Sri Lanka is an island nation in South Asia plagued by the vestiges of colonialism, specifically ethnic conflict resulting from "unequal distribution" of wealth and power during colonization. Sri Lanka was colonized by both Portugal and the Netherlands, but Britain gained control in 1815. British colonization of Sri Lanka lasted until 1948. Over 50 years later, ethnic conflict directly related to British colonization has claimed the lives of 64,000 in civil war and displaced one million (Marker and BBC News).
Under colonial rule, Tamils were given priority access to higher education because they spoke and wrote English more proficiently than the Sinhalese ethnic group. Because the Tamils had better access to education, they held more government positions and jobs than the Sinhalese. After Sri Lanka gained independence, the minority Tamils could no longer maintain their power without the British policies that had previously enabled it. The Sinhalese rebelled against over a hundred years of inequality by reversing the discrimination and changing the nation’s university admission policy, which gave them priviliged access. “Today, as the admission policy to higher education is more equitable than in the past, the animosity created by first, colonial, and then post-colonial policies that promoted unequal access to education and thus, jobs, continues to breed distrust and conflict in the region” (Marker). The Tamils and the government of Sri Lanka are engaged in an ongoing civil war.
According to the World Bank, Sri Lanka is “one of the world’s most politically unstable countries.” A BBC news article updated on March 6, 2008 reports that the Human Rights Watch calls Sri Lanka’s government, “one of the world’s worst perpetrators of enforced disappearances.” Aside from resulting in death, homelessness, and other abuses, the ethnic conflict also effects foreign aid from other countries. According to BBC News, "The conflict has also had a disastrous impact on reconstruction efforts after the December 2004 Asian tsunami with the distribution of international aid hampered by the fighting."
Sri Lanka's slow economic growth and humanitarian crisis are direct vestiges of British colonialism.
Sources: Marker, Sandra. "Effects of Colonization" 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/post-colonial/?nid=1046
"Sri Lanka Rapped Over Disappeared" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7280050.stm
"Quick Guide: Sri Lanka" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6065646.stm
"Unstable Politics Hurt Sri Lanka Investment-Lenders"
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTPROGRAMS/EXTTRADERESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20560525~menuPK:215762~pagePK:210083~piPK:152538~theSitePK:544849,00.html
Monday, March 31, 2008
3.31.08
Our discussion today was interesting, and I think the question of the author/work conflation is going to return, but I think too we'll need to speak more about the specific problems of the post-colonial situation, and hopefully Michelle's presentation and the blog assignment below will help with that. While Achebe certainly calls Conrad racist, he's probably more concerned with the relationship between the west and the once-colonies of the world.
For Wednesday, read the excerpt from Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism found on page 369 in your book, and think about it in relationship to our discussion on Heart of Darkness thus far. Also read bell hooks 'Postmodern Blackness' which begins a few pages earlier.
Finally, for the response, let's try something a bit different: we spoke of real world examples of the 'vestiges of colonialism.' Do a little bit of research on a colony (almost every country has been a colony at some point--including the U.S. for both the early Americans and arguably the Native Americans) and try to understand how those vestiges might manifest themselves. That is, what problems does that ex-colony have to deal with which are the direct or indirect result of the past colonization? I don't expect you to be able to come up with this on your own: I expect a summarization of some minor research into the topic. Try not to use wikkipedia or any other encyclopedia-style source, however. Try for more relevant sources--if not scholarly at least contemporary (newspapers, etc.) Summarize what you find in 250-400 words (keep it short and to the point). Quote and cite as needed.
For Wednesday, read the excerpt from Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism found on page 369 in your book, and think about it in relationship to our discussion on Heart of Darkness thus far. Also read bell hooks 'Postmodern Blackness' which begins a few pages earlier.
Finally, for the response, let's try something a bit different: we spoke of real world examples of the 'vestiges of colonialism.' Do a little bit of research on a colony (almost every country has been a colony at some point--including the U.S. for both the early Americans and arguably the Native Americans) and try to understand how those vestiges might manifest themselves. That is, what problems does that ex-colony have to deal with which are the direct or indirect result of the past colonization? I don't expect you to be able to come up with this on your own: I expect a summarization of some minor research into the topic. Try not to use wikkipedia or any other encyclopedia-style source, however. Try for more relevant sources--if not scholarly at least contemporary (newspapers, etc.) Summarize what you find in 250-400 words (keep it short and to the point). Quote and cite as needed.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Is He Racist??
In my opinion from reading the story Heart of Darkness, by Conrad, I might have to say that Conrad can be considered racist in my book. One thing that upsets me about Conrad is that he refers to black people as “savages”, this is why I feel he is racist. People do not refer to humans as “savages”, animals are better known to be called savages. The story might state that Conrad is careful with his words, but that is really not so, because I feel he says things with out thinking, or without any care in the world. “The thought of their humanity like yours ugly”, When saying this Conrad is referring to black people once again. Conrad feels that all blacks are considered to be ugly, and that indeed is completely wrong. Conrad is considered to be “a bloody racist”, and indeed, while reading this story one will see that he lives up to this title. Conrad describes a black man as being “strings of dusty niggers with splay feet”. These descriptions of the way Conrad views black people, are all descriptions that would lead me, or any other reader to feel that Conrad is a nasty racist. He’s a person who describes people to be something they are totally not. He talks about people with out knowing them, and with out any type of care in the world. So if you did ask me if Conrad was a racist, I would definitely respond YES, I do feel that Conrad is “a bloody racist”.
the significance of ones words
Ironically, although it may seem that Conrad is a “bloody racist” in fact he is not. Conrad is describing in full detail what he encountered. However there are reasons for why one may think he is a racist. For example, Conrad mentions “Black shapes crouched lay, sat between the trees leaning against the trunks, slinging to the earth, half coming out, half effased within the dim light, in all the attitudes of pain.” As a result of Conrad’s choice of words, and the lack of identifying the “Black shapes” as men, is one factor that may lead one to believe that Conrad is a racist. “…the work was going on. The work! And this was the place where some of the helpers had withdrawn to die.” This quote gives the impression that Conrad was waiting for the Africans to die. Although Conrad is not a “bloody racist” another reason for why he appears to be one is because of his description, “They were dying slowly- it was very clear . They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- nothing but black shadow of disease and starvation…” This portrayal removes the Africans humanity . Conrad mentions they are “Black shadows of disease and starvation”. As inhumane as it may seem, Conrad gives the reader factual information, “brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in incon- genial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened…” This was an unpleasant period for the Africans. There are no inoffensive words that could describe their circumstances. The Africans physical, and mental state could have accurately described as “black shadows, shapes, and bones.” One may answer no, Conrad is not a racist for using those terms. His method allowed one to paint a clear image in their mind. As a result of Conrad referring to the Africans by their skin color, it is easy to assume that he represents a racist. Conrad also calls the Africans “creatures”, when he describes how one attempted to rise to his hands, and knees, on all fours, to get a drink from the river. Again, this explanation does not mean that Conrad is a racist, yet it leads one to think he is. As a result of the Africans mistreatment , and loss of humanity, they were looked upon as animals. As “creatures”, that had no authority. Conrad is basically giving light to the truth which had been verbally untold.
Racist?!?!?!?
After reading “Heart of Darkness,” by Conrad. I can’t help but to agree with Achebe’s theory that Conrad is a bloody racist. When he’s referring a white person he seems to talk about them like there a god, “He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.” This is talking about an accountant that he meet. He was amazed with how good he looked despite the limited resources to do so. It’s funny how he thought everything about this man was so great, including the penholder behind his ear. But than when he encounters a black man his description is completely opposite, “Strings of dusty niggers with splay feet arrived and departed.” He also than goes on to describe a black man that he sees, “While I stood horror- struck, one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all-fours towards the river to drink. He doesn’t even describe him as a person, he degrades him to a creature. Conrad is an extraordinary writer, and you almost look over the racist remarks, due to the way he writes. But he defiantly does degrade African Americans. He makes them out to be less than human, and seems as though he can’t understand their ways like when he describes the young black boy with a white thing tied around his, he couldn’t understand why it was tied there, he thought he had to be for some unknown reason, it couldn’t be that he just liked it. He makes white people out to be the grandest of grand. He, without question, is a racist.
Misplaced Blame
I find the Adam Sandler “Hannukah Song” offensive. It belittles what is a significant Jewish historical event. However, any song that annually is so enormously popular, is undeniably art. Perhaps not exactly comparable, I will nevertheless attempt the leap. Certainly, the obviously stereotypical, racism in Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” is offensive, even so, the offensive can still be appreciated for art. And there is much to appreciate in Conrad’s short novel.
The claims to Conrad’s racism, his being a “thoroughgoing racist” as Chinua Achebe famoulsy argued, are not baseless. Marlow, the exploring protagonist of “Heart of Darkness”, describes the Africans he encounters; “these were strong lusty, red-eyed devils” (2) he does not afford them even the pronoun ‘they’. Marlow hears from their mouths “uncouth sounds” (4). The land of Africa is itself viewed as “primeval” “dark” “chaos”, an “Inferno” even, among other uncomplimentary adjectives.
Chinua Achebe, in his objections to “Heart of Darkness”, preempts many of my own thoughts as to how Conrad’s novella is not xenophobic. However, I think Achebe dismisses them too quickly and gives Conrad too much credit for the perpetuation of racist ideology. To begin with, the frames through which this story is told; Marlow repeating a personal experience, which is then being retold by a fellow sailor on a different ship and years later, are significant. The anonymous sailor emerges intermittently throughout Marlow’s storytelling, “For a long time already he [Marlow], sitting apart, had been no more to us than a voice.” (10) There is an enormous separation established then, between Marlow and Conrad, even between Marlow and his audience (both the narrative sailors and present day readership). Kept at a distance we can be objective and hear “no more… than a voice”. On reading the proliferation of derogatory pronouncements against the Africans, Conrad is not considered a credible African observer. The reader does not turn to the novel as a travel book or a sociological study of the African people. The book is appreciated for its literary merit.
Furthermore, Joseph Conrad was a product of the rampant colonialist mentality, pervasive in Europe. White was good, black was associated with evil (the devil was traditionally depicted as black). Europe was the progressive, civilized, “so remote from the night of first ages”, the center of the world (16). This sentiment was steeped into the mindset of the European (the strength of nurture!) and therefore “Heart of Darkness” makes innumerable references to civilization in contrast to African wilderness. For this reason, the only African man that Marlow befriends is one he calls “an improved specimen… useful because he had been instructed” (16). The African was making strides towards Europeanization and being civilized, therefore, was tolerated by Marlow. This was a flawed “Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe”, as Achebe labels it. It however, was certainly not created by Conrad. Nor, was it the source of the ignorance that plagued Achebe’s contemporaries.
Although I find them objectionable, I do not blame Conrad for the sentiments espoused in his novel. I am also not ready to cast aside his novel. It should continue to be taught in universities, but perhaps (as was done in my high school) taught along with Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart”. Maybe even, in conjunction with a history class on colonialism. It should be understood in its context and not used as a lesson in anthropological studies of the African people.
The claims to Conrad’s racism, his being a “thoroughgoing racist” as Chinua Achebe famoulsy argued, are not baseless. Marlow, the exploring protagonist of “Heart of Darkness”, describes the Africans he encounters; “these were strong lusty, red-eyed devils” (2) he does not afford them even the pronoun ‘they’. Marlow hears from their mouths “uncouth sounds” (4). The land of Africa is itself viewed as “primeval” “dark” “chaos”, an “Inferno” even, among other uncomplimentary adjectives.
Chinua Achebe, in his objections to “Heart of Darkness”, preempts many of my own thoughts as to how Conrad’s novella is not xenophobic. However, I think Achebe dismisses them too quickly and gives Conrad too much credit for the perpetuation of racist ideology. To begin with, the frames through which this story is told; Marlow repeating a personal experience, which is then being retold by a fellow sailor on a different ship and years later, are significant. The anonymous sailor emerges intermittently throughout Marlow’s storytelling, “For a long time already he [Marlow], sitting apart, had been no more to us than a voice.” (10) There is an enormous separation established then, between Marlow and Conrad, even between Marlow and his audience (both the narrative sailors and present day readership). Kept at a distance we can be objective and hear “no more… than a voice”. On reading the proliferation of derogatory pronouncements against the Africans, Conrad is not considered a credible African observer. The reader does not turn to the novel as a travel book or a sociological study of the African people. The book is appreciated for its literary merit.
Furthermore, Joseph Conrad was a product of the rampant colonialist mentality, pervasive in Europe. White was good, black was associated with evil (the devil was traditionally depicted as black). Europe was the progressive, civilized, “so remote from the night of first ages”, the center of the world (16). This sentiment was steeped into the mindset of the European (the strength of nurture!) and therefore “Heart of Darkness” makes innumerable references to civilization in contrast to African wilderness. For this reason, the only African man that Marlow befriends is one he calls “an improved specimen… useful because he had been instructed” (16). The African was making strides towards Europeanization and being civilized, therefore, was tolerated by Marlow. This was a flawed “Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe”, as Achebe labels it. It however, was certainly not created by Conrad. Nor, was it the source of the ignorance that plagued Achebe’s contemporaries.
Although I find them objectionable, I do not blame Conrad for the sentiments espoused in his novel. I am also not ready to cast aside his novel. It should continue to be taught in universities, but perhaps (as was done in my high school) taught along with Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart”. Maybe even, in conjunction with a history class on colonialism. It should be understood in its context and not used as a lesson in anthropological studies of the African people.
Confusion and Questions with Little to No Answers from Gerard Van Leuvan
There are a few questions I had to ask myself before I get to whether or not I believe Conrad is a "bloody racist." First, does the zeitgeist, the time, the era, and society's way of thinking have value in determining whether or not something is considered racist? Heart of Darkness was published a heck of a long time ago (1899), surely started to be written some time before that by a writer who was born and raised years prior to that even. So, does that give Conrad an excuse, if indeed I do find Heart of Darkness racist? Which, leads me to the question of whether or not it is fair to connect the author directly to the text. Namely, if Heart of Darkness is a racist text (again, if your of the opinion that it is racist) is Conrad himself then considered racist? Guilty by association?
I am of the opinion that connecting an author to a text is dangerous and unfair, but there is certainly a thin line. Whoever wrote it obviously thought it, which makes it hard to determine where the author and his words start and end. With this in mind, I think Darkness is "bloody racist," but I won't go as far as to say Conrad himself is the same. The problem that I have with my own assessment is that I never read Darkness in its entirety. I think with a longer look at the work I could have a more confident opinion on the subject.
Next, I see the problem in thinking about "the way of the times" as an excuse for racism, but it surely does have an influence. I think there is an argument for and against the idea that humanity has progressed over time: either we have "advanced" socially and no longer think as racist so a) Conrad has a built in excuse or, b) that means it always has been racism, we just weren't fully understanding of it yet. I think the zeitgeist plays a big role, especially in this case, but doesn't sway me away from the concrete nature of right and wrong concerning concepts like racism (at least not with Darkness specifically).
I watched a movie about the Civil War in a film class that contextually was one of the most racist things I'd ever seen. Basically, the KKK were the heroes of the film. But, artistically, the cinematic elements introduced were vital to the progression of film, and absolutely relevant to the class. The teacher asked us to write an essay that asked whether or not we as students felt the film should even be allowed to be shown anymore. Similar to Darkness, I believe that for "art's sake" both the film (which title I can't recall) and Darkness should be taken as works and context separately, exposing the subject matter, but not in relation to the writing (or cinematic element, etc.).
All this being said, you can't ignore Achebe's point of view, opinion, and disgust.
"Having shown us Africa in the mass, Conrad then zeros in, half a page later, on a specific example, giving us one of his rare descriptions of an African who is not just limbs or rolling eyes: And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed his teeth too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge.
As everybody knows, Conrad is a romantic on the side. He might not exactly admire savages clapping their hands and stamping their feet but they have at least the merit of being in their place, unlike this dog in a parody of breeches. For Conrad things being in their place is of the utmost importance. "Fine fellows -- cannibals --in their place," he tells us pointedly.
There isn't much argument I can make (not that I'm inclined to) against the line, "Fine fellows -- cannibals -- in their place" being racist. What is the biggest problem I probably have is whether or not it is fair to pin a line like that directly to Conrad.
I am of the opinion that connecting an author to a text is dangerous and unfair, but there is certainly a thin line. Whoever wrote it obviously thought it, which makes it hard to determine where the author and his words start and end. With this in mind, I think Darkness is "bloody racist," but I won't go as far as to say Conrad himself is the same. The problem that I have with my own assessment is that I never read Darkness in its entirety. I think with a longer look at the work I could have a more confident opinion on the subject.
Next, I see the problem in thinking about "the way of the times" as an excuse for racism, but it surely does have an influence. I think there is an argument for and against the idea that humanity has progressed over time: either we have "advanced" socially and no longer think as racist so a) Conrad has a built in excuse or, b) that means it always has been racism, we just weren't fully understanding of it yet. I think the zeitgeist plays a big role, especially in this case, but doesn't sway me away from the concrete nature of right and wrong concerning concepts like racism (at least not with Darkness specifically).
I watched a movie about the Civil War in a film class that contextually was one of the most racist things I'd ever seen. Basically, the KKK were the heroes of the film. But, artistically, the cinematic elements introduced were vital to the progression of film, and absolutely relevant to the class. The teacher asked us to write an essay that asked whether or not we as students felt the film should even be allowed to be shown anymore. Similar to Darkness, I believe that for "art's sake" both the film (which title I can't recall) and Darkness should be taken as works and context separately, exposing the subject matter, but not in relation to the writing (or cinematic element, etc.).
All this being said, you can't ignore Achebe's point of view, opinion, and disgust.
"Having shown us Africa in the mass, Conrad then zeros in, half a page later, on a specific example, giving us one of his rare descriptions of an African who is not just limbs or rolling eyes: And between whiles I had to look after the savage who was fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap. He squinted at the steam-gauge and at the water-gauge with an evident effort of intrepidity -- and he had filed his teeth too, the poor devil, and the wool of his pate shaved into queer patterns, and three ornamental scars on each of his cheeks. He ought to have been clapping his hands and stamping his feet on the bank, instead of which he was hard at work, a thrall to strange witchcraft, full of improving knowledge.
As everybody knows, Conrad is a romantic on the side. He might not exactly admire savages clapping their hands and stamping their feet but they have at least the merit of being in their place, unlike this dog in a parody of breeches. For Conrad things being in their place is of the utmost importance. "Fine fellows -- cannibals --in their place," he tells us pointedly.
There isn't much argument I can make (not that I'm inclined to) against the line, "Fine fellows -- cannibals -- in their place" being racist. What is the biggest problem I probably have is whether or not it is fair to pin a line like that directly to Conrad.
wonderfully racist?
Conrad’s novel, “Heart of Darkness” is undoubtedly one of the most beautifully written stories ever. However, I wonder, if, I was one of the reader who felt offended by this story, would this great piece of literature be as great as it was praised to be in my eyes? I wonder, also, as to what is more important here in terms of the definition of a great art. Is it the pure worth of art regardless of its theme and content, or is it more complex than that? Though it’s hard for me to come to a conclusion, I cannot deny that what Achebe stated in his article concerning Conrad’s novel is true. Even Achebe himself acknowledges that this novel is certainly a great piece of literature by saying, “I do not doubt Conrad's great talents. Even Heart of Darkness has its memorably good passages and moments…” however, he insists that as when a novel “celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race” cannot be called a great work of art. That Conrad was a racist no matter how his work has been described as “among the half dozen greatest short novels in the English language."
As Achebe himself said regarding the overall content of the book, “It was and is the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination…,” it isn’t difficult to point out as to which particular passages carried out this claim of his. As it was in, “A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms. . . .” and “What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly." Though however brief, the sense of fascination is mixed with that of dehumanization of black people here and also, though however notably recognized, it is just obvious to any readers of his book that Conrad’s writing has the racist sentiment.
I remember when a certain photograph was in controversy for its striking content. In it, there was a boy who was nearly starved to death and there around him was a bird, possibly a threatening kind, trying to literally eat him. Though the picture itself was regarded as one of the most fascinating one, people’s rage and anger toward the photographer’s action- that is, instead of saving that boy, he merely perceived that situation as a chance for him to take a picture-poured out, questioning the meaning for a great work of art.
It certainly has two sides, whether it’s of moral issue or of the artistic quality, in the question of art. Again, I still have a hard time drawing a borderline but I can say this, at least, that maybe, it comes down to who is dominant, in the field of literature, or in any, that can say what a great art work is and thus be valued as it is.
As Achebe himself said regarding the overall content of the book, “It was and is the dominant image of Africa in the Western imagination…,” it isn’t difficult to point out as to which particular passages carried out this claim of his. As it was in, “A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms. . . .” and “What thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours .... Ugly." Though however brief, the sense of fascination is mixed with that of dehumanization of black people here and also, though however notably recognized, it is just obvious to any readers of his book that Conrad’s writing has the racist sentiment.
I remember when a certain photograph was in controversy for its striking content. In it, there was a boy who was nearly starved to death and there around him was a bird, possibly a threatening kind, trying to literally eat him. Though the picture itself was regarded as one of the most fascinating one, people’s rage and anger toward the photographer’s action- that is, instead of saving that boy, he merely perceived that situation as a chance for him to take a picture-poured out, questioning the meaning for a great work of art.
It certainly has two sides, whether it’s of moral issue or of the artistic quality, in the question of art. Again, I still have a hard time drawing a borderline but I can say this, at least, that maybe, it comes down to who is dominant, in the field of literature, or in any, that can say what a great art work is and thus be valued as it is.
Is Conrad Racist?!?
I grew up in a very “racist” environment, many of my friends would say. However, I don’t think my family is racist. I just think that they were raised in an influential surrounding that thought them to believe that those “colored” people were different and not people we intermingle with.
Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” might seem to show that Conrad is racist, but he might also just be the influential mind set he was trying to portray for his character(s).
What I found odd was that black was just a color and it was attached to parts/objects and not frequently to a person. As I read about the chained up men, I realized here he actually said they were men. "Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots on a robe; each had an iron collar on his neck."
However, Conrad uses black to portray all of the other assets in the story. “black rags”, “black shapes crouched”, “black shadows”, “black bones”, “black neck”, “black moustaches”, “black figures”, “black creek”, “black display of confidence”, “whirl of black limbs”, and others throughout the story.
So is Conrad a racist? He could be, but who am I to judge him. I mean, personally I feel that aw a writer one might want to adjust ones own thoughts to his characters, and maybe he was trying to portray a racist. Maybe, he was just grown into that mindset, and to him, it’s not racism, but just neutrality.
Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” might seem to show that Conrad is racist, but he might also just be the influential mind set he was trying to portray for his character(s).
What I found odd was that black was just a color and it was attached to parts/objects and not frequently to a person. As I read about the chained up men, I realized here he actually said they were men. "Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots on a robe; each had an iron collar on his neck."
However, Conrad uses black to portray all of the other assets in the story. “black rags”, “black shapes crouched”, “black shadows”, “black bones”, “black neck”, “black moustaches”, “black figures”, “black creek”, “black display of confidence”, “whirl of black limbs”, and others throughout the story.
So is Conrad a racist? He could be, but who am I to judge him. I mean, personally I feel that aw a writer one might want to adjust ones own thoughts to his characters, and maybe he was trying to portray a racist. Maybe, he was just grown into that mindset, and to him, it’s not racism, but just neutrality.
heart
"Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees leaning against the trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effased within the dim light, in all the attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair." I have never read Heart Of Darkness but from the excerpt almost everytime a black person is mentioned the context is grim and dark. Unlike most people I dont think it is wrong to call someone black, we are called white all the time so I see no problem in that but there are verses like this. "Everything else in the station was in a muddle -- heads, things, buildings. Strings of dusty niggers with splay feet arrived and departed; a stream of manu- factured goods, rubbishy cottons, beads, and brass- wire set into the depths of darkness, and in return came a precious trickle of ivory." Passages like these are a little difficult to get around and they point out some blatant racist comments. But you have to realize that this novel was published in 1902 and for there not be any racist comments would make it unrealistic.
" For the Thames too "has been one of the dark places of the earth." It conquered its darkness, of course, and is now in daylight and at peace. But if it were to visit its primordial relative, the Congo, it would run the terrible risk of hearing grotesque echoes of its own forgotten darkness, and falling victim to an avenging recrudescence of the mindless frenzy of the first beginnings." I think this is his biggest strong point and the thing that I noticed the most. Conrad's choice words in describing the atmosphere and the people is always darker and not very uplifting in any sense and If Conrad is racist I think this is where you have to focus in to find the answer. The words are important but I think the way he describes it brings to focus his actual thoughts and emotions on the subject. And after reading Achebes article it is kind of hard not to see the racisim in the writing. I have never read the book but it is always talked about as being one of the best works so I don't think it should be not looked at if its writing style and story is a classic. It reminds me of that film "Birth of a Nation" It was so controversial but it was groundbreaking that you can not overlook it. It was one of the first films to use the technique of zooming in and it secured the feature length films in american cinema. Even though the context was horribly racist you can not overlook the impact of the film, just like in "A Heart of Darkness."
" For the Thames too "has been one of the dark places of the earth." It conquered its darkness, of course, and is now in daylight and at peace. But if it were to visit its primordial relative, the Congo, it would run the terrible risk of hearing grotesque echoes of its own forgotten darkness, and falling victim to an avenging recrudescence of the mindless frenzy of the first beginnings." I think this is his biggest strong point and the thing that I noticed the most. Conrad's choice words in describing the atmosphere and the people is always darker and not very uplifting in any sense and If Conrad is racist I think this is where you have to focus in to find the answer. The words are important but I think the way he describes it brings to focus his actual thoughts and emotions on the subject. And after reading Achebes article it is kind of hard not to see the racisim in the writing. I have never read the book but it is always talked about as being one of the best works so I don't think it should be not looked at if its writing style and story is a classic. It reminds me of that film "Birth of a Nation" It was so controversial but it was groundbreaking that you can not overlook it. It was one of the first films to use the technique of zooming in and it secured the feature length films in american cinema. Even though the context was horribly racist you can not overlook the impact of the film, just like in "A Heart of Darkness."
Conrad's Heart of Darkness
Joseph Conrad, while setting out to stick it to the imperialist man, shows how deep racism runs. His portrayal of the "savage" African natives, their culture (or lack thereof), and even speech establishes, if not his belief in the 'white man's burden,' a belief in white and European superiority.
While reading the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, I couldn't help but notice the frequency of the word 'black' as an adjective. However, it's very rarely black men, it's mostly black shapes, black limbs, black heads, etc. The few times any Africans are labeled as men, they are in a "proper" subjected status.
"Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots on a robe; each had an iron collar on his neck."
If they weren't slaves, Conrad's Africans were either "black shadows," that lay dying in the shade, or wholly uncivilized creatures that melted into the darkness of the jungle. The image of the Africans is also starkly contrasted to that of their white overlords. Marlow is impressed by the trading company's chief accountant's ability to dress well and, "in the great demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance." Just a few paragraphs earlier, Conrad describes the unkempt demeanor of "one of the reclaimed," a 'tamed' savage. "One of the reclaimed, the product of the new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by its middle. He had a uniform jacket with one button off."
Chinua Achebe describes Conrad's actual racism, and his untethered respect and admiration for the British (with ivory calves that could be made of marble). Conrad's attack on imperialism, in Achebe's opinion, just became a stone upon which imperialists could sharpen their swords. Additionally, Conrad's liberal ideals of an end to imperialism seem to be overshadowed by his covert statement that imperialism should end, not for the betterment of those who are dominated, but to protect the fine European minds from becoming engulfed by the darkness of the uncivilized continent.
Could one argue that Conrad is not a 'bloody racist'? I guess it's possible, although the evidence in his own writing and in Achebe's criticism certainly make it more difficult. Any possible defense I could think up has already been destroyed by Achebe's attack. The one thing that stuck me, however, was in the description of the Company's chief accountant, and his answer to Marlow of how he keeps his appearance so well. His response, "I've been teaching one of the native women about the station. It was difficult. She had a distaste for the work," to which Marlow narrates, "Thus this man had verily accomplished something." To me, this comeback seemed not like admiration for the accountant's efforts in breaking a wild soul, it seemed to be one more tack on the seat of imperialism. Again, however, Conrad's liberalism does not extend to equating himself with any Africans, and his goal of an age without imperialism isn't for as noble ideals as we would like to believe.
While reading the excerpt from Heart of Darkness, I couldn't help but notice the frequency of the word 'black' as an adjective. However, it's very rarely black men, it's mostly black shapes, black limbs, black heads, etc. The few times any Africans are labeled as men, they are in a "proper" subjected status.
"Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots on a robe; each had an iron collar on his neck."
If they weren't slaves, Conrad's Africans were either "black shadows," that lay dying in the shade, or wholly uncivilized creatures that melted into the darkness of the jungle. The image of the Africans is also starkly contrasted to that of their white overlords. Marlow is impressed by the trading company's chief accountant's ability to dress well and, "in the great demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance." Just a few paragraphs earlier, Conrad describes the unkempt demeanor of "one of the reclaimed," a 'tamed' savage. "One of the reclaimed, the product of the new forces at work, strolled despondently, carrying a rifle by its middle. He had a uniform jacket with one button off."
Chinua Achebe describes Conrad's actual racism, and his untethered respect and admiration for the British (with ivory calves that could be made of marble). Conrad's attack on imperialism, in Achebe's opinion, just became a stone upon which imperialists could sharpen their swords. Additionally, Conrad's liberal ideals of an end to imperialism seem to be overshadowed by his covert statement that imperialism should end, not for the betterment of those who are dominated, but to protect the fine European minds from becoming engulfed by the darkness of the uncivilized continent.
Could one argue that Conrad is not a 'bloody racist'? I guess it's possible, although the evidence in his own writing and in Achebe's criticism certainly make it more difficult. Any possible defense I could think up has already been destroyed by Achebe's attack. The one thing that stuck me, however, was in the description of the Company's chief accountant, and his answer to Marlow of how he keeps his appearance so well. His response, "I've been teaching one of the native women about the station. It was difficult. She had a distaste for the work," to which Marlow narrates, "Thus this man had verily accomplished something." To me, this comeback seemed not like admiration for the accountant's efforts in breaking a wild soul, it seemed to be one more tack on the seat of imperialism. Again, however, Conrad's liberalism does not extend to equating himself with any Africans, and his goal of an age without imperialism isn't for as noble ideals as we would like to believe.
Is Conrad a racist or not?
After reading the excerpt on “Heart of Darkness” I could see why Achebe would perceive Conrad as a racist. Conrad describes the natives in
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Arbitrary Hierarchy
Ideas of post-colonialism and how they have effected literature have been an interesting field of study. However, it certainly raises the question of whether or not Europeans were right in what they did. Ideas of hegemony and dominant discourse also run rampant through these novels because it may spark the idea of where they got the right to enter a world and set up the idea that what they knew was better. This whole genre reminds me so much of the Disney movie "Pocahantas" where the English deemed the Native Americans as savages.
Similarly, this is what Conrad is doing to the natives of Africa. They are different and strange and their customs do not make sense. For they are the group that dances freely and seems not to know at all what to do with the land they possess. A group who is uninterested in owning land or people and who live simply. By first glance at this reading, it is easy to assume that Conrad is just a "bloody racist" and that he sees these people as nothing more than a lower form of the human race. What struck me most about this passage and where I have to agree with Achebe is the fear of the natives that Conrad seems to have. "No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. " (Conrad) This to me, seems to point directly to racism and the thought that this different race is somehow less than human. It's as though he is looking at these people and the realization that this horrid display of "a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clap- ping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage" (Conrad) and the fact that they too are among humans and that human form could lessen itself to the point of this behavior, is most terrifying to him. He seems not to be able to identify with them, as he is so much higher then they.
Reading this passage today, is filled with racism. Through the constant reference to these people using the n-word ( a highly degrading term) and the ideal white man only seems to point to racism and the inability to see someone of another race as equal. However, any group that had colonized Africa (or any part of the world) could not see past race. They saw these people as animalistic and criminals; but this does raise a question of what justice did they have to do that? Is it solely because they had the right skin color and a white cloth would not contrast so with their skin? (Conrad) It is hard to believe that one group of people could own another and make up this dominant discourse that placed themselves so much higher. Although it may seem like the question is not worth asking but really, is it fair to say that that is just how they see things? It is not their fault they see another race as lower than they? This passage and idea of post colonialism raises so many questions about how we see ourselves, how we see each other and how we use one another as a lens for perception.
The idea Conrad presents of native Africans seems more to go against what he is trying to say and rather than promote his way of thinking, he seems to guide the reader away from it. Maybe the human mind is not as strong as he believes it is. "The mind of man is capable of anything -- because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future". (Conrad) If we cannot see beyond color and race, how much could we possibly know? Are we really capable of anything if we fear the difference in each other? The very thing that makes us unique and beautiful can fall to nothing and mean nothing because the idea of hegemony and colonization does not allow for it.
These questions can sadly not be answered, but they all point to how someone can read Conrad as a racist. An argument maybe can be said that he is only sticking to what he has been taught and what his own culture has imprinted on him. However, if no one can stand up and say what they believe to be wrong; if no one can go against what they have been taught, how can we grow as a people and how can we expect things like war and genocide to stop? If we give Conrad the benefit of the doubt and say that he is just recording what he sees and it's only perception, where do we draw the line of racism, because isn't that where it all begins? Simple perception?
Similarly, this is what Conrad is doing to the natives of Africa. They are different and strange and their customs do not make sense. For they are the group that dances freely and seems not to know at all what to do with the land they possess. A group who is uninterested in owning land or people and who live simply. By first glance at this reading, it is easy to assume that Conrad is just a "bloody racist" and that he sees these people as nothing more than a lower form of the human race. What struck me most about this passage and where I have to agree with Achebe is the fear of the natives that Conrad seems to have. "No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. " (Conrad) This to me, seems to point directly to racism and the thought that this different race is somehow less than human. It's as though he is looking at these people and the realization that this horrid display of "a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clap- ping, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage" (Conrad) and the fact that they too are among humans and that human form could lessen itself to the point of this behavior, is most terrifying to him. He seems not to be able to identify with them, as he is so much higher then they.
Reading this passage today, is filled with racism. Through the constant reference to these people using the n-word ( a highly degrading term) and the ideal white man only seems to point to racism and the inability to see someone of another race as equal. However, any group that had colonized Africa (or any part of the world) could not see past race. They saw these people as animalistic and criminals; but this does raise a question of what justice did they have to do that? Is it solely because they had the right skin color and a white cloth would not contrast so with their skin? (Conrad) It is hard to believe that one group of people could own another and make up this dominant discourse that placed themselves so much higher. Although it may seem like the question is not worth asking but really, is it fair to say that that is just how they see things? It is not their fault they see another race as lower than they? This passage and idea of post colonialism raises so many questions about how we see ourselves, how we see each other and how we use one another as a lens for perception.
The idea Conrad presents of native Africans seems more to go against what he is trying to say and rather than promote his way of thinking, he seems to guide the reader away from it. Maybe the human mind is not as strong as he believes it is. "The mind of man is capable of anything -- because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future". (Conrad) If we cannot see beyond color and race, how much could we possibly know? Are we really capable of anything if we fear the difference in each other? The very thing that makes us unique and beautiful can fall to nothing and mean nothing because the idea of hegemony and colonization does not allow for it.
These questions can sadly not be answered, but they all point to how someone can read Conrad as a racist. An argument maybe can be said that he is only sticking to what he has been taught and what his own culture has imprinted on him. However, if no one can stand up and say what they believe to be wrong; if no one can go against what they have been taught, how can we grow as a people and how can we expect things like war and genocide to stop? If we give Conrad the benefit of the doubt and say that he is just recording what he sees and it's only perception, where do we draw the line of racism, because isn't that where it all begins? Simple perception?
"The Racist Novel"
Was Joseph Conrad a racist?
Since Chinua Achebe’s landmark speech in 1975 that has been the dialogue surrounding him and his novel Heart of Darkness. In fact I’d venture to say that every discussion of either Conrad of Achebe in any academic forum on any level of society invariably links the two by centering in on this controversy.
My answer to the question, knee-jerk as this will sound, is: it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter if Conrad was racist anymore than it matters that Tennessee Williams was a homosexual or that Virginia Woolf was raped. In the context of being an author of fiction your personal experiences have to take a back seat to the actual produced work no matter how much they may influence you to right. Ad hominine attacks add nothing to the discussion of literature in fact they more often detract from it. Even if Conrad was a racist; that still does nothing to take away from his talent. H.P. Lovecraft and Jack London were both known racists but their talent is still respected, why shouldn't Conrad be afforded the same treatment?
The question is not the one to be asked. What we should we be asking instead is:
Is Heart of Darkness Racist?
Oh absolutely. With scenes of barbarism committed by the blacks, accepted barbarism committed by whites against blacks and a general lack of black voices throughout the novel it can’t help but be. Even in descriptions it weasels in there: The man seemed young -- almost a boy -- but you know with them it's hard to tell. If Achebe never started his battle with Conrad, Heart of Darkness would still be a racist novel.
But even as a “Racist Novel” it has its merits. Our very discussion of the topic proves that fact. As a “Racist Novel” we now have a legitimately well written and popular novel which we can look at a point to as example of racially biased representations of non-whites in literature and with Achebe as the major critic, we can directly compare Conrad’s work to his and examine the differences in representation of blacks and whites based on the time and the writer.
We can't throw out a work just because of a particular viewpoint it espouses. When Achebe talks about Heart of Darkness he says: "I am talking about a book which parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities in the past and continues to do so in many ways and many places today"
He is right but let’s look at it this way. When I talk about Taming of the Shrew I am talking about a play in which a woman is broken, battered, abused and almost starved to death in order to keep from voicing her opinion and causing her to conform to what men at the time felt a woman should be. Is Taming of the Shrew sexist? Yes it is. But are we ever going to get rid of Shakespeare from the canon? Shakespeare is the canon!
Art
Novelist Achebe sparked a controversy when he called Conrad, the author of the classic The Heart of Darkness, “a bloody racist,” but this debate runs deeper. There are indeed arguments for Achebe’s point of view as well as counter arguments, but in the end the debate raises a more important question. Can an offensive piece of art still be considered a great work of art?
Achebe bases his argument on his belief that Conrad used Africa not just as a setting but as “a foil to Europe.” He says, “Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’ the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization.” He counters the argument of separating author and narrator by the claim that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence-a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers.” It is true that Conrad selects Africa as a setting of uncivilized mystique. It is also true that Conrad’s characters make racist remarks. The narrator supposes the age of an African and follows it up by the remark, “but you know with them it’s hard to tell.” This is an ignorant and stereotypical remark because it reduces an entire culture to a pronoun. The narrator hardly makes a good case for himself by continually referring to Africans as “creatures” and “niggers.”
However, Achebe’s criticism falls short when one takes into account the fact that he is criticizing an author born in 1857. When the three installments of the novel were published in a magazine in 1899, the mainstream Western opinion of blacks was that they were inferior and uncivilized. I do not maintain that this opinion is accurate. It is obviously racist, and its perpetuation endangered the rights and lives of blacks for too long, a phenomenon that is still going on today. However, Conrad was not an anomaly in his day. Therefore, Conrad’s narrator is a product of the time period in which he lives, and in order to create a realistic novel, Conrad had to reflect this in his writing. The narrator is racist, but he does feel humanity for the Africans, evidenced by the fact that he “stood appalled” at the sight of the African chain gang. It is also evidenced by the paragraph in which he describes dying Africans, using diction such as, “gloom,” “shadows,” and “horror.” Conrad’s narrator takes the time to thoughtfully observe the Africans, whom he does not understand. Achebe also makes a mistake by presenting invalid and erroneous arguments. He says that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence.” Really? When does Conrad actually say that? Achebe is convinced because their careers are similar. If Achebe is a serious literary critic following a New Critical approach, he would make the point of separating speaker and author.
Achebe’s argument already treads on weakness, but his own work, Things Fall Apart, can be read as a misogynistic from the point of view of feminist literary critics such as Linda Strong-Leek. Does this make him a misogynist? Does it make his contribution to fiction anything less than superb? According to his own argument, it would.
This brings us to the much larger question: Can an offensive work of art still provide artistic value? One of my favorite books and movies is Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, which is often criticized as inaccurately depicting Reconstruction and being racist. However, I am so enraptured by the beauty of Mitchell’s other motifs-desperation, love, determination-and the mastery of her characterization and prose-that I still see value in it. The poem “To His Coy Mistress” is sexist, but I cannot deny that it is a well written, classic poem. It's a gray area, but offensive art and may serve a greater value than Achebe realizes, as long as it opens discussion about important issues.
Achebe bases his argument on his belief that Conrad used Africa not just as a setting but as “a foil to Europe.” He says, “Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’ the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization.” He counters the argument of separating author and narrator by the claim that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence-a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers.” It is true that Conrad selects Africa as a setting of uncivilized mystique. It is also true that Conrad’s characters make racist remarks. The narrator supposes the age of an African and follows it up by the remark, “but you know with them it’s hard to tell.” This is an ignorant and stereotypical remark because it reduces an entire culture to a pronoun. The narrator hardly makes a good case for himself by continually referring to Africans as “creatures” and “niggers.”
However, Achebe’s criticism falls short when one takes into account the fact that he is criticizing an author born in 1857. When the three installments of the novel were published in a magazine in 1899, the mainstream Western opinion of blacks was that they were inferior and uncivilized. I do not maintain that this opinion is accurate. It is obviously racist, and its perpetuation endangered the rights and lives of blacks for too long, a phenomenon that is still going on today. However, Conrad was not an anomaly in his day. Therefore, Conrad’s narrator is a product of the time period in which he lives, and in order to create a realistic novel, Conrad had to reflect this in his writing. The narrator is racist, but he does feel humanity for the Africans, evidenced by the fact that he “stood appalled” at the sight of the African chain gang. It is also evidenced by the paragraph in which he describes dying Africans, using diction such as, “gloom,” “shadows,” and “horror.” Conrad’s narrator takes the time to thoughtfully observe the Africans, whom he does not understand. Achebe also makes a mistake by presenting invalid and erroneous arguments. He says that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence.” Really? When does Conrad actually say that? Achebe is convinced because their careers are similar. If Achebe is a serious literary critic following a New Critical approach, he would make the point of separating speaker and author.
Achebe’s argument already treads on weakness, but his own work, Things Fall Apart, can be read as a misogynistic from the point of view of feminist literary critics such as Linda Strong-Leek. Does this make him a misogynist? Does it make his contribution to fiction anything less than superb? According to his own argument, it would.
This brings us to the much larger question: Can an offensive work of art still provide artistic value? One of my favorite books and movies is Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, which is often criticized as inaccurately depicting Reconstruction and being racist. However, I am so enraptured by the beauty of Mitchell’s other motifs-desperation, love, determination-and the mastery of her characterization and prose-that I still see value in it. The poem “To His Coy Mistress” is sexist, but I cannot deny that it is a well written, classic poem. It's a gray area, but offensive art and may serve a greater value than Achebe realizes, as long as it opens discussion about important issues.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Racist & The Sexist
The question isn’t whether one thinks Conrad is a “bloody racist” as Achebe states or whether he accurately described a people who had lived in the Congo. If anything one must ask in what ways has he told a story that would otherwise never be heard, if its author were not a European. If instead Joseph Conrad was named Ikonkwo Conrad or Christine Conrad would there still be a discussion of the work as being prejudiced. Even if one chose to build his/her argument through the frame of Post Colonialism there are significant depictions of Conrad admiring those who Achebe feels he tarnishes. As seen with the lines, “ They howled, and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces: but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity- like yours- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response…” (Conrad 63). Although Conrad states the ugliness of those he is describing he is also connecting how he is like them, how he can admit to having a “response”.
Although Conrad does make it a point to identify with the Congo people, he also makes note of there differences. A kind of separateness is given not only in the people but in the physical environment in which he is walking into, “We could not understand, because we were to far and could not remember, because we were traveling in the night if first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign-and no memories” (Conrad 62). A “night of first ages” as opposed to what? A “night” of modernity? A “night” of civilization? There holds the connotation of lesser, one could almost hear "a night of savages" being whispered by the lines.
Nevertheless one can ascertian that there is no true racist or non-racist Conrad, for there is bound to be some group, or theory consisting of all the things an author omitted or felt didn’t get the rightful attention it deserved to find a argument with. Let us not critique a man based on a novel he wrote, for even Achebe can be judged as sexist for his lack if depicting all of Igbo society, and focusing solely on the male dynamics over equally depicting the women as well in his novel Things Fall Apart.
Although Conrad does make it a point to identify with the Congo people, he also makes note of there differences. A kind of separateness is given not only in the people but in the physical environment in which he is walking into, “We could not understand, because we were to far and could not remember, because we were traveling in the night if first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign-and no memories” (Conrad 62). A “night of first ages” as opposed to what? A “night” of modernity? A “night” of civilization? There holds the connotation of lesser, one could almost hear "a night of savages" being whispered by the lines.
Nevertheless one can ascertian that there is no true racist or non-racist Conrad, for there is bound to be some group, or theory consisting of all the things an author omitted or felt didn’t get the rightful attention it deserved to find a argument with. Let us not critique a man based on a novel he wrote, for even Achebe can be judged as sexist for his lack if depicting all of Igbo society, and focusing solely on the male dynamics over equally depicting the women as well in his novel Things Fall Apart.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Conrad vs Achebe
Conrad has nothing to hide when it comes to his prejudice remarks about African people as we read and interpret his text. Africans bear a unique culture that may seem to be wild to western culture. But it is generally understood that Europeans and Africans are two exotic people to each other. Conrad is blind to see the rudimentary souls of the African people. Towards a western expectation they can be stuck in evolution, however they don’t aim to imperialize the western world. Someone might think that Conrad is not a racist when he states; - - [a black man] “A certain enormous buck nigger encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days.” (42) - - [ a white man ] “In passing he cast a glance of kindly curiosity and a friendly gleam of big, sound, shiny teeth”. . . his white calves twinkled sturdily."(46). In this case that person might say that Conrad is utilizing a general description of an alien society as an identifier not exactly offending by saying “Nigger”.
Although in a larger society when Conrad mentions the word “Nigger” excessively it can be utterly insulting. In our understanding, Conrad can be seen as a prejudice person and in Achebe’s case ignorant when it comes to investigating a distant culture. Here is a clear cut interpretation of Conrad’s accusation to an African man where someone could say that Conrad is racist: “He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs.”(16)
Here’s one example of Conrad’s ignorance when he mentions African practice of cannibalism; “Catch 'im," he snapped with a bloodshot widening of his eyes and a flash of sharp teeth . . . "Eat 'im!" he said curtly. . . .”(26) How do we know that it is essentially a practice of cannibalism? It doesn’t have to be exactly cannibalism it could be something heroic. In African society, when a warrior defeats a superior warrior wouldn’t he want to eat a piece of the flesh from the superior one to attain the superior qualities. It is not used to consume the flesh to alternately treat hunger. Now . . . you might think this is total savagery and tabooed in western society. In Africa it can be part of their belief and practiced as a sacred ritual. You never know.
In Achebe’s interpretation of Marlow as Conrad’s Narrator behind a Narrator; “Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence” (29). I see here that Conrad can’t hide his true prejudices amongst the savages he describes through Marlow. Therefore, someone will have trouble trying to support that Conrad is not racist. Obviously, a critic could compare Albert Schweitzer, the generous doctor who accepted Africans as his kin and Conrad as two opposite Europeans who hold different views about this exotic culture. All in all we learn that Conrad is apathetic, narrow - minded, ignorant, and a bloody racist. Franz Boaz, the father of American Anthropology once said “There is no proof that people of African descent are inferior to whites”. Race is an unjust social hierarchy.
Although in a larger society when Conrad mentions the word “Nigger” excessively it can be utterly insulting. In our understanding, Conrad can be seen as a prejudice person and in Achebe’s case ignorant when it comes to investigating a distant culture. Here is a clear cut interpretation of Conrad’s accusation to an African man where someone could say that Conrad is racist: “He was there below me and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat walking on his hind legs.”(16)
Here’s one example of Conrad’s ignorance when he mentions African practice of cannibalism; “Catch 'im," he snapped with a bloodshot widening of his eyes and a flash of sharp teeth . . . "Eat 'im!" he said curtly. . . .”(26) How do we know that it is essentially a practice of cannibalism? It doesn’t have to be exactly cannibalism it could be something heroic. In African society, when a warrior defeats a superior warrior wouldn’t he want to eat a piece of the flesh from the superior one to attain the superior qualities. It is not used to consume the flesh to alternately treat hunger. Now . . . you might think this is total savagery and tabooed in western society. In Africa it can be part of their belief and practiced as a sacred ritual. You never know.
In Achebe’s interpretation of Marlow as Conrad’s Narrator behind a Narrator; “Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence” (29). I see here that Conrad can’t hide his true prejudices amongst the savages he describes through Marlow. Therefore, someone will have trouble trying to support that Conrad is not racist. Obviously, a critic could compare Albert Schweitzer, the generous doctor who accepted Africans as his kin and Conrad as two opposite Europeans who hold different views about this exotic culture. All in all we learn that Conrad is apathetic, narrow - minded, ignorant, and a bloody racist. Franz Boaz, the father of American Anthropology once said “There is no proof that people of African descent are inferior to whites”. Race is an unjust social hierarchy.
Conrad-Racist writer or Satire slinger?
Achebe definitely makes a convincing case for Conrad’s racism. Of course, we shouldn’t ignore the time difference. Achebe makes his claim in 1977; at least that’s when the piece was published, while Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” was published in 1899. That’s 78 years. It may not seem like a lot, but many things change in eight decades. Conrad may have been a racist, but he also may not have known any better. It doesn’t excuse him, but it does make us hold off the angry mob. Our founding fathers owned slaves, does that make them racist? Conrad may try to get off on the fact that he was ignorant and that he didn’t know any better. The argument could even be made that its fiction and the narrator isn’t even Conrad. That argument mentioned by Achebe, who says “But if Conrad's intention is to draw a cordon sanitaire between himself and the moral and psychological malaise of his narrator his care seems to me totally wasted because he neglects to hint however subtly or tentatively at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his character” Could Conrad be using Marlow as a scapegoat so he could speak his racist thoughts without persecution?
We would have to look at the work itself, I will begin with the excerpts giving to me by Achebe in his piece. “No they were not inhuman. Well, you know that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces, but what thrilled you, was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours.” It seems like Conrad is saying that the real shock of the savages was how they looked like humans. Of course the outrage which stems from this except is that the “savages” are human, there shouldn’t be anything thrilling or shocking about it. They look like humans because they are. On one side we have Conrad’s gross use of terms that showcases African in a negative light, for example, he refers to them as savages even though they have clans and cultures.
Another quote from "Heart of Darkness reads "The man seemed young -- almost a boy -- but you know with them it's hard to tell" while some people may see this quote as racist, i don't see the problem with it. is the word "them" offensive all of a sudden? this could be an example of Conrad's blatant ignorance. He just doesn't know. Have you ever seen someone who looked older or younger than they actually were? I've seen kids that are 13 that can pass for 17.
Yet can we truly ignore Conrad’s time period. I know its only 78 years, but consider how long it took for African-Americans to actually get civil rights after slavery was abolished. I guess we may never know the true intentions of Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. But based on what Achebe said, I would be inclined to think that Conrad was a racist.
We would have to look at the work itself, I will begin with the excerpts giving to me by Achebe in his piece. “No they were not inhuman. Well, you know that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped and spun and made horrid faces, but what thrilled you, was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours.” It seems like Conrad is saying that the real shock of the savages was how they looked like humans. Of course the outrage which stems from this except is that the “savages” are human, there shouldn’t be anything thrilling or shocking about it. They look like humans because they are. On one side we have Conrad’s gross use of terms that showcases African in a negative light, for example, he refers to them as savages even though they have clans and cultures.
Another quote from "Heart of Darkness reads "The man seemed young -- almost a boy -- but you know with them it's hard to tell" while some people may see this quote as racist, i don't see the problem with it. is the word "them" offensive all of a sudden? this could be an example of Conrad's blatant ignorance. He just doesn't know. Have you ever seen someone who looked older or younger than they actually were? I've seen kids that are 13 that can pass for 17.
Yet can we truly ignore Conrad’s time period. I know its only 78 years, but consider how long it took for African-Americans to actually get civil rights after slavery was abolished. I guess we may never know the true intentions of Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. But based on what Achebe said, I would be inclined to think that Conrad was a racist.
3.27.08
For Monday, we begin our investigation into post-colonialism, and we'll begin with an exemplary debate over Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' and Achebe's famous response. So read the Conrad excerpt found to the right, which is the end of chapter one and the beginning of two, and the Achebe essay/lecture. On Monday I'm going to assume you know Heart well enough, as most of you probably have read it. If you haven't, try to read as much of it as you can, paying particular attention to the sections Achebe refers to and the beginning (in fact, if you know nothing about the book, read the excerpt then start at the beginning of the book). For that reason, I've also attached a full version of Heart. There is also a summary/paraphrase of the controversy in the piece entitled 'Postcolonial Controversies.'
After you've done the reading, answer the following question in a response: Is Conrad a 'bloody racist' (Achebe's original words)? More importantly, can you think of reasons why one might answer yes, and also reasons why one might answer no? Be sure to refer to specifically to Conrad's text more than once in your answer.
Also, remember you will need Coetzee's Disgrace for the following week.
After you've done the reading, answer the following question in a response: Is Conrad a 'bloody racist' (Achebe's original words)? More importantly, can you think of reasons why one might answer yes, and also reasons why one might answer no? Be sure to refer to specifically to Conrad's text more than once in your answer.
Also, remember you will need Coetzee's Disgrace for the following week.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
the impact of subjectivity and gender
“each individual is different, each possesses a unique subjectivity yet also and paradoxically, each shares a common human nature.” this quote implies that as a result of each individual being different, that is what cause others to find ways in which they do not accept them, or may cause conflict. However, the ones that are responsible for this action, do not see that they are in fact similar, or share a common characteristic with the one they were subject to. “Theory of culture, theory of society, the ensemble of symbolic systems are religion, family, language, everything elaborates the same system. And the movement by which each opposition is set up to produce meaning is the movement by which the couple is destroyed”. This quote allows one to come to the conclusion that as a result of the regions that are formed, and language that is spoken, people try to conform. No one wants to be a victim of subjectivity. this “movement is destroyed” when there is no room for one to express what they want to do, or have a sense of individuality. It seems as those the authors are trying to investigate, the cause on way subjectivity and gender is a large issue, and the reason for why people will not overlook this topic. “Of a women, upon whom he no longer depends, he retains only his space, always virginal, matter subjected to the desire that he wishes to imprint.” From this quote I can conclude that one wants to be there own person, I believe maybe they want to “ imprint” there own thought.
Who Am I?
Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler are two feminist critics that have write about their points of views on sexism, gender identity and identity. In Irigaray’s piece, “Sexual Difference”, she discusses the ways in which humans relate to the gender they were born into, and how due to the society they live in. She writes, “Who or what the other is, I never know. But this unknowable other is that which differs sexually from me. This feeling of wonder, surprise and astonishment in the face of the knowable ought to be returned to its proper place: the realm of sexual difference” (238). This question of “Who am I,” is one Irigaray is no stranger to, and is in search for in her entire project of the revolution of the different titles. At the end of her piece she simply says, “One sex is never entirely consummated or consumed by another. There is always a residue” (Irigaray, 238).
Judith Butler’s piece, which I found very interesting, was about the battle of being straight or gay. She tackled the ideology of society in defining what makes a person gay or straight. Butler states, “In psychoanalytic terms, the relation between gender and sexuality is in part negotiated through the question of the relationship between identification and desire” (249). Butler say’s that to relate to being a woman or acting feminine is not necessarily to desire a man, but more of what one identifies to. The issues however are what the “norm” heterosexuals must agree to that logic, which has yet been convinced to her. That is most likely Butler’s biggest search, find the answers to such theories.
In terms of gender and identity both of these critics over lap, however, I personally did not see a distinct moment of over lapping.
Judith Butler’s piece, which I found very interesting, was about the battle of being straight or gay. She tackled the ideology of society in defining what makes a person gay or straight. Butler states, “In psychoanalytic terms, the relation between gender and sexuality is in part negotiated through the question of the relationship between identification and desire” (249). Butler say’s that to relate to being a woman or acting feminine is not necessarily to desire a man, but more of what one identifies to. The issues however are what the “norm” heterosexuals must agree to that logic, which has yet been convinced to her. That is most likely Butler’s biggest search, find the answers to such theories.
In terms of gender and identity both of these critics over lap, however, I personally did not see a distinct moment of over lapping.
The Projects
What’s to come from all these thinkers?
I try to keep that answer that question in back of my head at the beginning of each set of readings and attempt answer it with varying degrees of success upon completion.
The feminst writers for this week are different from those we’ve covered partly because unlike the de Beauvoir and Woolf, they are looking at the problem of gender relations and attempting to actively come up with some clear solutions or at least begin that process.
Irigaray seems to telling us that rather than fighting with men for their turf (which seems to be a sort of losing battle) women to should own their title and see womanhood as a prize in of itself. This seems to be somewhat of a defeatist attitudes. You can’t make it so give up and accept what you have? That’s along the same lines as Booker T. Washington telling blacks to “cast their buckets down” and give up on trying to be lawyers and doctors. I can’t imagine feminists, even the nominal ones, of any age accepting that rhetoric.
But she’s right in a way; you can’t start demanding to be taken seriously as an entity without first being proud of what that entity is. It does a lot to appease the critics of feminism who feel that women just want to dominate men in the way men have dominated women for millennia.
Separate But Not Equal?
When looking at these writters and the very defined but agruementive appoarch to back down the constant fight over gender, I had to sometimes step back and really think about the way i even place things into a particular cateogory because i feel it not suitable for a man or either a woman , but here is where I felt that these writers were able to explain why we do that? and why has it become part of every silly stereotype that can be place between the opposite sex.
Helene Cixous caught my attention right awya withthis quote' " the political economy of the masculine and of the feminine is organized by different requirements and constraints , which , when socialized and metaporized produces signs, relationship of power, relationship of production , an entire immense system of cultural inscription readable as masculine or feminine." (p 231-232)
Which is very true , women and men have been placed in separates groups for all of existence, men where known to be the bread winners, where as women stayed home and just prepared the feast and took care of the family. Cixous whole arguement seemed to be pointing to the fact that women dont have it as bad a man when dealing with side of the money, that our makeup wasn't to handle such stressful and time consuming issuse, But now with times changing more of the roles do seem to be changing, women out in the field , hold on to job , paying bills and dealing with the whole social gender of a man's world. Which could be good for most but maybe not to many , you still have places where men act like it's the stone age , and haven't adapted to the multicultural and social change of society with both sexes.
It seems more like these writers wanted there to be a new idea of what gender or Sex meant. Only because society has taken it and made it so large and abstract that sometimes it's hard to fit in even when you belong there. Like there to much hype put on this word "gender" and what comes along with as definition .
The most common stereotype that comes up for us women is the " cooking, Knitting,sewing, embroidering." (236) My question was what idiot really thought that's all that we do?
I really think we take the poison that we have been feed so many time's year after year about a women's role and a man role but honestly i don't believe anyone has found out what they really are yet.
Helene Cixous caught my attention right awya withthis quote' " the political economy of the masculine and of the feminine is organized by different requirements and constraints , which , when socialized and metaporized produces signs, relationship of power, relationship of production , an entire immense system of cultural inscription readable as masculine or feminine." (p 231-232)
Which is very true , women and men have been placed in separates groups for all of existence, men where known to be the bread winners, where as women stayed home and just prepared the feast and took care of the family. Cixous whole arguement seemed to be pointing to the fact that women dont have it as bad a man when dealing with side of the money, that our makeup wasn't to handle such stressful and time consuming issuse, But now with times changing more of the roles do seem to be changing, women out in the field , hold on to job , paying bills and dealing with the whole social gender of a man's world. Which could be good for most but maybe not to many , you still have places where men act like it's the stone age , and haven't adapted to the multicultural and social change of society with both sexes.
It seems more like these writers wanted there to be a new idea of what gender or Sex meant. Only because society has taken it and made it so large and abstract that sometimes it's hard to fit in even when you belong there. Like there to much hype put on this word "gender" and what comes along with as definition .
The most common stereotype that comes up for us women is the " cooking, Knitting,sewing, embroidering." (236) My question was what idiot really thought that's all that we do?
I really think we take the poison that we have been feed so many time's year after year about a women's role and a man role but honestly i don't believe anyone has found out what they really are yet.
Sex and the Real World
The two readings that I found most interesting were, Judith Butlers “Bodies that Matter,” and Luce Irigarays, “Sexual Difference.” They are both feminist writers that were, to at least some degree, inspired by Freud.
Judith Butler’s main focus during her writing is that, “…the sign of gender, a sign that is not the same as the body that it figures, but that cannot be read without.” Butler is trying to show us that sex and gender is not a choice that we choose. She is trying to clear up the messy scribbled lines between gay, straight, transgender, and bisexuality. She stats, “ Hence, it is not that drag opposes heterosexuality, or that the proliferation of drag will bring down heterosexuality; on the contrary, drag tends to be the illegalization of heterosexuality and its constitutive melancholia.” She is trying to show that it is not a choose that people make, and if they are gay, transgender, or bisexual they are not bringing down heterosexuality.
Irigarays focus is on the idea that man has more power than women. Luce is trying to make a clear standing for women, she wants they to be seen as a women, and not to be associated to men at all. She says, “Sexual difference is probably the issue in our own age which could be our salvation on the intellectual level.” She is trying to show that men are seen as smarter and stronger than women. She is trying to make a difference and make women be equal to a man. She also relates it to religion, “Could it be that this order becomes inverted in sexual difference, such that femininity is experienced as a space that often carries connotations of the depths of night (God being space and light), while masculinity is conceived of in terms of time?” She relates this to religion to show us that men are seen of as the all powerful, they are the most important thing in life.
Both Butler and Iriagaray stemmed out from Freud’s ideas. They are two feminist fighting for what they believe in. Butler believes that everyone is equal, despite their sexual preferences, and Luce believes that a man is no better than a women.
Judith Butler’s main focus during her writing is that, “…the sign of gender, a sign that is not the same as the body that it figures, but that cannot be read without.” Butler is trying to show us that sex and gender is not a choice that we choose. She is trying to clear up the messy scribbled lines between gay, straight, transgender, and bisexuality. She stats, “ Hence, it is not that drag opposes heterosexuality, or that the proliferation of drag will bring down heterosexuality; on the contrary, drag tends to be the illegalization of heterosexuality and its constitutive melancholia.” She is trying to show that it is not a choose that people make, and if they are gay, transgender, or bisexual they are not bringing down heterosexuality.
Irigarays focus is on the idea that man has more power than women. Luce is trying to make a clear standing for women, she wants they to be seen as a women, and not to be associated to men at all. She says, “Sexual difference is probably the issue in our own age which could be our salvation on the intellectual level.” She is trying to show that men are seen as smarter and stronger than women. She is trying to make a difference and make women be equal to a man. She also relates it to religion, “Could it be that this order becomes inverted in sexual difference, such that femininity is experienced as a space that often carries connotations of the depths of night (God being space and light), while masculinity is conceived of in terms of time?” She relates this to religion to show us that men are seen of as the all powerful, they are the most important thing in life.
Both Butler and Iriagaray stemmed out from Freud’s ideas. They are two feminist fighting for what they believe in. Butler believes that everyone is equal, despite their sexual preferences, and Luce believes that a man is no better than a women.
Gender & Sexual "Residue"
The authors are trying to convey a definition to an ambiguous and ever-shifting subject matter that is sexual differences found in men and women. The question being asked, seems to be more on the lines of whether one can place themselves in another’s perspective, can a man ever fully understand or think like a women, the same I feel must be asked of by women concerning men. Both authors describe how female identity must be reframed to fit into a new system of thought concerning women of the now from the past. As seen with Luce Irigaray’s quote, “For the work of sexual difference to take place, a revolution in thought and ethics is needed. We must re-interpret the whole relationship between the subject and discourse, the subject and the world, the subject and the cosmic” (Irigaray 236).
In order to configure women in both the sexual as well as social state, a “revolution in thought” is needed, the ‘subject’ I took as women in general. Butler hints onto the connotation gender has on women, “The sign, understood as a gender imperative –‘girl- reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own insubordinations” (Butler 247). By creating a context in which gender is seen as an ordered role to play, can only create a resistance in people as seen with the insubordinates.
The point one is trying to make is that by creating a system of thoughts based on the continual high-low, majority-minority, viewpoint on helps to solidify an immovable giant. Such can be thought of in terms of sexuality and gender, by establishing set roles and ideas in which those roles are then asked of its party to affirm, leaves no “revolution’ rather earthly or cosmic, to happen.
In order to configure women in both the sexual as well as social state, a “revolution in thought” is needed, the ‘subject’ I took as women in general. Butler hints onto the connotation gender has on women, “The sign, understood as a gender imperative –‘girl- reads less as an assignment than as a command and, as such, produces its own insubordinations” (Butler 247). By creating a context in which gender is seen as an ordered role to play, can only create a resistance in people as seen with the insubordinates.
The point one is trying to make is that by creating a system of thoughts based on the continual high-low, majority-minority, viewpoint on helps to solidify an immovable giant. Such can be thought of in terms of sexuality and gender, by establishing set roles and ideas in which those roles are then asked of its party to affirm, leaves no “revolution’ rather earthly or cosmic, to happen.
debate with abstract ideas
Unlike the feminist readings that we have read so far, those of Cixous and Irigaray use their insights to a far deeper extent, if not too abstract. Instead of stating paternalism as the origin of the ‘burden’ or the ‘fate’ that have been imposed upon women, they talk about certain problems in particular ideas that influenced and or, to be blamed for the society solely governed by paternalism.
Cixous states that there was a problem with the way of ordering in which sexual difference was organized “by oppositions.” She mentions of logocentrism as the origin of the notion of “two-term system” by which the relationship between two sexes became “the couple.” The nature of “the couple” being that in which one was to be destroyed by another, it was, more or less, a war-like. Therefore, in this state, “male privilege” was to be the victor who was then sustained by another. As she mentions, “the philosophical constructs itself starting with the abasement of woman,” and “What would become of logocentrism, of the great philosophical system, of world order in general if the rock upon which they founded their church were to crumble,” one can note that male domination is deeply rooted and originated from the way logocentrism and philosophy have been built in the first place.
Irigaray shares similar notion with Cixous in terms of the origin of the issue of sexual difference. She mentions the idea of “space and “time” and explains that the idea of the very beginning of formation of the world was somehow changed into that of man and woman through which woman signified as “space” which was “exterior”, that is, being passive, while man signified as “time,” which then becomes “interior”, controlling the activities of the world. And as opposed to the way in which the relationship between man and woman was to be filled with wonder and attraction that were pure and neutral and no threatening in any ways, there were “greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc” that filled the relationship, destroying what was to be equal and free. As she says, “Wonder cannot seize, possess or subdue such an object,” sexual difference between man and woman in the society has been misguided and faultily constructed.
Cixous states that there was a problem with the way of ordering in which sexual difference was organized “by oppositions.” She mentions of logocentrism as the origin of the notion of “two-term system” by which the relationship between two sexes became “the couple.” The nature of “the couple” being that in which one was to be destroyed by another, it was, more or less, a war-like. Therefore, in this state, “male privilege” was to be the victor who was then sustained by another. As she mentions, “the philosophical constructs itself starting with the abasement of woman,” and “What would become of logocentrism, of the great philosophical system, of world order in general if the rock upon which they founded their church were to crumble,” one can note that male domination is deeply rooted and originated from the way logocentrism and philosophy have been built in the first place.
Irigaray shares similar notion with Cixous in terms of the origin of the issue of sexual difference. She mentions the idea of “space and “time” and explains that the idea of the very beginning of formation of the world was somehow changed into that of man and woman through which woman signified as “space” which was “exterior”, that is, being passive, while man signified as “time,” which then becomes “interior”, controlling the activities of the world. And as opposed to the way in which the relationship between man and woman was to be filled with wonder and attraction that were pure and neutral and no threatening in any ways, there were “greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc” that filled the relationship, destroying what was to be equal and free. As she says, “Wonder cannot seize, possess or subdue such an object,” sexual difference between man and woman in the society has been misguided and faultily constructed.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
"Who or what the other is, I never know. But this unknowable other is that which differs sexually from me. This feelong of wonder, surprise and astonishment in the face of the unknowable ought to be returned to its proper place: the realm of sexual difference."
-Luce Irigaray (238)
"A phantasmatical mingling of men, of males, of messieurs, of monarchs, princes, orphans, flowers, mothers, breasts, gravitates around a marvelous 'sun of energy' love, which bombards and disintegrates these ephemeral amorous singularities so that they may recompose themselves in other bodies for new passions."
-Helene Cixous (235)
It is here that we find a new breed, gender studies. Irigaray and Cixous both look towards a disentanglement of our concepts and perceptions of culture, and revolutionize our thinking to bring about a more enlightened and equal approach to gender. However, unlike the Feminists, these writers concern themselves not with attacking the patriarchal society or installing a more gynocentric, Amazonian world. Irigary and Cixous want to return us to a natural state of a melded and mixed masculine and feminine, where neither is subject to the other or an object of the other.
Cixous goes as far to say that there is no creation or invention without a fair measure of homosexuality. Those who have been inventive have embraced their whole selves, both masculine and feminine aspects. Ingaray writes of the wonder of both sexes, and hopes that the sexes can approach one another with a constantly fresh perspective, although acknowledges that that has never happened, there is always a residual reaction.
There is certainly common ground between these writers and the feminist writers. The idea of the phallocentrism and its harm exist. Both movements see the masculine domination of society and culture as the biggest problem to face, necessitating a cultural and cognitive revolution to be corrected. However, feminism doesn't propose that masculinity is just as harmed by phallocentrism as femininity is, whereas Cixous explicitly states that phallocentrism is the enemy of men and women alike.
So what does these incredibly dense, cryptic essays seek? I think, as I said above, to change the playing field, embracing both sexes and all genders (yes, there are more than two). Whether in terms of sexual pleasure, passion, or freedom, the idea here is to "disintegrate these ephemeral amorous singularities," and change the way we look at everything.
-Luce Irigaray (238)
"A phantasmatical mingling of men, of males, of messieurs, of monarchs, princes, orphans, flowers, mothers, breasts, gravitates around a marvelous 'sun of energy' love, which bombards and disintegrates these ephemeral amorous singularities so that they may recompose themselves in other bodies for new passions."
-Helene Cixous (235)
It is here that we find a new breed, gender studies. Irigaray and Cixous both look towards a disentanglement of our concepts and perceptions of culture, and revolutionize our thinking to bring about a more enlightened and equal approach to gender. However, unlike the Feminists, these writers concern themselves not with attacking the patriarchal society or installing a more gynocentric, Amazonian world. Irigary and Cixous want to return us to a natural state of a melded and mixed masculine and feminine, where neither is subject to the other or an object of the other.
Cixous goes as far to say that there is no creation or invention without a fair measure of homosexuality. Those who have been inventive have embraced their whole selves, both masculine and feminine aspects. Ingaray writes of the wonder of both sexes, and hopes that the sexes can approach one another with a constantly fresh perspective, although acknowledges that that has never happened, there is always a residual reaction.
There is certainly common ground between these writers and the feminist writers. The idea of the phallocentrism and its harm exist. Both movements see the masculine domination of society and culture as the biggest problem to face, necessitating a cultural and cognitive revolution to be corrected. However, feminism doesn't propose that masculinity is just as harmed by phallocentrism as femininity is, whereas Cixous explicitly states that phallocentrism is the enemy of men and women alike.
So what does these incredibly dense, cryptic essays seek? I think, as I said above, to change the playing field, embracing both sexes and all genders (yes, there are more than two). Whether in terms of sexual pleasure, passion, or freedom, the idea here is to "disintegrate these ephemeral amorous singularities," and change the way we look at everything.
Separate
Both authors, Irigaray and Cixous seem to be interested in the fact that the male and the female are completely separate entities and they can never be one in the same. The very essence of being a female and what it means to be a male are completely separate and everything down to the psyche making up each particular gender dwell on such opposite ends that they may never mix without some extreme revolution.
Both authors look to philosophy and great thinkers who recognized this difference in male and female since the beginning of time. There seems to be an agreement on the fact that this "order" is a natural idea and this is just the way things are supposed to be. The idea of subject as its universal use referring to the male sex is common between Cixous and Irigaray. The ideas seem to mirror one another when Cixous will say, "The hierarchization subjects the entire conceptual organization to man." (230), Irigaray will agree and say "It is man who has been the subject of discourse..." (236).
Philosophy plays a great role in the seeming death of women and what it means to be a woman. Cixous particularly uses even theories unique to ancient philosophers such as Pythagoras and his table of opposites to show the unfortunate state of being a woman. Passive, delicate creatures that we are, "cooking, knitting, sewing and embroidering" (236), it seems that the male centered consent is that there is no need for a woman because they exist fine themselves. Cixous attacks Freud and Jones and the importance they place on female desire and their own form of the Oedipus complex. There is a desire for a female to be with her father sexually and destroy her mother just as Freud suggests of males.
There needs to be a major change in the way of thinking. Although, being so different, and taking on more philosophical concepts, "the one is irreducible to the other", there still can be a change in the relationships. there needs to be a move away from this "natural order that has sort of intruded way of thinking. "the general logic of difference would no longer fit into the opposition that still dominates. I do see that these two writers in particular overlap in ideas and are different from anything we have read thus far. Rather than focusing on ways of thinking and not being able to be understood by men, they seem to bring more interesting, philosophical issues that challenge common thought. It seems to focus more on the difference of actually being and existing and two separate worlds. However, reading these chapters, it does seem a little depressing because the gap between mere humans seems to grow further apart.
Both authors look to philosophy and great thinkers who recognized this difference in male and female since the beginning of time. There seems to be an agreement on the fact that this "order" is a natural idea and this is just the way things are supposed to be. The idea of subject as its universal use referring to the male sex is common between Cixous and Irigaray. The ideas seem to mirror one another when Cixous will say, "The hierarchization subjects the entire conceptual organization to man." (230), Irigaray will agree and say "It is man who has been the subject of discourse..." (236).
Philosophy plays a great role in the seeming death of women and what it means to be a woman. Cixous particularly uses even theories unique to ancient philosophers such as Pythagoras and his table of opposites to show the unfortunate state of being a woman. Passive, delicate creatures that we are, "cooking, knitting, sewing and embroidering" (236), it seems that the male centered consent is that there is no need for a woman because they exist fine themselves. Cixous attacks Freud and Jones and the importance they place on female desire and their own form of the Oedipus complex. There is a desire for a female to be with her father sexually and destroy her mother just as Freud suggests of males.
There needs to be a major change in the way of thinking. Although, being so different, and taking on more philosophical concepts, "the one is irreducible to the other", there still can be a change in the relationships. there needs to be a move away from this "natural order that has sort of intruded way of thinking. "the general logic of difference would no longer fit into the opposition that still dominates. I do see that these two writers in particular overlap in ideas and are different from anything we have read thus far. Rather than focusing on ways of thinking and not being able to be understood by men, they seem to bring more interesting, philosophical issues that challenge common thought. It seems to focus more on the difference of actually being and existing and two separate worlds. However, reading these chapters, it does seem a little depressing because the gap between mere humans seems to grow further apart.
Gender Discourse
The lessons that we learn in these readings is that people are different possessing their own unique state of mind. Helene Cixous investigates that phallocentrism is a prime attribute of masculine nature as opposed to women who are subordinated to passivity in a male dominated society. An overlap and distinction in feminism that has caught our discussions on feminism and their strive for ascribed masculine status can be interpreted from Helene’s case; “The [political] economy of the masculine and of the feminine is organized by different requirements and constraints, which, when socialized and metaphorized, produce signs, relationships of power, relationships of production, an entire immense system of cultural inscription readable as masculine or feminine”. (pg 231-232)
Judith Butler focuses on unbiased gender where it does not make sense to talk of an originary body. That there is no division between masculine/feminine, reproduction simply occurs incessantly; “She sees the sex/gender distinction as a product of Cartesian thinking which assumes an absolute split between mind and body, but where body exists effectively in the realm of denial”.(pg 228)
In Judith Butler’s case; “And there may be forms of ‘gender’ within homosexuality which call for a theorization that moves beyond the categories of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’”. (248) Butler is likely to state that people who are exhibiting homosexuality present an alternative way of life in contrast to heterosexuals. In other cases I see that Judith Butler does not favor a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals in essence that both cultural genders are simply normal. She also criticizes that people who are homophobic are in peril of losing proper gender because those people (heterosexuals) are overprotective about their sexual drives in order to seduce the other sex.
Judith Butler focuses on unbiased gender where it does not make sense to talk of an originary body. That there is no division between masculine/feminine, reproduction simply occurs incessantly; “She sees the sex/gender distinction as a product of Cartesian thinking which assumes an absolute split between mind and body, but where body exists effectively in the realm of denial”.(pg 228)
In Judith Butler’s case; “And there may be forms of ‘gender’ within homosexuality which call for a theorization that moves beyond the categories of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’”. (248) Butler is likely to state that people who are exhibiting homosexuality present an alternative way of life in contrast to heterosexuals. In other cases I see that Judith Butler does not favor a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals in essence that both cultural genders are simply normal. She also criticizes that people who are homophobic are in peril of losing proper gender because those people (heterosexuals) are overprotective about their sexual drives in order to seduce the other sex.
Well, Freud says this and this guy says that.
Before commenting on the text, after reading countless essays like these, I have to ask myself why. Why are we doing this? What is the ultimate goal? Maybe I am crazy but before I set out to do something I sit and think is it possible to achieve whatever it is im trying to do. Like the other day im sitting in the lunch hall in Queens and a guy comes up to me and says "Do you want to donate money to help world peace?" I couldn't help but laugh just a little bit, not in his face, but inside. I didnt even ask how he would bring upon world peace and maybe I should have but the point is, in all honesty, is walking around Queens College asking for money from middle class to lower class kids going to bring world peace? No, is the answer. And that is kind of what I feel like when I read things like this and essays about changing the world. Each person is an individual, and it all comes down to that. If one women wants to get married, stay home with the kids and raise a family - she will. If another wants to go to college, get a degree and get a job - she will. I totally understand where women want to be treated equal and I have no problem with them fighting for that, but it's getting to a point now where I don't get what they are fighting for. This is a blog and we are supposed to type our thoughts and questions here, so I hope this isn't coming across close minded because I'm really trying to understand the purpose for all this. (And I'm not talking about this class, I mean this particular subject matter.)
In the introduction the point that is being made is, "The combination of unique individuality and common human essence coheres around the idea of the sovereign self, whose essential core of being transcends the nets of environmental and social conditioning. Poststructuralism has drawn on linguistics, psychoanalysis and political theories to disrupt this man-centred view of the world.." I think that this is something that feminist have been trying to do for some time now, and it reminds me of 'reading like a man' and it's also something I have a problem with understanding. I have never heard of this term before this class and it is something to think about, but even when I read a book written by a women, am I reading it from a man's view also because I'm reading it or a women's view because she wrote it?
Helene's writing was intresting because she was dealing more with the grouping aspect of it and that is something I think should be looked into more often. It all comes down to groups and trying to fit eveyone into a specific place and it can't be done because we are all different indivduals. But it goes to talk about how "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity." I don't know that for sure because I have never studied it but what is said makes some sense but I don't know enough to comment on it fully.
In the introduction the point that is being made is, "The combination of unique individuality and common human essence coheres around the idea of the sovereign self, whose essential core of being transcends the nets of environmental and social conditioning. Poststructuralism has drawn on linguistics, psychoanalysis and political theories to disrupt this man-centred view of the world.." I think that this is something that feminist have been trying to do for some time now, and it reminds me of 'reading like a man' and it's also something I have a problem with understanding. I have never heard of this term before this class and it is something to think about, but even when I read a book written by a women, am I reading it from a man's view also because I'm reading it or a women's view because she wrote it?
Helene's writing was intresting because she was dealing more with the grouping aspect of it and that is something I think should be looked into more often. It all comes down to groups and trying to fit eveyone into a specific place and it can't be done because we are all different indivduals. But it goes to talk about how "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity." I don't know that for sure because I have never studied it but what is said makes some sense but I don't know enough to comment on it fully.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
gender studies
Luce Irigaray says, “Man and woman, woman and man are therefore always meeting as though for the first time since they cannot stand in for one another. I shall never take the place of a man, never will a man take mine. Whatever identifications are possible, one will never exactly fill the place of the other.” Irigaray argues that sexual difference is a “gap between man and woman” and is interested in investigating it because so far the confusion over sexual difference has been “filled instead with attraction, greed, possession, consummation, disgust, etc” rather than harmony and understanding.
Irigaray differs from the feminist criticism construct we have created thus far because she is not so much arguing for equality for women as Simone de Beauvoir does in “The Second Sex” but rather harmony between the sexes, despite their differences. Simone de Beauvoir and the feminist criticism we’ve been discussing do not acknowledge fundamental differences, even biological ones, between men and women. I think Irigaray takes a risk by acknowledging differences between the sexes because some may say she is not a feminist.
However, Irigaray argues that there is a natural harmonic relationship between the sexes who, biologically, require certain differences to exist, and because they need each other they are equal. In this way, Irigaray’s thinking does overlap with the construct understood in our class thus far because she is still arguing for equality, that fundamental notion that drives marginalized groups in society to work together and form movements, such as the feminist movement.
Judith Butler’s feminism relies on queer theory to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of categorizing gender according to the sexuality of either man or woman. Her interest lies in investigating “how sexuality is regulated through the policing and shaming of gender.” She points out that homophobia often operates through “the attribution of damaged, failed, or otherwise abject gender to homosexuals, that is calling gay men ‘feminine’ or calling lesbians ‘masculine.’” Butler recognizes the many variations of human sexuality and believes that gender is socially constructed. She says, “For, if to identify as a woman is not necessarily to desire a man, and if to desire a woman does not necessarily signal the constituting presence of masculine identification, then the heterosexual matrix proves to be an imaginary logic.” In other words, man and woman are often thought of as necessary opposites. A woman is traditionally someone who desires a man, and a man is someone who traditionally desires a woman. However, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender individuals demonstrate the break down of this thinking. Even a homophobe will agree that a lesbian is a woman, and to agree means that the traditional construction of gender is insufficient.
Butler’s feminism varies from the feminist construct we’ve developed in class thus far because it deals with all women, gay, straight, or bisexual, and it is more concerned with the process and damage of gender construction than the polarized world between men and women. However, some of her ideas do overlap the traditional feminism we’ve been dealing with, because she is concerned with women’s issues.
Irigaray differs from the feminist criticism construct we have created thus far because she is not so much arguing for equality for women as Simone de Beauvoir does in “The Second Sex” but rather harmony between the sexes, despite their differences. Simone de Beauvoir and the feminist criticism we’ve been discussing do not acknowledge fundamental differences, even biological ones, between men and women. I think Irigaray takes a risk by acknowledging differences between the sexes because some may say she is not a feminist.
However, Irigaray argues that there is a natural harmonic relationship between the sexes who, biologically, require certain differences to exist, and because they need each other they are equal. In this way, Irigaray’s thinking does overlap with the construct understood in our class thus far because she is still arguing for equality, that fundamental notion that drives marginalized groups in society to work together and form movements, such as the feminist movement.
Judith Butler’s feminism relies on queer theory to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of categorizing gender according to the sexuality of either man or woman. Her interest lies in investigating “how sexuality is regulated through the policing and shaming of gender.” She points out that homophobia often operates through “the attribution of damaged, failed, or otherwise abject gender to homosexuals, that is calling gay men ‘feminine’ or calling lesbians ‘masculine.’” Butler recognizes the many variations of human sexuality and believes that gender is socially constructed. She says, “For, if to identify as a woman is not necessarily to desire a man, and if to desire a woman does not necessarily signal the constituting presence of masculine identification, then the heterosexual matrix proves to be an imaginary logic.” In other words, man and woman are often thought of as necessary opposites. A woman is traditionally someone who desires a man, and a man is someone who traditionally desires a woman. However, homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender individuals demonstrate the break down of this thinking. Even a homophobe will agree that a lesbian is a woman, and to agree means that the traditional construction of gender is insufficient.
Butler’s feminism varies from the feminist construct we’ve developed in class thus far because it deals with all women, gay, straight, or bisexual, and it is more concerned with the process and damage of gender construction than the polarized world between men and women. However, some of her ideas do overlap the traditional feminism we’ve been dealing with, because she is concerned with women’s issues.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
3.20.08
Last week we spent discussing feminist literary readings of texts born of or oriented to the patriarchy. This week we'll be moving into more abstract questions of Subjectivity and Gender. For Monday, read the introduction entitled 'Subjectivity and Gender' in Modern Literary Theory, and the excerpt from Helene Cixous 'Sorties' (226-235), Luce Irigaray's 'Sexual Difference' and the Judith Butler excerpt from Bodies that Matter . You'll notice recognize the attention to '/' from our discussions thus far, but will probably find the text otherwise difficult, so give it time.
For the blog, choose a quotation from two of the readings and use them to try to come to a conclusion about what these authors are getting at. That is, what are they interested investigating (and it should be distinct from the projects of feminist critics as we've described them thus far)? What overlaps can you find? Can you define their project? Be sure to refer to their texts in your attempt to arrive at a coherent description.
It's also more theoretical reading than we're used to for one day, but get through it and we'll complete the unit on Feminism.
For the blog, choose a quotation from two of the readings and use them to try to come to a conclusion about what these authors are getting at. That is, what are they interested investigating (and it should be distinct from the projects of feminist critics as we've described them thus far)? What overlaps can you find? Can you define their project? Be sure to refer to their texts in your attempt to arrive at a coherent description.
It's also more theoretical reading than we're used to for one day, but get through it and we'll complete the unit on Feminism.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
It's... the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Ghostbusters is so chauvinistic! Oh – My – Gosh!
Quotes from the movie, compliments of IMDB.com:
Dr. Peter Venkman: All right! This chick is TOAST!
Dr. Peter Venkman: [as the Ghostbusters approach Gozer] Grab your stick!
[the Ghostbusters draw their handsets]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: HOLDING IT!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Heat 'em up!
[they arm their packs]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: SMOKIN'!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Bang 'em hard!
[they rack their handsets]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: READY!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown... THROW IT!
-----
Casey Kasem: Still making headlines all across the country, the Ghostbusters are at it again. This time, at the fashionable dance club, "The Rose." The boys in gray slugged it out with a pretty pesky poltergeist, then stayed on to dance the night away with some of the lovely ladies who witnessed the disturbance.
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Nimble little minx, in't she?
-----
Dr Ray Stantz: Your girlfriend lives in the corner penthouse... of Spook Central.
Dr. Peter Venkman: She's not my girlfriend. I find her interesting because she's a client and because she sleeps above her covers... *four feet* above her covers. She barks, she drools, she claws!
-----
[Dana is possessed]
Dr. Peter Venkman: I make it a rule never to get involved with possessed people.
[Dana starts passionately making out with him]
Dr. Peter Venkman: Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule...
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'll take Miss Barret back to her apartment and check her out.
[Dana Barret looks up confused]
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'll go check out Miss Barret's apartment. OK?
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff! And don't stare at me, you got the bug-eyes.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: Janine, sorry about the bug-eyes thing. I'll be in my office.
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Alice, I'm going to ask you a couple of standard questions, okay? Have you or any of your family been diagnosed schizophrenic? Mentally incompetant?
Librarian Alice: My uncle thought he was Saint Jerome.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'd call that a big yes. Uh, are you habitually using drugs? Stimulants? Alcohol?
Librarian Alice: No.
Dr. Peter Venkman: No, no. Just asking. Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?
Library Administrator: What's has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
Seems to me like our hero, the charming, funny Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), is a PIG!
The woman he is chasing (his client!) is Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). She is possessed by Zuul, the minion of Gozer. Gozer is trying to bring about the destruction of the world. In the final encounter between good and evil, between the Ghostbusters and Gozer, Gozer “chooses” to take the form of a woman (actually, this is the writers choice). To boot, the woman form of Gozer has a short, male haircut, as if she couldn’t bring down the world looking like Marilyn Monroe. This is before she becomes the 400-foot Stay-Puft Marshmallow MAN. Obviously Gozer wasn’t able to get it done as a woman. The day is saved when the Ghostbusters (four men) “cross the streams,” the ultimate combination of futuristic falic symbols. And of course, Peter Venkman, the arrogant, funny, chauvinistic bastard he is, who has been pursuant of Dana throughout the entire movie, who in the first scene we see him is rigging a “test” for telepathic powers so that he can impress a cute blonde, who, of course, is dumb enough to fall for it, and agrees to let Doctor Venkman take her out on a date, who is obviously not as good a doctor or as smart as Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) or Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), is undoubtedly depicted as the leader of the Ghostbusters and the ultimate hero. The world is saved and Venkman gets the girl. The male fantasy realized.
More quotes just because I love this freakin’ movie:
Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
Dr. Peter Venkman: I see.
-----
Dr Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here.
Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!
Mayor: Is this true?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it's true.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick.
Quotes from the movie, compliments of IMDB.com:
Dr. Peter Venkman: All right! This chick is TOAST!
Dr. Peter Venkman: [as the Ghostbusters approach Gozer] Grab your stick!
[the Ghostbusters draw their handsets]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: HOLDING IT!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Heat 'em up!
[they arm their packs]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: SMOKIN'!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Bang 'em hard!
[they rack their handsets]
Dr Ray Stantz, Dr. Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore: READY!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown... THROW IT!
-----
Casey Kasem: Still making headlines all across the country, the Ghostbusters are at it again. This time, at the fashionable dance club, "The Rose." The boys in gray slugged it out with a pretty pesky poltergeist, then stayed on to dance the night away with some of the lovely ladies who witnessed the disturbance.
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Nimble little minx, in't she?
-----
Dr Ray Stantz: Your girlfriend lives in the corner penthouse... of Spook Central.
Dr. Peter Venkman: She's not my girlfriend. I find her interesting because she's a client and because she sleeps above her covers... *four feet* above her covers. She barks, she drools, she claws!
-----
[Dana is possessed]
Dr. Peter Venkman: I make it a rule never to get involved with possessed people.
[Dana starts passionately making out with him]
Dr. Peter Venkman: Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule...
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'll take Miss Barret back to her apartment and check her out.
[Dana Barret looks up confused]
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'll go check out Miss Barret's apartment. OK?
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff! And don't stare at me, you got the bug-eyes.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: Janine, sorry about the bug-eyes thing. I'll be in my office.
-----
Dr. Peter Venkman: Alice, I'm going to ask you a couple of standard questions, okay? Have you or any of your family been diagnosed schizophrenic? Mentally incompetant?
Librarian Alice: My uncle thought he was Saint Jerome.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'd call that a big yes. Uh, are you habitually using drugs? Stimulants? Alcohol?
Librarian Alice: No.
Dr. Peter Venkman: No, no. Just asking. Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?
Library Administrator: What's has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
Seems to me like our hero, the charming, funny Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), is a PIG!
The woman he is chasing (his client!) is Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). She is possessed by Zuul, the minion of Gozer. Gozer is trying to bring about the destruction of the world. In the final encounter between good and evil, between the Ghostbusters and Gozer, Gozer “chooses” to take the form of a woman (actually, this is the writers choice). To boot, the woman form of Gozer has a short, male haircut, as if she couldn’t bring down the world looking like Marilyn Monroe. This is before she becomes the 400-foot Stay-Puft Marshmallow MAN. Obviously Gozer wasn’t able to get it done as a woman. The day is saved when the Ghostbusters (four men) “cross the streams,” the ultimate combination of futuristic falic symbols. And of course, Peter Venkman, the arrogant, funny, chauvinistic bastard he is, who has been pursuant of Dana throughout the entire movie, who in the first scene we see him is rigging a “test” for telepathic powers so that he can impress a cute blonde, who, of course, is dumb enough to fall for it, and agrees to let Doctor Venkman take her out on a date, who is obviously not as good a doctor or as smart as Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) or Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), is undoubtedly depicted as the leader of the Ghostbusters and the ultimate hero. The world is saved and Venkman gets the girl. The male fantasy realized.
More quotes just because I love this freakin’ movie:
Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
Dr. Peter Venkman: I see.
-----
Dr Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here.
Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!
Mayor: Is this true?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it's true.
[pause]
Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick.
The Stepford Wives
Now, a feminist would be throwing things at the movie screen within the first half hour simply because it depicts the role of a woman as per the men who sought out to create the perfect wife. A feminist would also be angry at the way all the years of struggle for equality if it all led to a surgeon deciding to make a perfect world or neighborhood. I think in particular, one thing that a feminist will not agree with and dislike very much is the fact that the surgeon who started all this was a woman. Feminists would think that this type of women was left behind in the past and portrays everything that is wrong with the way society sees its women. Feminists would not agree with the idea that men should not act as women nor women as men, as this movie portrays.
In the scene where Matthew Broderick ends up in the room where all the programming for the wives are located, he plays around with the controls starting an irreversible “nano reversal” and deletion of the Stepford program from the wives’ brains. The re-born Faith Hill realizes what her husband has done to her. The rest of the wives follow and begin to take control of themselves and their husbands. Feminists would say that when it all comes down to who wears the pants in the relationship, that the woman wears them better.
Daisy Miller the Early Feminist
Henry James’s “Daisy Miller” immediately came to my mind, as it would present an interesting study for the feminist literary critic. One of my favorite books, it features the story of a young Daisy touring Europe and defying social expectations and norms.
Written by a male an analysis of the work would fall under Elaine Showalter’s category of Feminist Critique with an obviously male perspective. In fact, the story is interestingly, related through the male narration of Winterbourne. Therefore, the reader is directly privy to the stereotypes and womanly societal expectations that run through this male protagonist’s head. Winterbourne points out and is shocked by Daisy’s purposeful violation of cultural women expectations. For example, despite chastisement Daisy continues to walk un-chaperoned with male companions. Winterbourne is struck by her unabashed flirting. Winterbourne’s shock highlights what was, obviously conventional expectations. Daisy therefore is a progressive feminist.
Henry James published this work in the late 1800s, before the feminist movement was underway. Daisy is aptly dubbed a New Women, the forerunner to the college bound, cigarette-smoking women that will soon follow in the coming decades.
I think it is a point of interest to note that James has Daisy suffer a tragic and premature death. Perhaps James was aware that Daisy was too much ahead of her time and her feminist urgings would inevitably fail. Alternatively, perhaps James subconsciously wanted to kill the impending feminist movement.
James’s purposeful choice of a conservative male narrator is meant to horrify the reader by Daisy’s behavior. Furthermore, Winterbourne’s opinions are shared and articulated by other characters as well. Daisy the aspiring feminist faces many adversaries. Nevertheless, Daisy remains resolute. Winterbourne and the other societal bending figures constantly reprimand her and she is unapologetic and unyielding. In this regard Daisy is an exemplary model for future generation feminist advocates.
Written by a male an analysis of the work would fall under Elaine Showalter’s category of Feminist Critique with an obviously male perspective. In fact, the story is interestingly, related through the male narration of Winterbourne. Therefore, the reader is directly privy to the stereotypes and womanly societal expectations that run through this male protagonist’s head. Winterbourne points out and is shocked by Daisy’s purposeful violation of cultural women expectations. For example, despite chastisement Daisy continues to walk un-chaperoned with male companions. Winterbourne is struck by her unabashed flirting. Winterbourne’s shock highlights what was, obviously conventional expectations. Daisy therefore is a progressive feminist.
Henry James published this work in the late 1800s, before the feminist movement was underway. Daisy is aptly dubbed a New Women, the forerunner to the college bound, cigarette-smoking women that will soon follow in the coming decades.
I think it is a point of interest to note that James has Daisy suffer a tragic and premature death. Perhaps James was aware that Daisy was too much ahead of her time and her feminist urgings would inevitably fail. Alternatively, perhaps James subconsciously wanted to kill the impending feminist movement.
James’s purposeful choice of a conservative male narrator is meant to horrify the reader by Daisy’s behavior. Furthermore, Winterbourne’s opinions are shared and articulated by other characters as well. Daisy the aspiring feminist faces many adversaries. Nevertheless, Daisy remains resolute. Winterbourne and the other societal bending figures constantly reprimand her and she is unapologetic and unyielding. In this regard Daisy is an exemplary model for future generation feminist advocates.
behind the fairy-tales
In many of the fairly-tales, such as that of Cinderella, Snow White and such, certain traits of the main female characters seem to repeat themselves. As many of us can notice, they are always beautiful, weak and too nice to fight her enemies back. And as many of the feminist critics would find it unpleasant, they are always bound to be saved by men.
Women’s beauty and her submissive personality have been portrayed as something positive so much so that it could literally transform a person’s life. Women’s physical beauty on the outside seemed to be matched up with her inside “beauty”-powerless against her enemies- and such a woman only deserves to be saved from someone wonderful as the prince, according to the apparent themes of those stories. The idea of women’s beauty has been defined in such a way that the notion of women’s beauty often devalues the strength and the idea of independence of women. Women’s psychological as well as physical fragility calls upon men’s instinct to protect what's "inferior” to him, and thus, this particular idea fits well to that of the masculinity. As Cinderella and Snow White end up owing their happiness to the princes as they are being saved by them, it seems that the definition of women’s happiness wouldn’t be complete without men’s presence in it. Though these stories are often viewed as simply sweet fairy tales for the children, the stereotypical notion of women’s beauty, both physical and psychological, lay deep within them, and implies yet another form of male domination in the society.
Women’s beauty and her submissive personality have been portrayed as something positive so much so that it could literally transform a person’s life. Women’s physical beauty on the outside seemed to be matched up with her inside “beauty”-powerless against her enemies- and such a woman only deserves to be saved from someone wonderful as the prince, according to the apparent themes of those stories. The idea of women’s beauty has been defined in such a way that the notion of women’s beauty often devalues the strength and the idea of independence of women. Women’s psychological as well as physical fragility calls upon men’s instinct to protect what's "inferior” to him, and thus, this particular idea fits well to that of the masculinity. As Cinderella and Snow White end up owing their happiness to the princes as they are being saved by them, it seems that the definition of women’s happiness wouldn’t be complete without men’s presence in it. Though these stories are often viewed as simply sweet fairy tales for the children, the stereotypical notion of women’s beauty, both physical and psychological, lay deep within them, and implies yet another form of male domination in the society.
The Girls Who Went Away
Why is there such a thing as a Feminist? I don’t really hear the term “Male-ists”… I guess if you think about all the things woman have gone through, you’d expect some sort of support group to arise.
Ann Fessler’s “The Girls Who Went Away” tells the stories of the million and half women who kept silent during the post-World War II era in the decades before the Roe versus Wade case that allowed legalizing abortions. These women got pregnant, confided in their families, but were then sent away to special homes, where they were degraded, and lonely—and then gave birth alone in a hospital and had their baby taken away. They were many times dehumanized, humiliated, and degraded for becoming pregnant, and were never given a chance to see their child once it was born.
A feminist critique would look at Fessler’s story and study the ideology that was upheld in regards to unwed motherhood. A large number of the stories, the woman expressed how they were abused for breaking the norm of society. Due to their pregnancy the woman were treated like objects that were shipped away, kept in storage and sent back when “fixed”. A feminist would look at this, and question society, and the American vision of equal rights.
A fem. critic can also look at this entire story and question the facts that the men who impregnated these woman never got penalized or in trouble. The men were in no way bothered at all, and many times were not even told as to not hassle them.
Another thing to question is the number of mothers, who sent their own daughters away, and what they were thinking when they did that. How can a mother allow her daughter to give birth alone and have no support from anyone in such an emotional and physically strenuous situation?
Overall, this entire story is a haven for feminist critics to dissect and analyze in regards to the time period, the process of legalizing abortion, the females of the time, the males of the time, and society as a whole. *** Get this book, its an amazing read!
Ann Fessler’s “The Girls Who Went Away” tells the stories of the million and half women who kept silent during the post-World War II era in the decades before the Roe versus Wade case that allowed legalizing abortions. These women got pregnant, confided in their families, but were then sent away to special homes, where they were degraded, and lonely—and then gave birth alone in a hospital and had their baby taken away. They were many times dehumanized, humiliated, and degraded for becoming pregnant, and were never given a chance to see their child once it was born.
A feminist critique would look at Fessler’s story and study the ideology that was upheld in regards to unwed motherhood. A large number of the stories, the woman expressed how they were abused for breaking the norm of society. Due to their pregnancy the woman were treated like objects that were shipped away, kept in storage and sent back when “fixed”. A feminist would look at this, and question society, and the American vision of equal rights.
A fem. critic can also look at this entire story and question the facts that the men who impregnated these woman never got penalized or in trouble. The men were in no way bothered at all, and many times were not even told as to not hassle them.
Another thing to question is the number of mothers, who sent their own daughters away, and what they were thinking when they did that. How can a mother allow her daughter to give birth alone and have no support from anyone in such an emotional and physically strenuous situation?
Overall, this entire story is a haven for feminist critics to dissect and analyze in regards to the time period, the process of legalizing abortion, the females of the time, the males of the time, and society as a whole. *** Get this book, its an amazing read!
Feminism and Film
One of the most popular action movies viewed by many people is “Kill Bill Volume I & II” by Quentin Tarantino starring Uma Thurman and David Carradine. I find it to be an interesting movie for a female protagonist who not only takes the role of a man but beyond man. Uma Thurman takes a relentless agenda to avenge the murderous death of her family and it was certainly time for Bill to pay back. I mean I’ve never seen a movie where a man would do so much and go so far to reach the villain by killing so many people no matter what it takes, it was powerful.
A feminist critic would note in Jonathan Culler’s argument from “Chinua Achebe” that women experience tragedies more emotional than men and go beyond limits to overcome it as Uma Thurman progressed by killing a number of people without giving up just to get to Bill without any remorse in such case I think a man would feel some remorse but would kind of hide it by giving up if you get the idea ; “Woman’s experience , many feminist critics claims, will lead them to value works differently from their male counterparts, who may regard the problems woman characteristically encounter as of limited interest.”
In this movie, we virtually see that the tough women are the evolution of masculine roles. They have adapted aggressive traits from a male and applied it to their own impersonation but with the condition of their feminine attitude. There are lots of big time comical characters who take male roles such as O-ren Ishii who leads a top Japanese corporation. A Feminine critic should note that O-ren Ishii is the only female around a dozen male Japanese representatives which appears to be untraditional.
The feminist critic would argue that the male roles played by women is wrong for them, as Showalter stated “Avoid linear male literary history; Stop trying to fit women between the lines of the male tradition, and focus instead on the newly visible world of female culture.” We see masculine roles coming out of Elle driver, a cold blooded hit- woman who appears to have an eye piece strapped across her head parallel to what a pirate would look like. I think the film tried to break out of the male dynamic in ways of women showing that they are just as good to be male villains or rather better.
A feminist critic would note in Jonathan Culler’s argument from “Chinua Achebe” that women experience tragedies more emotional than men and go beyond limits to overcome it as Uma Thurman progressed by killing a number of people without giving up just to get to Bill without any remorse in such case I think a man would feel some remorse but would kind of hide it by giving up if you get the idea ; “Woman’s experience , many feminist critics claims, will lead them to value works differently from their male counterparts, who may regard the problems woman characteristically encounter as of limited interest.”
In this movie, we virtually see that the tough women are the evolution of masculine roles. They have adapted aggressive traits from a male and applied it to their own impersonation but with the condition of their feminine attitude. There are lots of big time comical characters who take male roles such as O-ren Ishii who leads a top Japanese corporation. A Feminine critic should note that O-ren Ishii is the only female around a dozen male Japanese representatives which appears to be untraditional.
The feminist critic would argue that the male roles played by women is wrong for them, as Showalter stated “Avoid linear male literary history; Stop trying to fit women between the lines of the male tradition, and focus instead on the newly visible world of female culture.” We see masculine roles coming out of Elle driver, a cold blooded hit- woman who appears to have an eye piece strapped across her head parallel to what a pirate would look like. I think the film tried to break out of the male dynamic in ways of women showing that they are just as good to be male villains or rather better.
Isabel Allende's 'Daughter of Fortune'
Isabel Allende’s Daughter of Fortune tells the story of Eliza Sommers, an orphaned Chilean girl brought up by a rich Victorian spinster and her rigid brother. The novel centers on the quest for her identity and the search for her lover who has gone off to the American West-Coast to seek his fortune during the height of the gold rush.
Several points in this novel might be of interest to a feminist critic. The fact that this is a novel written by contemporary female author about a woman during a time of rigid social precepts and gender roles (The setting is the Americas in 1820-1849) lends itself to the discussion of those conditions and as to whether or not they exist in our own time.
One of the first things that would be of interest to any reader approaching this with a feminist lens is the conditions of Eliza’s birth, adoption and upbringing. Like many other orphans in fiction Eliza is literally left on the doorstep of Rose Sommers and her brother Jeremy. Since both are unmarried, there is some concern as to what to say when asked about the little girl’s origins. Rose insists people would just accept the truth but rumors swirl that the Eliza was the product of an elicit affair between Jeremy and a native Chilean. The idea that this rumor persists for quite some time and only manages to cause only minor embarrassment to Jeremy in social circles highlights the fact that a man (especially a man with some power and degree of respect) could have an illegitimate interracial child and not have to deal with anywhere near as much problems as a woman. Had Rose put on a bit of weight in the last year and Eliza been just a little lighter there’s no telling what sorts of problems could have followed her arrival. Interestingly enough, it is revealed that Rose’s other brother John was in fact Eliza’s father with a native Chilean woman. Though he John is presented in the novel as a “progressive” male he still has this failing. Even his “progressiveness” is seen as a factor or product his nature being counter to the social norms and therefore somehow wrong.
While Rose is saved from the ignominy of being branded a slut she still has an almost worse appellation: “spinster”. Everyone knows it; it’s even on the back of the book. Rose is in her early thirties when the book opens and it’s clear from the offset that the arrival of Eliza presents her with the first opportunity she’s ever truly had to be a mother of any sort. Motherhood as a conformation of womanhood is a major feminist issue; the idea that a woman isn’t really a woman on her own she’s only a woman if she bears offspring which in turn have to be conditioned to fit these pre-existing cultural molds. This is exactly what Rose intends to do; declaring from the offset to make Eliza a “proper English lady” even if it kills one or the both of them. This is knowledge that Eliza learns in the “light”, proper social actions that Rose and Mr. Sommers can show off and be proud of. The knowledge that she learns in the “dark” from Mama Fresia is knowledge that goes against this. Secret almost mystical knowledge that taps into an aspect of womanhood that doesn’t not fit in to the ideal codified notion of femininity espoused by the upper class world of the Sommers and their friends.
But this just scratches the surface. Rose’s own past of rebelling against these social norms paints Eliza’s own upbringing as an attempt to redeem herself for breaking code. And there is also Eliza’s time spent as a man, the comparison of the woman-run brothel and young prostitutes in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)