Repairers v. Destroyers

Spelman questions the motives behind repairers and destroyers in chapters 6 and 7, making me wonder what the differences between these two groups really are. What I have taken from Spelman is that there are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that want to fix everything and the kind that don’t. The first group will fix anything they can get their hands on, even if it’s past the point of being salvaged. These people are the repairers, the Fred and Willie’s of the world, the people who try and fix things not only for themselves, but for the ones in their lives as well. “So, even if good repairers do not exercise creativity by bringing new things into existence, they are by the very nature of their work called upon to exercise creativity in keeping things from going out of existence or in putting broken connections among humans back together” (Spelman 128). Repairers take time to assess the damage and not just toss it to the side. If a car breaks down, they don’t buy a new one, they look at what they can do to restore it to a form of its former self. Both destroyers and repairers are creative in their own way, the latter being a little bit more than the other. Destroyers must think of new things to evolve which does take some sort of imagination yet repairers must find a way to make something old work again which in itself is a whole new kind of creativity. I think repairers have the harder job since being able to fix something requires patience, time, and a lot of creativity.

The people who don’t repair are the ones who replace. The ones who throw things away instead of finding the time to fix something. Unfortunately, a lot of things are discarded to the side, left abandoned and broken, instead of looking at it from a different view and putting some work into it. No one said that repairs were easy but no one said that we had to give up either which I think destroyers have done in some sense. Whether it be a strained relationship or a broken car, some things are just too far gone to be repaired in their eyes, making it ok to simply toss it. However, destruction isn’t always a bad thing either. Take an old building for example. It has been sitting vacant for years, filling with dust and nothing else, and taking up valuable space. If the building were demolished, not only would it free up that space but it would be a new opportunity to evolve into something better. When something is destroyed, we hope it is because it has to be but sometimes that is not always the case. I think of it that repairers are the optimists, taking something and finding a better purpose for it, while destroyers are the pessimists, seeing something, finding no more use for it, and starting over. These aren’t bad treats, simply traits that define their roles in society and the way it changes. Repairers and destroyers do have one thing in common with each other: they are both either destroying or repairing to ultimately “fix” a situation. “To think about repair requires us to recognize our own failures and imperfections and those of the world we live in, to take seriously what we may unreflectively be inclined to regard as the necessary but uninventive and uninspiring work of repairing the damage due to such flaws” (Spelman 138). The human race hates looking at its own failures. The two kinds of people in this world take that failure and either try to hide/repair it or get rid of it altogether. In that sense, they have the same goal and the same incentives as to why they are doing what they’re doing.
A repairer wants whatever they are trying to repair, to continue on. The whole point of repairing is so something can remain alive and intact. A destroyer wants something to disappear, to discontinue from existence. They are different and I think what Spelman is trying to get at in Chapter 6 and 7 is that the world needs a little bit of both in order to continue on. When we destroy, we start over. We build up again and we learn from mistakes. With repairs, we salvage the known, the pre-existing object or relationship that is worth fixing. Too much destruction would result in the world never evolving while too much repairs would involve an overabundance with no room for growing. In order to find a middle ground, we first have to find a balance between the two.

Apologies vs. reparations

In chapters 4 and 5 of Repair, Elizabeth Spelman goes more into detail on why some people prefer “reparations” over an apology. I find this a very interesting theory and one I have never really thought about until now. Thinking about it, it is true that many people would prefer some kind of substitution for an apology than an actual apology. Maybe in some sense it is easier to deal with a reparation and be in a state of delusional complacency than to receive an apology and actually have to think about forgiving whoever it was that caused the harm in the first place.

When thinking about Spelman’s question of “would people really prefer reparations over an actual apology?”, the reader himself has to first question why people prefer reparations over apologies. “Apology and monetary value reparations are decidedly different instruments we’ve devised to repair some of the injuries we’re wont to inflict upon each other. Reparations mean never having to say you’re sorry. Such payments seem harsh and unfeeling, to suggest that whoever and whatever was damaged can be repaired or restored with cold cash. No sorrow need to be expressed, no offer of forgiveness need to contemplated. Not only is there nothing money can’t buy, there is nothing money can’t fix” (Spelman 78). The above passage perfectly portrays the question at hand: Why do people prefer reparations even if there is no apology to go with it? I think that society has somewhat instilled in us that in order to be forgiven, something physical has to actually be given. Whether it is money, flowers, or a gift, people automatically assume that an apology and reparations go hand-in-hand and if someone can’t apologize, then the reparation will be just fine. However, just an apology will not cut it. It is a very backwards concept that has me questioning the people I have had to forgive and the people I have had to apologize to in the past since it has never been something I have thought about until now. A scenario that could fit this concept is if a husband and a wife got into an argument and the husband brought home flowers to signify his apology. It’s as if just the apology has to be overshadowed and minimized by the actual reparation in order for the apology to be accepted.

“If reparations means from the side of the payers not having to say you’re sorry, it also means from the side of the payees not being called upon to forgive, not being pressed to forgo resentment” (Spelman 82). Another example I think of when comparing Spelman is the idea of suing. When someone is harmed and the case is taken to court, there is rarely an “I’m sorry” spoken in involving that lawsuit. Why is that? For starters, apologies signify that someone has to acknowledge that they did something wrong, which can be a hard pill to swallow. Not everyone can admit that they have done something to hurt another human being, so paying for it with currency is better than paying for it emotionally. There is a sense of not having to think about the act when paying for it since an apology is a face-to-face conversation while a check can be easily sent in the mail. It may seem like the easiest scapegoat since the “payers” don’t have to ask for forgiveness and the “payees” don’t have to forgive. In the above quote, Spelman really questions and goes into detail about why someone might feel the need to give a reparation. It might not seem as sincere of an apology if something physical is not given. That is what I am going into more detail about not only why someone might give only a reparation, but why someone might give a reparation with an apology and not the other way around. It is almost unheard of that someone accepts an apology without some form of compensation. Even if the person being apologized to didn’t ask for it, the apologizer still shows up with something to give. We as human beings learn from a very early age to apologize with something to give. As a kid it might have been a handmade drawing or a sacrificed toy from their own collection. As an adult, the reparations get more expensive such as jewelry or actual money but the same concept is still there. Reparations can be a substitute for an apology when all else fails and can be the reason why so many people today have been able to move on, even if they don’t accept or get an apology, from someone who has harmed them.

r1 ENGL110

Elizabeth Spelman poses many questions in her book “Repair: The Impulse to Restore in a Fragile World.” Whether she is speaking of an emotional repair or a physical one, Spelman consistently makes the reader question what kind of repairs they do in their own lives. Although her writing is scattered with many thoughts and ideas on the matter, she clearly raises the question on the repairs men and women do in their lives on a day to day basis and how different they can be based on gender.

“In both new and used bookshops it’s not hard to find home repair guides addressed specifically to women. It’s not unusual for them to begin with a bit of a pep talk: “The fact is that women don’t have to be unhandy.They are not inherently nonmechanical; they have been educationally deprived by their society and then trained to believe that their aptitude is low. What is most needed is authoritative assurance that “educationally deprived” does not mean “uneducable,” and that, in general, the business of making repairs is far easier than most women believe.” The very existence of such books and their messages of “There’s no reason you can’t do this stuff too, ladies!” signal a history of women being considered unsuitable for such work, on the grounds that it is too demanding, or is something that would compromise their claim to femininity” (Spelman 28). The above passage perfectly portrays the question Spelman and myself raise; When did repairs become gendered? Although the repair guide quote is written in a positive light, it still has some forms of negative connotation since it still had to be written to tell women that they can in fact “do it!” while men wouldn’t find guides like this in bookshops since they should inherently know how to use tools. The passage explains and personifies these gender roles in everything we, as the human race, do in our everyday lives. Even though there is a book written for women who can use tools, it shows that women still have to be taught how to use them while men automatically should know how to use physical tools or how to repair a car or fix a sink, etc.

Women’s repairs are more hardwired for emotional stances, like how to fix a relationship while men are more tool driven. Spelman not only shows the negative gendered roles women take when dealing with repairs, but also looks at it from a man’s perspective as well. “According to Bruce Cassiday, ‘Many a man in military service has had to darn a sock at a crucial time. I never yet saw such a man pretend to know how to use a needle, and yet I’ve watched dozens in the barracks secretly stitching rips in their clothing when they thought no one else was looking. It may have taken them longer than a woman to repair their torn clothing, but they did it!” (Spelman 31). That is another type of issue that Spelman questions when looking at the gendering of repairs. Men are scared to display any type of feminine traits that might compromise their masculinity. However, at the same time there are still these standards that society places on men emphasizing that they should be able to fix a car or use tools without being taught. Such standards are next to impossible since common sense teaches us that someone has to be taught something in order for them to succeed in that skill. Men used to be skilled knitters but now even the manliest of men in the army can not be seen mending a sock even though everyone else has done it at one point or another. When did repairs branch off for men and women into completely separate categories?

Throughout the first few chapters of Repair, Spelman immediately shows the different approaches men and women take when making repairs. In the second chapter, Fred and Willie are repairer and restorers using their hands to fix cars/motorcycles which is perceived as manly while Elisabeth, Irene, and Louise have a more feminine or ‘delicate’ approach to fixing paintings which in itself is seen as a more feminine skill even though they are still using their hands to repair something. Gender roles and differences are prevalent so far throughout the book placing an emphasis on society’s standards when it comes to repairs.