the duty of care - BtVS

[avrelia]

In honour of the birthday of a wonderful azdak, I finished writing up my thought that she inspired once.

here it is:



I started thinking about morality in Buffyverse, after the post azdak made some time ago , and it lead me to some interesting ideas that I would like to share with you here. I seem not to be able to make a systematized and well-reasoned essay out of it, but I’ll try my best to present the jumble of my thoughts to you.

The question I started with was: How much do we care? How much should we?

Then I went back and decided to see what Buffy does, what are her duties, and how she performs them.

The initial premise of the series is that there is our human world that is always on a brink of destruction from the demons that would love to claim this world back, if not for a girl. One girl in the world that stands in the way of the forces of darkness.

Thinking about the world where metaphors are changing into real things, and things into metaphors I keep stumbling into realization that it just doesn’t work on all possible levels, and you know what? It is fine by me. I have enough levels to play with.

Still, one girl in the whole world? We are damn lucky that everyone who wants to end the world come to do so in California, and not in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Vologda, Russia; Trondheim, Norway; or even New York.

But this is whole another can of worms, and I am not going to touch it any more as not to destroy the fragile logic of the Buffyverse.

If we accept the initial premise of this universe: the slayer’s duty is to protect the human world from the demons, and we can see that the job description never tells to kill all demons – it is plainly impossible, especially given the concept of multiple dimensions many demons can travel at will, then the question arises: whom the vampire slayer must kill?

My answer is: those who threaten human world at whole or are actively killing humans.

She is there to stop immediate threats. Buffy kills to prevent the badness, not to punish for it.

Having to kill thing on a regular basis, Buffy always has to make this choice – must she slay this particular demon now or let it go?

People blame Buffy for not accepting gray, and operating in the black and white world. I can't agree with it. Buffy doesn't life in the black and white world, and she doesn't believe it's possible. Yes, sometimes she may yearn for it, to simplify her life, but aren't we all dream of impossible things?

Yet there is a division in her mind – a certain border that gives an opportunity for such perception. (as we are looking from her POV, it may influence the perception of the Universe)

Is it a division between good and bad? I don't think so. I believe the real division is to kill or not to kill.

Buffy is the law – not because she is making it, but because she has to draw the line beyond which the staking starts.

I am looking for a pattern here - whom Buffy didn't kill - humans, no matter what humans do (she is there to protect the human world,) Clem and other random demons in demon bars, Spike, Harmony, Anya (after Hell's Bells to Selfless.)

Harmony is so ineffective as a vampire that her potential danger is minimal. Once again I am operating on the premise that Buffy’s goal not to eliminate all vampires, but to eliminate the most dangerous threats from the demon world for the human society, as well as to stop any impending apocalypse.

So, Harmony gets a pass. Most fledglings are not, however, as I believe that their potential danger is unknown, but to catch and stake them at the moment of the raising is much easier than to wait and appraise the risk.

Now, if a vampire has a good sense to stay away from Sunnydale, he can last.

Spike doesn’t have this kind of good sense, but he keeps surviving his meetings with Slayer, and not because he has superior fighting skills – after all, this Slayer also survives their fights.

In the seasons 2-4, when they are actively trying to kill each other, most of the battles end with Spike running away, and Buffy not chasing him.

Then, Spike gets a chip that effectively prevents him from hurting humans physically – which eliminates Spike’s threat to human society. No, he is still evil, and he hates or despises humans, but he is not hurting them. true, he could have done something without resorting to violence – and Angelus or Dru would have done it, but Spike is here not for causing pain, but for blood and mayhem, and the thrill of hunt. Not killing humans = no fun, he would better kill something, even when it means helping Buffy kill demons.

I believe Buffy was justified in her decision not kill Spike. Only in Sleeper, when she saw that neither chip nor soul hadn’t prevented Spike from killing, she seriously considered staking him for good. Until she realized that there was no Spike’s will in those killings.

As a threat he is neutralized. He could make significant mischief and troubles, but how much did he actually do for all those years he was hanging around in Sunnydale? I am not saying that he is fluffy and nice law–abiding vampire: he is not; I am not saying he didn’t do anything wrong: he did, but I believe that in letting Spike be amounted to an infinitesimal danger for the human society.

Anya, as a vengeance demon. Buffy wouldn’t kill her as a human – she doesn’t kill humans, and she doesn’t kill as a punishment. Buffy doesn’t kill her when Anya becomes a demon again – and yes, there probably is some goodwill extended to her, because she is a friend, but the thing is, Anya didn’t kill anyone – until the dorm massacre. We know it from Halfrek admonishing Anya, but we can guess that Buffy doesn’t kill her exactly because she doesn’t hear anything about her – and they all know that her work tends to be spectacular.

Buffy has some hope that Anya doesn’t do anything terrible, but she is suspicious – the goodwill notwithstanding, and when Buffy learns about deaths in the dorm, she has proof that Anya has stepped over the line of the potential danger Buffy has in mind. Anya has never been too shy about her vengeance-wish practices, so Buffy could be sure when Anya works in her full strength, there were going to be lots of gruesome deaths, which she couldn’t allow.

As to the random demons in Sunnydale, including Clem, how many times Buffy uses the demon bar as the source of information to the threat ahead, without killing all the patron there? All the time. She does save occasional kittens from being eaten, but she doesn’t care about kittens too much to the demons who eat them.

It is my opinion that many demons in Sunnydale appreciate having a low profile and a good standing in the eyes of the resident Slayer.

In Help she reminds us her modus operandi:

"Vampire by vampire. That's the only way I know how."

And it strikes me how right she is – she has to make that choice every single time and it is only possible when operating on one by one basis. It is also a root for a well-known aversion to using firearms. Firearms, namely modern firearms (as opposed to muskets, for example) are weapons of mass destruction. They would allow to kill demons and vampires in mass, and eliminate the possibility to decide every single time – to kill or not.

Am I on to something here?

Killing things is the means to achieve the goal. The goal is saving people. Let’s see how Buffy is going about it.

As much as she would want to, she cannot save everyone – it is as impossible as to kill all demons and create the world peace. She does try – every single time up to the end of seasons 7 – sometimes she manages to save the random person and always the world, but is she doing enough?

Does she care enough?

Buffy doesn’t let the vengeful ghosts in Lessons to beat her into the guilt over not saving them, she cries four episodes later for not being able to save Cassie, but ultimately her closest family and friends are always her first priority. Is it so bad?

I consider the BtVS and its character to be a mirror of some sorts. I look into them, and I see myself. Sometimes I cheer, sometimes I am horrified and promise to behave better – but I recognize myself there. Buffy is not a shiny example I should look up to, Buffy is a mirror where I recognize my best and worst.

I care about my family and friends slightly more that about the random people in Thailand. I should care equally, I know, but I haven’t reached that level yet. Am I completely worthless person because of it?

Buffy saves the world every day. She tries to help every single time. What duty of care she own to you, every single person in Sunnydale?

She will save the world from falling apart and turning into a hell, she will give her own life to do it; she will save you when she see you falling prey to a vampire or some mean demons…

But when she doesn’t see you? Stop waiting, don’t expect her to be your personal bodyguard, don’t close your eyes: open up your eyes, stand up and self yourself and those you love.

You have a duty of care, too. So do I. So we all.

And this is one of the lessons I took from the season 7 of BtVS.

If everyone cares, the world is covered, right?

Comments

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

good thoughts, right there. thank you.

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

My train of thought that started from "how Buffy is the law?" ;)

So glad you like it.

[ascian3.livejournal.com]

And this is one of the lessons I took from the season 7 of BtVS.

If everyone cares, the world is covered, right?

I like this - it's very close to my own interpretation of morality in the Buffyverse (which, like yours, has to do with the way that loving and protecting individuals extends by association to the rest of the world), and also to my own personal morality.

(There's a point at which I can't untangle my own view of morality from the years of musing over the same issue in the Buffyverse, and I can no longer remember which one came first. I don't know whether to be disturbed by this or impressed. Like you, though, I see Buffy herself as a mirror more than a model.)

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

There's a point at which I can't untangle my own view of morality from the years of musing over the same issue in the Buffyverse, and I can no longer remember which one came first.

By now I also don't remember how I thought about it pre-Buffy. It seems that I pick up examples from the series thinking on every possible topic. ;)

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Hi, and thank you for such a wonderfully thought provoking post.


She is there to stop immediate threats. Buffy kills to prevent the badness, not to punish for it.

I’ve never been able to stomach the idea that she should kill monsters just “because they’re evil.”


I am looking for a pattern here - whom Buffy didn't kill - humans, no matter what humans do (she is there to protect the human world,) Clem and other random demons in demon bars, Spike, Harmony, Anya (after Hell's Bells to Selfless.)

She also doesn’t kill the two shempy vamps in Crush who run away. And when she finally decides to stake Riley’s junkie vampiress in ITW it seems to be a departure from her duty that Xander is rightly shocked by.


It is my opinion that many demons in Sunnydale appreciate having a low profile and a good standing in the eyes of the resident Slayer.

And beyond Sunnydale, the Slayer is the thing monsters are afraid of, that demons warn their little spawn (like young Spike) about? Maybe letting the scaredy runaways runway means they get to spread the word about what an unbeatable force she is. It’s all about publicity.


Buffy doesn’t let the vengeful ghosts in Lessons to beat her into the guilt over not saving them, she cries four episodes later for not being able to save Cassie, but ultimately her closest family and friends are always her first priority.

I thought her grief over Cassie, who she tried to save but couldn’t, and the implication that cases like this were always going to be a part of Buffy’s job, was an important part of the S7 theme that in accepting the traditional one Hero story we place an intolerable burden on the Hero. And hence as you so rightly put it:-

You have a duty of care, too. So do I. So we all.

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

Hi! and welcome!

I’ve never been able to stomach the idea that she should kill monsters just “because they’re evil.”

Neither have I, but I noticed so many instances of not-killing, so it got me thinking of a pattern here.

It’s all about publicity.

That's a good point. Demons are afraid of the Slayer, and a lot of them prefer to co-exist wiht the humans.

[elisi]

This is very good! Thank you for posting, you made me think! :)

I especially loved this bit:
Thinking about the world where metaphors are changing into real things, and things into metaphors I keep stumbling into realization that it just doesn’t work on all possible levels, and you know what? It is fine by me. I have enough levels to play with.

But the one thing that (for some reason) made me ponder, was this:
Still, one girl in the whole world? We are damn lucky that everyone who wants to end the world come to do so in California, and not in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Vologda, Russia; Trondheim, Norway; or even New York.
But this is whole another can of worms, and I am not going to touch it any more as not to destroy the fragile logic of the Buffyverse.
And well - I think I have a thing for worms. This is what I came up with:
When Buffy started, she was very much 'the one and only', but as it went on (and Angel got his own show) the whole thing got bigger and more complex. I think watchers are probably fighting 'The good fight' all over the world, but they're only human, and the Slayer is their main tool. I think that's the thing - the Slayer is the chosen protector of the human race - she's made created by humans for humans. But once we get to Angel, it all gets more complicated. Angel is chosen as a champion by the Powers, and as we can see from Whistler and Doyle, they obviously have plenty of people working for them. Also there seems to be plenty of Champions around (from 'Happy Anniversary'):

Angel:  "Why'd you come to me?"
Host:  "Isn't it obvious?  You're a champion.  A unique force for good in a troubled world. - Also, all the other champions I know are currently out of town or - dead.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there, but I'm trying to find some logic here. ;)

She is there to stop immediate threats. Buffy kills to prevent the badness, not to punish for it.
Yes! That's it!

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

I didn't go deep into the Angelverse, since I am not that familiar with it (s4,5, and I am currently in between IWRY and hero), but the whole point of Buffy's story was that she is all alone, so, yeah, there are random people and champions who hold this sorry world together, but The Slayer is The Only one.

See? can of worms. I like it. ;)

[elisi]

there are random people and champions who hold this sorry world together, but The Slayer is The Only one.

That's it. These champions never show up wanting to help her... the only times she ever gets outside help is when Kendra shows up at the end of S2 with that sword and in S7 when Angel brings the amulet. But Kendra is a Slayer too, and Angel is effectively sent by W&H. So yeah, alone!

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Bounced in through FriendsFriends. Very good thoughts. One of the counter-arguments regarding Buffy's morality, and her moral quality, is not staking Angel in S2. But to me, this isn't really so much a question of Morality as Willpower which is not always exactly the same thing. Buffy knows Angel is killing people, knows she's let him escape when she could have possibly killed him.

But it doesn't mean she believes it's okay. Sometimes, she knows what she should do, but simply can't bring herself to do it. It's a human failing that doesn't destroy the morality. Although the net result is the same for people he kills. But it's a lesson Buffy carries with her... failure, whether through poor moral choice or lack of willpower to carry out the "right" choice, can lead to people getting killed. So she's operating in a high stakes environment.

Which, I think, is part of her growing problem as the season goes on. Having to make those choices on a daily basis for many years is very wearying.

You have a duty of care, too. So do I. So we all.
And this is one of the lessons I took from the season 7 of BtVS.
If everyone cares, the world is covered, right?

As a sidenote, I've worked in various public service capacities for the past decade. That's the idea behind democracy. The key component also being doing enough to help make sure folks have the opportunity to affect the world according to how they care. In which Buffy's role inspiring and coalescing a group of folks to aid the fight winds up being nearly as important as her own efforts fighting. If you look at "Anne" on BtVS and AtS, it would almost seem that could be more far reaching. If not for all the apocalypses averted.

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

this isn't really so much a question of Morality as Willpower which is not always exactly the same thing.


Yes, I didn’t include Angel here, because in his case the formula didn’t fit exactly. Buffy didn’t kill him for other reasons, and I think she felt responsible for every person he killed during that time. still, when she does the right thing and kills him, it breaks her more than her own death.

Which, I think, is part of her growing problem as the season goes on. Having to make those choices on a daily basis for many years is very wearying.

I cannot agree more.

Glad that you stopped by!

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

And the thing is... if Buffy could have just cooly staked Angel because it was the right thing to do...without really agonizing over it... that would have been rather unsettling in it's own way.

But for her to have to know that she might potentially have to kill anybody... and not because it's empowering or exciting or fun, but because if she doesn't people she doesn't know might not have a future. That's heavy.

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

And the fact that slaying and fighting is not only heavy but necessary
activity, but also is exciting is distinctly uncomfortable for her as
well. Hence Buffy's constantly trying to distinguish a slayer and a
killer in herself, hence the "superiority-inferiority" complex she
admits.

[spacedoutlooney.livejournal.com]

Nice Essay. Covers a lot of the thoughts I've had for quite some time. I have this wish to direct everyone who thinks that the Scoobies not staking Spike over the years was merely a plot contrivance to your post. It seems to me like the show was making a pretty clear statement (in contrast to everything else they like to be vague about) against capital punishment. Criminals should be rehabilitated and reformed, not punished, and vengeance seems to be the Ultimate Evil.

I think Buffy's duty was to be the Guardian of the Hellmouth, since the Hellmouth attracts demons and seems to be a primo spot for people who want to destroy the world. Even in the pilot Giles says something to Buffy like "there's a reason why you've been called here and now." Like whatever force activates each Slayer has some kind of unknown rhyme or reason to it.

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the delayed answer; I am very glad you find these thoughts have a merit. I started thinking on it after reading so many times "Why Spike wasn't killed?" "Why Buffy wanted to kill Anya in Selfless?" I felt that Buffy isn't random - she takes her duty damn seriously, but she always allowas for change, too.

Like whatever force activates each Slayer has some kind of unknown rhyme or reason to it.

I'd like to think there is a reason, too. It is unclear from the series, but I don't mind it.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Here via su_herald. You've given me lots to think of, both in terms of the Buffyverse and in terms of my original fiction.

Thanks

Gina

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's such a cool compliment! I am glad you found something useful here, thanks!

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

If everyone cares, the world is covered, right?

You're so right.
I never fail to be shocked at how often I hear about a person being killed or abducted on a crowded street, not even at gunpoint, just by a single person or small unarmed group. How do these people live with themselves?

[avrelia.livejournal.com]

They don’t think about anything beyond themselves? ::mindboggles::