Response 1 (Draft 4) Mimicry: Skeptically Political Writings

While proceeding his ways in presenting the whole polemic about mimicry—which eventually magnifies the core of discourses in post-colonialism as it eventually uncovers the enigmatic ‘relation’ between a colonizer and the colonized—Bhabha, in his wit-filled writings “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” (1984), did inform us that one of the excess from the correlation between “mimesis and mimicry is a writing” yet it does not in parallel with the general perception about writing as in his point of view, a writing is “a mode of representation, that marginalizes the monumentality of history” as it is manifested to “quite simply mocks its power to be a model, that power which supposedly makes it imitable” (pg. 128). As our memory being brought back towards the issues within representation, on which I had elaborated my own explanation on how it is simply ideological as it mainly concerns about the validity of certain representation regarding certain theory-related discourses, or works of literature[1], Bhabha also reminded us to the whole discussion about writing, which is obviously in relation with language and all of its intricacies—like the issues on its structure, or one of its manifestation as criticism, both of which I did talk about in my previous writings[2]—creating a some kind of ‘unity’ between every single variable in his preposition. Yet, it does lead to some intricacies as terms “mimesis and mimicry” and “power” emerge as part of variables in the aforementioned ‘unity’. Such terms are generally obvious in creating such intrigues as all of which are problematic in each of their own ways.

Response 1 (Draft 3): Language and Literary Studies: Skeptically Political

 “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Since I mean by sign the whole that results from the associating of the signifier with the signified, I can simply say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary” (Saussure in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 62).

Saussure’s idea about how language unit is “a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms” (2004: 61) has become the pinnacle for the analysis, further approaches and studying towards language as it provides huge amount of both space and possibilities for one to uncover the arbitrariness that language carries. Even though, it is still difficult to comprehend its arbitrariness as the language system which is the seemingly most obvious apparatus to be exploited in dissecting and analyzing the arbitrariness is also arbitrary. Yet this situation alone increases the level of intricacies that the language has; despite the irony that could be implied from the following condition, it widens the possibility for an analysis to be conducted as language is unrestrained from a bound that its own form provides. A symptom on the idea that the arbitrariness of language has become one of the elements in an attempt deconstructing the structure of a language as its allow such amount of flexibility for one to relate any matter under the veil of language as long as it carries some level of ‘likeness’, contextual correlation, and any degree or type of connection between respective issues; I assume, it is possible to do so as the word ‘arbitrary’ itself refers to the idea of unspecified issue or value, creating a chance for it to be specified towards particular ideas of problems under the framework of language.   

Putting those preceding ideas in mind, it is intriguing to make an attempt in finding and correlating something which is as arbitrary as language into something just as arbitrary in a sense that it possesses similar degree of ‘contradictions’ and ‘unspecified-ness’ elements. And that’s when, the whole idea—or issues—about skepticism, skeptical mind-frame, or skepticality comes to mind.   

Response 1 (Draft 2): Representation: To Present, To Represent, To Be Represented

The term ‘representation’ has become the cult for many people who indulged themselves inside the realm of literary studies where some have used the approach properly, and some have been lost while finding the appropriate way to apply such method in analyzing their respective object of study. No one is at fault in struggling to properly apply the problematic cult of representation, as it seems to be so arbitrary, providing ways for the people to analyze even a single misuse of punctuation or an error in subject and object placement of sentence within a work of literature, as long as they consider those issues as an viable references for them to write a simple essay—with distinctive reasons that each of person has in doing so. In a way, the whole idea of writing about any kind of representation/s is simply based by one’s distinctive enquiries or skepticality—degree of being in doubt or uncertain about something—leading to the process of finding intriguing, eye-catching and mind-catching issues followed up by actually discussing those problems and arranging them into a simple writing.

“And by scepticism I shall mean here that some- what unsystematic attitude whose ground is to be found primarily in an appeal to the fact of error, and a challenge to point out the marks by which we might recognize truth if we once were to stumble on it” (Rogers, 1904: 627).

Such condition emphasize the degree of arbitrariness implemented within the discussion on representation as according to A. K. Rogers, the emergence of issues that lead into the construction of discussion about representation is based on ‘unsystematic attitude’. Both elements of the phrase, ‘unsystematic’ and ‘attitude’ carry sufficient amount of inconsistency, as those two conditions may vary, depending on certain degree of uncertainty and variety which one possesses—especially on situations regarding one’s attitude. From this arbitrariness alone, we seem able to point out that the idea of using the concept of representation is simply political—and may also be economical. The word arbitrary itself is already political as it is based by random and subjective reasons, pointing and exploiting out subjects, ideas and topic that only matter to one’s perspective—with a slightly rare case of other person having similar or exactly the same issues with each other. 

Response 1 (Draft 1): Skepticism and Criticism

If we put a discussion about the term ‘skepticism’—the state of being ‘skeptical’, a ‘skeptic’—many people will only correlate it towards the idea of not being able to choose between several options, questioning too much about certain things, etc. Even though, some of which are acceptable, the term skepticism or being skeptical does not always imply that that particular person is not able to recognize the validity of certain proposition; it is the other way around. 

“The Greek word skepsis means enquiry or investigation. But a sceptic is not merely who investigates...Sceptical investigation is distinctively shaped by the possibility of deception and error” (Thorsrud, 2009: 1).

Tracing back to its roots, generally speaking, the word skeptic—or sceptic in its archaic form—is a state of having enquiries about certain issues or a will to investigate something even deeper than before. This condition implies that the seemingly indecisive behavior of a skeptic is not merely caused by the reason that he/ she was not willing to agree on a particular opinion—even though the term ‘to agree’ seems too strong for me as it enclose the possibility of further argumentation—but by the existence of unresolved explanation, resulting further questioning and enquiries, thus preventing themselves to fully accept or agree on one opinion. By being in doubt of their own thoughts, does not simply imply that they’re not doing anything about it as their own enquiries are the results of their ‘skepticality’—being skeptical.

However, in talking about criticism in studies of literature, relating to the idea of skepticism, there are several things that we could argue about as both seems to be related in a way.

“Every meaningful action—wearing a necktie, embracing a friend, cooking a meal—is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code” (Scholes, 1986: 1)

The matter of the ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’, as the pinnacle of analytical approach in language, cannot be ignored as Scholes pointed out that the meaning is a sign in form of interpretive codes, so as the meaning in language. Varied by political, cultural, geographical, and any other aspects related to our own existence, the possibility of deciphering those codes differently is obviously vivid. Hence, the ongoing lists of discourses, especially the one relating to literature—even though Scholes himself is aware that there are still questions about the literariness of a text—have been produced since the days when Plato and Horace talked about “poetry” and “poetic fiction” to even the very second when I typed additional letters and words into this writings. However, the existence of countless variation that the discourse about literary studies is problematic in a way that it vaporizes the border between one topic to another as some may thought that the topic about imperialism and capitalism is the same thing due to the lack of awareness and the lack of further investigation about the matter resulting in the act of accepting one’s argument about something carelessly. 

Angel of Death

Though I am not sure whether I should call this writing as an essay or a mere journal of one of my restless nights, I have to write this either way—as these ideas prevent me from going to sleep, turning myself tense like carrying tons of heavy thoughts over my head, and strangely my chest.

It begins when I finished reading the sixth page of Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic, for one of my subject in college. I never thought that I only have a microscopic size of knowledge regarding the issues about women in literature, I was too much of a hard-headed person to even realize that I do not know a thing about this particular discussion, nothing at all. I am not aware that this issue is much worse than what I think—worse in a sense that it confuses me even more than I imagined it would be. It traces back to the Middle Ages, as “mankind’s great teacher of purity was the Virgin Mary, a mother goddess who perfectly fitted the female role Ortner defines as “merciful dispenser of salvation”” (Gilbert and Gubar,2004: 814) and then to the nineteenth century where “the eternal type of female purity was represented not by a Madonna in heaven but by an angel in the house” (2004: 814). At a first glance, you may think that these sentences have nothing to do with any kind of issues relating to feminism, or women in literature—as I prefer to call it so—yet these are few of the most ironic remarks on the ideas of such issues. It seems harmless as female were connected with such aesthetical terms as ‘goddess’ or ‘angel’, but the fact that those terms seemed harmless is the main issue of this remarks. The word harmless subtly implies that it does not matter at all; it does not matter in a way that it does not have any significant influence for other subject. Even when we do acknowledge the existence of a woman, her voice will only be considered as one of the most reliable opinion in constructing the mightiness of her husband, her man; ignoring the fact that she actually did something significant, she did a “significant action” in the effort to signify her man. The situation becomes worse as “…based on the notion that “Man must be please; but him to please / Is woman’s pleasure” (2004: 816), scrutinizing women existence ever deeper into an exile. This is another irony to the idea of recognizing women as a human being as it is implied from the preceding sentence that women is not a human in a sense that she does not have any needs or desire or dreams or anything that a normal human would have; we don’t have to really pay any attention to those needs that she may (not) have. “The arts of pleasing men, in other words, are not only angelic characteristics in more worldly term, they are proper acts of a lady” (2004: 816), those remarks seem to be absurd and slightly ironic in a way that how can we say pleasing a man is an angelic thing when it is a process to satisfy one of men’s deadliest sins, Lust. Thus, is it an obligation for the women to become a place where a man, or men can vent out their ‘angelic’ lust, anger, greed, gluttony, and many other ‘angelic’ reasons?

“At times, however, in the severity of her selflessness, as well as in the extremity of her alienation of the ordinary fleshly life, the nineteenth-century angel woman becomes not a just a memento of otherness but actually a memento mori or, Alexander Welsh has noted, an “Angel of Death.” (2004: 817)

Nothing Out of Ordinary

“Well…that’s the last thing you need know about Puritanism. Do any of you have a question?” The classroom fell into silence. Some of us looked at each other, and they didn’t find any sort of way to make a nonsense question. “No one? Really? Fine then, I will see you next week. Have a good day”, he packed his bags with his collection of books about history and stuff that he taught in his classes. The familiar silence was finally broken, by the squeaks and rustles of shifted chairs, moved books and closed utensils. The classroom was empty as it should be. All the merriness transferred to the hallway, filled with the sound of galloping legs and chattering of people’s mouths. It was a hard thing to find a way through it all, yet it was worth the effort. Clouded sky complemented my footsteps, as I was walking down the street with the smoke and sound of ongoing traffic. Something was stuck inside my soul, yet it was not a grudge or anger, it was a slight hint of curiosity—A question that I should’ve asked. I opened the door of my house with my numbed hand, with hurried steps dragging my feet to the bedroom. After throwing my bag over the bed, I sat on my frozen chair while my mind was focused on one thing, imagining a world controlled under the so-called ‘law’ of Puritanism, using my professor’s description as a component to the hallucination of mine. “It was an idea that forces its people to life by an absolute control from the bible. Anything that was considered as a sinful act, or that despised the rule of the Bible, would be diminished. Tradition, liturgy, and even any form of entertainment like literature, drama, those were considered as source of sins, and of course banned and forbidden in the community,” he said. Like hunger that controls us to look for a food, has such idea become a part of the people at that certain period of our time? Like fear that could be manipulated for an advantage towards certain party, did such ‘absolute’ idea—under the shelter of the Bible—possess one-sided objectives as well?