Oliver Sacks The Power Of Context Summary

The Influential Context Behind Identity

Context is the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event or situation. In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Power of Context”, he argues that the context of one’s immediate environment and situation determines actions and behaviors, and not the character a person portrays. Gladwell wants to find to out if there is a “tipping point” in which an idea becomes popular and reaches a critical mass in social structure. However, Oliver Sacks would argue against Gladwell’s point of view in his writing, “The Mind’s Eye”. Sacks introduces his readers to several individuals who adapt to their blindness in adulthood by using their own mind to create their own place in a world that is shut out due to their

disability. Sacks goes along to say that many humans can remain the author of their own identity despite the environment and situation surrounding them. Azar Nafisi then falls between both Gladwell and Sacks beliefs as she depicts her country’s government and the only choices they offer in her essay “Selections from Reading Lolita in Tehran.” In Nafisi’s essay, she establishes her personal lifestyle among all the influences pushed among her and her country. Nafisi is influenced by her environment and situation that her government pushes upon her, yet she also uses secret classes to read Western literature in order to expand her mind and allow her mentality to grow. Nafisi does not let her environments context and situation affect her character and individuality, but she does let it control the way she portrays herself physically. Overall, context plays a major role in a person’s behavior and character based on their situation, ability to maintain control, and the combination of personal aspects and environment.
In order to see what influences individuals, one must look at the contextual evidence that surrounds a person’s situation.

Gladwell wants his readers to focus on the context of an environment since it plays a major role in how we act. Circumstances around us are constantly changing day in and day out, and as new changes occur in a situation, new influences surface. Gladwell discusses Philip Zimbardo’s experiment at Stanford University, where Zimbardo and his team created a mock prison in the basement of their psychology building. This was done to see why prison atmospheres were so cruel; and if emotions and behavior derive from the environment surrounding an individual. Zimbardo’s conclusion from this experiment simply states “that there are specific situations so powerful that they can overwhelm our inherent predispositions” (Gladwell 158). Zimbardo overlooks a person’s background, since he or she may face a certain time, place, and condition in which personal identity could be removed. These specific situations do not include an individual’s past, but instead the present context that is in front of them. For instance, the individuals who were chosen to be guards did not act cruel due to how they were brought up, but instead presented themselves in that way that went along with the context of their present surroundings. Nafisi’s essay would affirm Zimbardo’s point that some situations overwhelm an individual causing them to act a certain way. Nafisi lives in a country that

craves control over their citizens and personal lifestyles, resulting in the women of Iran being put into situations that call for them to present themselves in a way that is acceptable to their society. These women do not have the privilege of creating a public identity they can live by. Instead, they are put under full surveillance so the government can be in constant control and the creators of their lifestyles. A situation is created as Toyota vigils “patrol the streets to make sure that women like Sanaz wear their veils properly, do not wear makeup, do not walk in public with men who are not their fathers, brothers, or husbands” (Nafisi 295). Nafisi and a group of girls run a secret class to dismantle this situation and the power that the government enforces on the streets of Iran by flaunting their own predispositions, where they wear what they want and read Western literature that is banned in their society. In these secret classes, their safe zone is among the walls that are blocking their personal physical appearance to the rest of their environment. Yet, as soon as these women leave that room they must change since the context of their present environment overwhelms how they must look and act in the streets. These women were born into a world where the context provided to them puts up a barrier for the way they can express themselves. The current context to an environment creates a shift in an individual as he or she is surrounded by new influences that control their behaviors.
In addition to context overtaking a person's physical qualities, one must remain true to their personal attributes and imaginations in order to have the control over the behaviors they want to portray. Overall, Gladwell believes that the environment that surrounds an individual provokes certain actions. In Gladwell’s writing, he mentions the Broken Windows Theory presented by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. This theory claims that it is the context of the present environment that leads to incidents and certain behaviors, “…something physical like graffiti. The impetus to engage in a certain kind of behavior is not coming from a certain kind of person but from a feature of the environment” (Gladwell 152). The small features of an environment’s context that are symbolic to a collapse of an environment, such as graffiti, has a snowball affect towards bigger issues such as crime. Wilson and Kelling believe “…crime is contagious-… that it can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community” (Gladwell 152). Sacks would challenge Wilson’s and Kelling’s Broken Window Theory since he writes about blind individuals who are able to control their minds in order to maintain control over their behaviors. The context around us may influence certain behaviors that we portray, but Sacks describes how blind people use their own imagination to create the environment they live and take part in. Sacks mentions the author John Hull, who grew up partly sighted and became completely blind at the age of forty-eight. Hull spoke about “deep blindness” and how it is “not only a loss of visual images and memories but a loss of the very idea of seeing, so that even concepts like ‘here’, ‘there’, and ‘facing’ seemed to lose meaning for him” (Sacks 329). Deep blindness proves that as one cannot see what their present environment’s context holds, he or she cannot use those features to determine how they will act. Becoming blind in adulthood is a difficult process since one can remember what they once saw, but then has to recreate it using the details they know of in their mind. The context of an environment has no role in the behaviors a blind person portrays. Those affected by blindness cannot use the features of their environment to influence the behaviors they portray, therefore counteracts the theory that surroundings have the authority to taking over our personal attributes.
Above all, context seems to hold a strong grip on influencing behavior and character both physically and mentally, but there could be a middle in which the context of an environment and personal aspects can work hand in hand within an individual.

As Gladwell writes about a physical environments context promoting certain behaviors, he mentions “…the streets we walk down, the people we encounter- play a huge role in shaping who we are and how we act” (162). By this, Gladwell presents how the environment surrounding a person makes that individual’s character shift as they have to fall into the mainstream way of life. No matter their background or internal mentality, the environments context surrounding that person will have a major influence on the overall behavior they portray. Sacks places an argument against Gladwell by stating that actions are dependent on the mentality of an individual. Sacks does not concur with Gladwell since he tries to teach his readers how the blind live based on their own mental perceptions. Sacks uses John Hull as a reference, who felt that “the loss of visual imagery was a prerequisite for the full development, the heightening, of his other senses” (339). Hull used his other senses to control his behavior, and it therefore shaped him into who he is today. The blind are not able to use the context of their everyday environment to influence the behavior they portray. As Sacks and Gladwell take two different sides, Nafisi is able to discuss both

authors point of view since she lives in an environment that can backup both Sacks’ and Gladwell’s perceptions of the extent that context has upon an individual’s lifestyle. As Nafisi lived in an environment that revolved around her cultures beliefs, she wonders if “perhaps one way of finding out the truth was to do what we did: to try to imaginatively articulate these two worlds and, through that process, give shape to our vision and identity” (295). Nafisi’s lifestyle falls between those who are mentioned in both Gladwell’s and Sack’s essays. As a woman in Iran, she must portray herself physically in an appropriate way to the public eye since she has to live up to an expectation that her society holds. Her environment is controlled by the Iranian government in which the context is therefore set out for women to portray certain behaviors and have certain physical characteristics. Nafisi took the extra step in having a double word, not letting what she had to look like on the streets shape her into the person she is today, and using Western literature to expand herself mentally. To Nafisi, her environment put up walls of graffiti leading her to dress the way she did in public, but Western literature was also her pathway to using her personal aspects to make her own life unique. The context of an environment has a grasp of influence upon individuals, but does not fully overtake a person since one can let their environment and mentality work together in creating their overall character.
Overall, context changes as new situations arise. In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Power of Context”, he relate themes and examples on how minor affects to the present environment can snowball into major issues such as crime. Yet, Gladwell is blinded to the mentality of an individual since he only focuses on the environment. On the other hand, Oliver Sacks’ “The Mind’s Eye” states that as blindness takes over a person, he or she must use their past experiences and mental imagery to create the world they once knew. Sacks is optimistic and knowledgeable, but he only uses those with positive results from their experience with blindness. Azar Nafisi is then able to understand where both Gladwell and Sacks since she sees both sides of the argument. Nafisi must find a way to be her own type of Muslim woman while living in a controlled environment where the context is already laid out. As a woman in Iran, she has to find a way to present herself in the public eye that will be acceptable to her culture, but also use Western literature to expand her mentality. Even though she Nafisi sees both perspectives of Sacks and Gladwell, her focus is only on Iran, making it hard to relate to other countries. Overall, context plays a major role in a person’s behavior and character either through their internal thoughts or their external environment. From internal and external situations, the influences surrounding an individual lead to both mental and physical changes. Sacks and Gladwell tend to not look at the other side of their argument, therefore they only simplify their point of view, yet Nafisi is able to give the perceptive of both sides of the argument. A situation’s context creates new influences for an individual’s behavior and character, but that does not mean it shapes who a person really is.