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. 

“While each individual delegate of the people merely represents this or that party, this or that city, this or that outpost, or even just the necessity of electing any old seven hundred and fifty where neither the man nor the matter is closely examined…” (Marx in Cowling and Martin, 2002: 38).  

Us being different with one another—especially in our point of views, ideology, and so on—is obviously enough to be a reason for the variation of one’s preferences and interests in terms of the types of issues, topics and problems that they have presented in their writings. One could pay more attention towards the ‘representation’ of certain value in a text—both literature and non-literature— as that particular value correlates with one’s ideology, point of view, or intentions; thinking that if one writes about that topic, it would be beneficial—or at least entertaining and fulfilling—for him/ her. Things get more complicated, in a way, as one does have the possibility to involve him/herself into a community, in which the member carry a similar understanding upon one idea, thus the act of discussing about representation of one’s idea about certain topic has become a symbiotic connection of fulfilment of the objectives between one’s personal reasons and the missions that the community, in which one got involved, carry. Yet, it is quite ironic to see that the following connection itself, the relation between one’s ideas with his or her community, is a form of representation as the writings, in which one’s idea about his or her interests upon a text is elaborated, have become the representation of not only one’s thoughts but the concept which is discussed in respective communities. The writings ought to present the representation of the idea and interests of both personal interests of the writer, and the community which they belong to. Even though such connection will not always be that visible in every single words and sentences of such writing, as the craftsmanship of a writer differs from one another, it would be difficult to perfectly conceal the slightest relevancy showing the correlation of the ideas.

“Specifically, as we will try to show here, a woman writer must examine, assimilate, and transcend the extreme images of “angel” and “monster” which male authors have generated for her” (Gilbert and Gubar in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 812).

Gilbert and Gubar writing, “The Madwoman in the Attic” (1979), is one of the few essays that presents us with abundant examples regarding political matters in representation. It is interesting to see how vivid their intention is as they word ‘show’ clearly shows it, taking the role of a bridge between their ideas and every correlating element of the writing. And as soon as we discover ‘a woman writer’, ‘extreme images’ and ‘male authors have generated for her’, being put together in one sentence, we ought to predict that the idea which is being discussed in Gilbert and Gubar’s writing is about the issues on feminism. It is being represented through their presentation on how difficult it was for women to free themselves from the bound—of ‘extreme images’, ideas, description, and many others—which have been established by the works of men. An elaboration of the irony where one of the main hurdles in the struggle of feminism is the idea of how every single method which women can use to determine herself is a product of men, and the opinion of how every single ‘freedom’ which women can achieve will only lead to her own downfall. All of the following issues are the representation that Gilbert and Gubar have presented by analyzing the representation within various works that possess correlating ideas and discussion, like Virginia Woolf’s “Professions for Women,” (1942), John Ruskin’s “Of Queens’ Gardens,” (1899), and many others, in which each respective writers have elaborated their representation of such matter.

“Austen takes pains to show us two apparently disparate but actually convergent processes: the growth of Fanny’s importance to the Bertrams’ economy, including Antigua, and Fanny’s own steadfastness in the face of numerous challenges threats and surprises. In both, Austen’s imagination works with a steel-like rigor through a mode that we might call geographical and spatial clarification” (Said in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 1116).

As it covers different idea and topic from the preceding Gilbert and Gubar’s writings, another example of how widely-ranged representation is, in “Jane Austen and Empire”, Edward Said tried to present his interpretation of Jane Austen’s representation through her own representative works of literature. Even though it’s not as obvious as the previous one, looking at Said’s personal interest towards particular event, situation or ideas in Austen’s works, that is the connection between “The growth of Fanny’s importance to the Bertrams’ economy”, it signifies what kind of Austen’s representation that is beneficial in elaborating Said’s fascination towards “geographical and spatial clarification”. As it also clarifies Said’s representation on how Austen has presented her representation about such mater, looking at how he said that “Austen take pains” in presenting such matter, adding personal yet political point of view within the sentence. Through the representations which have been done by Austen through her works, Said constructed the idea of how geographical and spatial elements ought to be important in the matter of representing an idea, concept, culture, order, and many others. One will not be able to represent something if one does not empirically and spatially involved and experienced on correlating elements which have something to do with the thing that is going to be represented. To put it slightly, one would not be able to represent a person from Japan if one was not born or raised in Japan. With the following idea, Said somehow considers this situation as a representation of how Imperialism works as an appropriate representation of a nation is highly required—meaning that the representative ought to possess the aforementioned geographical and spatial qualities—to preserve the quality the nation when it is being represented in another country, hoping that by using such method a nation will achieve a certain degree of security on its ‘power’ upon its claimed land. Adding some slightly recognizable proof upon the political value of representation as according to Said’s explanation on how it helps a nation to reinforce their imperialism towards its claim.

“It should not be possible to read nineteenth-century British literature without remembering that imperialism, understood as England’s social mission, was a crucial part of the cultural representation of England to the English” (Spivak in Rivkin and Ryan, 2004: 838).

I am thankful to the fact that Spivak was helpful enough by providing us with the general introduction, in “Three Women’s Text and a Critique of Imperialism”, that there is a correlation between the imperialism, British literature, and the cultural representation of England as it provides us with general mainframe of how one idea correlates with one another. Spivak’s interpretation of how all of the nineteenth-century British literature is related to imperialism, and the cultural representation of respective value—England—somehow suggests us with the idea that literature itself is one of the embodiment of  representation on any relatable discussion, topic, or issues which exist within periodical or even topical time frame of such literature. Meaning that every single literary works has the ability to become a presentation of a representation concerning any sorts of matter that the writer, the literature itself ought to elaborate in the writings. Using the following concept as her main foundation, Spivak elaborates her idea about how in “Jane Eyre” (1847) the problems regarding women’s psychological are represented through “Jane’s self-marginalized uniqueness” (2004: 840) which eventually leads to the presupposition of how “the progress of Jane Eyre can be charted through a sequential of the family/ counter-family dyad” (2004: 841). Implying that any mental related ideas that Jane did carry will leads to the binary conception of a family and counter-family, which later becomes the problem on how one type of family is being represented through the presence, existence, or even action of the characters within the story. Moreover, in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (1818), the main concern of the representation elaborated through its sentences is a dispute where “Frankenstein’s apparent antagonist is God himself as Maker of Man, but his real competitor is also woman as the maker of children” (2004: 847). Spivak signifies the idea of how such quarrel between becoming the Maker of Man and woman as the maker of children is merely an economical objective where it is simply a man’s intention to become able in creating a ‘Man’ as such role has been assigned to women who are clearly the one who is capable to bestow the process of making, giving a birth to a man. One the other hand, this condition somehow implies the sense of envy and jealousy that men possess regarding the inability to make or to create something. All of which is still under the veil of the representation on the value regarding imperialism.

These paragraphs of presentation about my own representation regarding such problematic cult of ‘representation’ are merely the smallest pieces of the whole discussion, arguments, and opinions on such idea. Even though, it has become slightly vivid that the whole representation of something, or someone, or anything, is barely political in a way that the effort of presenting one’s representation about something that is being represented will always be supporting prepositions on particular and arbitrary ideas. Yet again, this entire political significance within the process on the whole cycle of representation—as its continuity is indeed problematic, and vague—could only be another element which can be found in terms of defining the function of representation. Thus, it is somehow possible to relate such arbitrary idea with even more complicated, sophisticated, and elaborated concepts without losing any kind of connection and correlation between them as we are able to barely uncover the rumored relation between the whole idea of representation with economical, psychological, sensual, or even sexual probabilities which is indeed possible when we put the arbitrariness of representation in correlation with the arbitrariness which those concepts carry.

                                        

Work Cited:

Gilbert, Sandra and Gubar, Susan. 1979. “The Madwoman in the Attic” in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2004, 2^nd edition; pg. 812-825). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Marx, Karl. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (Trans. Carver, Terrel) in Cowling, Mark and Martin, James. 2002. Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire: (Post)modern Interpretations. Virginia, United States: Pluto Press.

Rogers, A. K. 1904. “Scepticism” in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 13 No. 6. North Carolina, United States: Duke University Press.

Said, Edward. “Jane Austen and Empire” in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2004, 2^nd edition; pg. 1112-1125). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1986. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism” in Literary Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2004, 2^nd edition; pg. 838-853). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.