institution or group that backs up the authenticity. So by finding, individually, that certain objects are authentic (which I agree with), are we debunking what we said in class? I think that Rachel could be the only one in the world who thinks that her poster is authentic, but as long as she believes in that, why should it be considered any less authentic? I guess that yet again, it all comes down to individual interpretation. There is no complete truth to authenticity; we choose what we want to believe, and most of the time, we’re satisfied with the reality we create from that.