Is she the mule?
Could the connection between the black slave and the white woman -- the tension between the two so beautifully captured in the current democratic race (I see the racism in that remark -- but I can't deny that when I was in the class African American History in the United States, the instructor, himself a black Methodist male, declared, "A white woman will be president before a black male..." leaving it up to us to decide whether this was a tragedy or not) -- be utterly contrived? I don't know how to reconcile this. When we were reading duBois in American Lit II at Fullerton a girl had the gall to compare the black slave experience to the white woman's experience, and I, with my carefully controlled tongue, blurted out, "And how many women were lynched in the 20th century? The 19th century?" and that girl wasn't thrilled with my comment, and possibly due to this confrontation, dropped the course.
I have trouble relating the experience of a white woman to that of a black slave, but I also struggle with comparisons I can't deny. In the paper that I am attempting to write for my American Lit class at DH I am comparing two texts that deal with innocence vs. experience. I want to use Huck Finn, and for the other text (keep in mind that there is no other text concerning slavery except "The Goophered Grapevine," I have selected The Yellow Wallpaper. And half a days notes into this I have run up against the wall of black slave vs. white woman. I have obvious problems with this comparison. And I know I could just use the texts, and there is no harm in doing so, but I think there could be harm to me. I see a fair and moving amount of difference in each experience, mostly concerned with the possibility of public execution. If Jim is caught as a runaway slave it is not impossible that he will be made an example out of, that is, castrated, hanged, and burnt. If the narrator from the Yellow Wallpaper were to leave her husband, she would be an outcast of society, but the prospect of physical violence is not apparent, and in this respect I don't see her having as much to lose. I guess it all depends on where you put your money, on physical or psychological violence. And even though these two different FORMS of violence have very different ways of acting out, the effects of them are similar, that is, they cause the victims to behave in similar ways.
What I have a deep problem with is one using the other as an example. At the very least it is a logical fallacy, and at best a haggard attempt at sympathy. One could possibly be a metaphor for the other, but they cannot truly be compared. And then, where law steps in, well that is a whole other story.
I'm pained by the whole process. I don't know where to draw comparisons and where to fight against the notion that the pight of a slave and the plight of a woman are similar. One has chains associated with physical torture and execution and the other has chains associated with identity and ego. I suppose they could run parallel in purely psychological terms, but not at the same time, and not according to the same rules.
Utterly infuriating.
4 comments:
Firstly, that comparison and its problems has been argued about endlessly over the last few decades; certainly in the 19th C early feminists adopted/stole slave iconography to demonstrate the plight of the white woman -- which creates obvious problems. I personally like to think of this as an example of, in a sense, the "red herring." To compare black people/white women (and then, indeed, what does one do with the black woman?) and try to decide in what ways their plights are comparable, different, etc., is somewhat of a distraction from perhaps the CENTRAL issue. I like to use a sort of Marxist approach in this situation. The central question, from a Marxist viewpoint at least, is "In what ways is the superstructure and base working together to effect the continued power of the bourgeousie (read white straight male). The assumption underlying this type of criticism is that ownership of the means of production AND the superstructure (law/religion/social mores/art/myths, etc.) all work together to ensure that those who have power remain in power. Ergo: the white woman/black person is the same in a fundamental way -- the superstructure and base of the society work together to ensure that they both remain powerless. The WAYS in which they work are quite different because the white woman/African American or slave perform different FUNCTIONS in the society -- but their functions work to the same purpose (to support the dominance and control of the white male/bourgeousie). So, yes, the Black Man served primarily as physical labor -- the black woman had the onerous duty of being physical labor that included rape and the production of new slaves -- and the white woman worked as the "helpmeet" to the white male (produce and take care of children, serve as a much less powerful 'assistant, etc) -- basically as UNPAID labor (so now we are back to the essential similarity of the situation -- unpaid labor that serves to further the interests of the bourgeousie/white male). In other words, because the MYTHS used to keep white women and black slaves "in their place" were different (although striking, again, in similar ways, more on that later) the CONSEQUENCES of breaking the rules for them were different (much more physical violence/death in terms of black slaves); however, although I certainly don't want to imply that being psychologically silenced is the same as being killed, etc., what really matters, in a sense, is that the END RESULT is the same: the white male remains in power.
The problem with trying to create a "logical" argument about the comparison between black/female is that the mythologies and "reasons" that were given to keep them "in their place" were fundamentally illogical and at odds with each other -- what I mean is that blacks were depicted BOTH as violent savages and as irresponsible children (obviously quite an opposite characterization) which clearly couldn't be "true" at the same time -- and yet both those depictions were used. What matters, again, is that regardless of whether one is a violent savage or irresponsible child, one still needs the white Male Father to keep the black person under control. Similarly, white women were both irresponsible children in need of protection AND the harborers of dangerous powers of sexuality/manipulation that might entrap the white male. Again, these are polar opposites literally, BUT regardless of which false stereotype you choose, again, the White Male Father is still needed to keep the white woman under control.
I hope I am being clear here (hard to see on a blog). What I am saying is that this argument, for me personally, serves as a distraction from the real issue: How do we ensure a just and fair society for everyone? To pit the powerless against each other (white woman has different needs that black man) is to simply ensure, once again, that the opposition is "divided and conquered" so that those in power remain in power. White women, black women, and black men have very different experiences in society (and let's just bring socioeconomic class in and then you've complicated it even further). What is the same for all of these folks is that they are all rendered lesser and powerless by society's economic, legal, artistic, etc. power base.
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.....
I'm pretty sure I understand. Do you think that any of this can fit into the format of "innocence vs. experience"? I mean do you think that maybe the characters recognize the structure and that is the end of their innocence?
Oh boy. Well, let's see. Huck's innocence is a very different type of innocence -- he has been so outcast by society that he has not been FULLY interpellated (influenced) by the superstructure (religion being the most obvious example). Still, he certainly has been influenced enough to THINK he should behave in certain ways, but he is innocent enough to then say, "Alright, I'll go to hell then." At that point, he reaches a certain degree of ethical maturity -- he decides to put his own beliefs ahead of "society's." And he agrees to pay the price society demands (to go to hell). This is what shows he has "grown up." The problem is that I think the book is a tragedy; the society as represented by Tom, et al. takes over the book and Huck must "light out for the territory." Which of course doesn't really exist. Its like this movie Phil likes (400 Blows? I think? French?) in which the schoolboy, in the final scene, runs to the ocean (symbol of freedom) and then stops at the water's edge and the camera freeze frames around his face (he is trapped). There is no escape in Twain's novel. So what does experience bring? The knowledge that one MUST escape "sivilization" because it is corrupt -- but there is only some imaginary "territory" to "lit out for"? I don't know what Twain envisions, but most of his work is dark and it just gets darker and darker. In the Yellow Wallpaper, well, EXPERIENCE simply brings madness. She "escapes" through madness....which, one assumes, serves only to physically entrap her -- her escape, again to me, is a tragedy, an unviable, unsustainable alternative -- much like Huck's imagined escape into the "territory." Both white child and white woman, as far as I am concerned, lose not so much INNOCENCE, but any possibility of belief in a life free of the confines of society -- if anything, I think innocence is supposed to allow us to be optimistic, to envision new realities, etc. Maybe. I don't know. I find American literature to be essentially so dark, so despairing, that I have a hard time focusing on innocence -- innocence in American texts, is generally shown to be ignorance. And the death of ignorance is the death of hope -- but a hope that was false all along. It is so funny that many years ago critics used to see American literature as optimistic, as celebrating the innocence of youth, because we are a young nation, etc. Currently, I think most critics see American literature as quite despairing. I know other readers see The Yellow Wallpaper as somehow being positive in that she "escapes" her captors and literally crawls over her husband's unconscious body -- seeing this as a symbol of her "mastering" him....but I just can't buy it. Perhaps she shakes him up a little, makes him question his beliefs a little, but most likely, I think, she ends up back in her yellow room....
Maybe we should meet and talk about what you are doing; I am not quite sure where you are going.
And you always come up with your own, UNIQUE take on things, usually something that never even crossed my mind, so I think you should be more confident that you will find your argument. You always do.
This is actually very helpful - and seeing how I have to turn this paper in in three hours...well. But as this helps me clear my head and can be a sort of free write I'll put down some of my notes:
Innocence, just like you stated, is a state of ignorance. This I believe 100%. I think that both these texts reveal that the oppressed (could be Jim or Huck, and the woman), are at first ignorant of the institutions they function within, that is, that their loved ones are their captors. There are several isntances of this -- Huck's father, Huck's relationship to Jim (even though Jim is the elder, Huck's actions dictate the story), the husband's relationship to the wife, and I think in Clemens' story there are even more examples of this. I think the loss of innocence is in realizing that the people you love are also your captors. Even Huck recognizes this when we refuses to be "sivilized" by aunt Sally; he realizes that no idea of "a loving home" can make him endure the possibility of becoming a "slave" to the institution of familial love as he's experienced it.
I don't think her crawling over him signals mastery per se, but I think it does represent that she understands their relationship to be only of jailer and jailed. I think my take is sort of similar to a Stockholm-type syndrome, but backwards. Instead of the captive going from revolt to submission, the characters go from submission to freedom -- or experience to innocence. I think this is the optimism that most people try to see, but the tragedy is still there full force, because these are LOVED ones that have been forcing them into captivity.
I hope this doesn't read as hopelessly urbane. But there is no time for crying. Just bang this thing out and hope for the best.
Post a Comment