Cognitive dissonance is a state in which one’s emotions of anxiety and discomfort are entangled in the opposing beliefs or attitudes one is experiencing or expressing. Furthermore, it has been experienced by the Germans after the Second World War, as they question whether they should forgive themselves for falling victim to the Nazi Party’s deceptions and the suppression of societal ideologies. This is also a negative stipulation that is experienced by Michael in the novel The Reader, by German novelist; Bernhard Schlink. Regarding this, it can be proven through Michael having loved Hanna, despite feeling the guilt of whether he should forgive himself for falling in love with Hanna. He tries to approach this through sexual gratification, however
…show more content…
He is in a state of whether he should forgive himself for loving Hanna or not. This love he feels for Hanna is largely sexually, as he mentions “It took a while before my body stopped yearning for hers; sometimes I myself was aware of my arms and legs groping for her in my sleep, and… I had called out ‘Hanna’ in the night.” (Schlink 87). Although, Michael feels as if he is truly in love with Hanna through his heartbrokenness, as he chooses to “never again… love anyone whom it would hurt to lose” (Schlink 88) and that “the smallest gesture of affection would bring a lump to [his] throat, whether directed to [him] or at someone else. Sometimes all it took was a scene in a movie.” (Schlink 89). It is explained in this “juxtaposition of callousness and extreme sensitivity” (Schlink 89) that Michael truly loves Hanna albeit being seduced by her. Although this is true, Michael’s guilt for having loved Hanna is a factor which is parallel to his love for her, which reveals Michael’s state of cognitive dissonance. Michael is in a predicament where he must choose either to forgive himself for having fallen for Hanna or not, as he believes that “[he] was tormented by the old questions of whether [he] had denied and betrayed her, whether [he] owed her something, whether [he] was responsible for her death.” (Schlink 216). In this soliloquy, Michael feels guilty for being involved with Hanna, he feels the guilt of his relationship with Hanna after Hanna hangs herself. This guilt overwhelms Michael, in which he feels his cognitive dissonance, by the fact that “[he] was still guilty. And if [he] was not guilty because one cannot be guilty of betraying a criminal, then [he] was guilty of having loved a criminal.” (Schlink 137). This is a reason for Michael’s guilt, which is contradictory to
He is in a state of whether he should forgive himself for loving Hanna or not. This love he feels for Hanna is largely sexually, as he mentions “It took a while before my body stopped yearning for hers; sometimes I myself was aware of my arms and legs groping for her in my sleep, and… I had called out ‘Hanna’ in the night.” (Schlink 87). Although, Michael feels as if he is truly in love with Hanna through his heartbrokenness, as he chooses to “never again… love anyone whom it would hurt to lose” (Schlink 88) and that “the smallest gesture of affection would bring a lump to [his] throat, whether directed to [him] or at someone else. Sometimes all it took was a scene in a movie.” (Schlink 89). It is explained in this “juxtaposition of callousness and extreme sensitivity” (Schlink 89) that Michael truly loves Hanna albeit being seduced by her. Although this is true, Michael’s guilt for having loved Hanna is a factor which is parallel to his love for her, which reveals Michael’s state of cognitive dissonance. Michael is in a predicament where he must choose either to forgive himself for having fallen for Hanna or not, as he believes that “[he] was tormented by the old questions of whether [he] had denied and betrayed her, whether [he] owed her something, whether [he] was responsible for her death.” (Schlink 216). In this soliloquy, Michael feels guilty for being involved with Hanna, he feels the guilt of his relationship with Hanna after Hanna hangs herself. This guilt overwhelms Michael, in which he feels his cognitive dissonance, by the fact that “[he] was still guilty. And if [he] was not guilty because one cannot be guilty of betraying a criminal, then [he] was guilty of having loved a criminal.” (Schlink 137). This is a reason for Michael’s guilt, which is contradictory to