Of Mice And Men
Reflections on Perspective and Personal Paradigms
When I was younger, I genuinely disliked Of Mice and Men. I recall penning a rather impassioned rant criticizing Steinbeck’s writing style and thematic choices. In retrospect, though, I recognize my primary issue wasn’t with the quality of the literature itself, but rather my youthful resistance to its embedded worldview—a worldview at odds with my own emerging perceptions.
The phenomenon behind this realization is rooted deeply in cognitive psychology. Our minds construct schemas—mental frameworks that help us interpret information based on prior experiences and beliefs. As a young reader, Steinbeck's perspective clashed with my own nascent schema of how I believed the world worked, triggering cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance, a concept first introduced by psychologist Leon Festinger, occurs when we encounter information contradicting our existing beliefs. We typically resolve this discomfort either by changing our beliefs, dismissing the new information, or rationalizing the conflict. My youthful response was outright rejection.
Interestingly, upon reflection, I found similar feelings emerged while reading The Pearl Diver, though to a lesser extent. Its prose, arguably even more nuanced than Of Mice and Men, also presented a perspective that diverged from my internal narrative, eliciting a subtler form of dissonance.
But why do such visceral reactions arise from literature, of all places? Sociology offers some insight. According to symbolic interactionism—a sociological theory proposed by Herbert Blumer—our understanding of reality arises from social interactions and interpretations rather than objective truths. Literature, inherently interpretive and symbolic, acts as a mirror reflecting societal perspectives that either affirm or challenge our constructed realities. When confronted with perspectives that don't align with our established symbolic meanings, discomfort or resistance is often the initial emotional response.
From a philosophical angle, particularly phenomenology as developed by Edmund Husserl, each person’s reality is a subjective experience. Our perception of the world is continuously shaped and reshaped by new experiences, evolving through reflection and interaction. This fluid nature of perception reveals precisely why a book that once felt frustrating or alien can, later in life, seem profoundly insightful—or at least worthy of reconsideration.
What does all this signify? At its heart, it underscores the transient and malleable nature of perspective. Our views aren't static; they're influenced and reshaped by experiences, social interactions, and personal growth. Recognizing this can foster humility, empathy, and openness—allowing us to engage more deeply and meaningfully with viewpoints different from our own.
In short, we don't merely read a book; we read ourselves into the book, colored by the complex tapestry of our expectations, biases, and beliefs. Awareness of this human tendency is essential not only for appreciating literature but also for understanding ourselves and others more authentically.
We humans are prone to opinions that are biased based on our personal paradigms.
We literally see the world differently based on our expectations of the world,
which are created by what beliefs we hold about the world and our place in it.
