Nameless I came
among olives of algae,
Fœtus of
plankton, I remember nothing…
—Derek Walcott, Origins (1964)
In
an attempt of writing, looking for the muse
seems to be one of the most popular reasons, especially when one is not having
the urge to write one. As platonic as it may seem, people do keep on finding
and constructing the arguments to justify them upon attempting such approach.
However, muse itself is not something
that ought to aid us in the matter of writing. Muse is a state, it is something
that we get involve with. Muse is not an idea, but a thought. It is something
that is achieved through the process of thinking and involvement, not the
process of waiting and being patient. Nonetheless, questions arise; what
influences the muse? What influences the thoughts? It depends. The root of
language has managed to spread its seeds within the minds of man, including the
buds of arbitrariness. It flourishes between the thoughts and multitude of
influential aspects that a man may have. One of which is a man’s memory,
history and past—a man problematic correlation with time. With such idea as the foreground, through the following
elaborations I would like to point out that the influence of memory within a
man—along with a man’s history and past—manifests through the hysteria, amnesia, unhomeliness and
act of censorship situated, presented, and represented within the writings.
To
correlate thoughts with the matter of time is not an easy task, indeed. It is
difficult to determine the place of time in which thoughts are relevant.
Different from the grammar of English which already established certain
requirements within the past and present to which the words are then
distributed. But then, the existence and significance of memory possess by man
tends to create a distortion within the already-problematic construction of
thoughts. Memory is, and memories are, past. These two terms have been
associated longer that I can even remember. When one talks about a memory, or
memories, one talks about the past—whether the past was to one’s possession, or
to the others. Muse, thoughts, memory,
and past, then, are involved in an enigmatic yet viable relation. It is
problem-inducing matter as we are talking about something that physically does
not exist. Yet, it is an argumentative and debatable remarks as we ought to
perceive the manifestation of the relation within texts—from a simple discourse
to a complex works of literature.
Said
pointed out that the “Appeals to the past are among the commonest of strategies
in interpretations of the present” (1994: 3), and for the similar but not
identical reason, I do believe on the significance of past. Despite the negativity
that common people usually associate towards any manifestation or even
mentioning of the past, the past
itself is a part of our present selves. I am having difficulties in agreeing to
the idea of how one should detach itself from the past. It is a ridicule
towards progress. We are not instant
substances, but we are formed by every single events, without bothering the
level of its significance to the respective selves, that happened in our past. It is one of the ways with which
we learn.
The
problem with the past is not how we
are going to free ourselves from it, but it is about the “uncertainty about
whether the past really is past, over and concluded, or whether it continues,
albeit in different forms” (Said, 1994: 3). It is the matter of asking whether
the past is persistent enough to keep on influencing our present, or is it only
a memory for us to remember—although
I’m not fully agreeing to the idea that past does not have any kind of
influence to our present. Thus, the “different forms” which Said mentioned
about ought to be our main concern in uncovering and deciphering the mutation
or transformation of the past towards our present. One
of the place where we are going to be able to encounter such circumstances are
texts. Barthes’ idea of how texts are tailored strands of ideas that do contain
the possibility to be consistently interwoven with another spec of thread from
either the past—classical texts—or the present—the contemporary—is one of the
better reasons for us to start unweaving the fabric of the texts. However, as
it is such an arbitrary matter, I would like to partially-emphasize my
elaboration towards particular fashion of texts that do stimulate my interest.
Women
and the people of the New World has become melancholic towards their own past. They are melancholy victims of the
persistent past that continues to interfere with their present.
Since the time of their birth, or even when
she gives birth, women have to face the male-or-men dominant phallocentric
society in which they suffered from the torture
established by the men. The abuse is not always physical, yet the mental ones
are far worse. Cixous argued that “Men have committed the greatest crime
against women. Insidiously, violently, they have led them to hate women, to be
their own enemies” (1976: 878). To situate such self-loathing situation,
physical torture is not sufficient. It is more on ideological and psychological
abuse as men are able to bend the innocent minds of women to hate against
themselves. And this circumstances does not only situate the already-horrible
mind-control scheme over women but also bodily domination against them as well.
With the lack of care against their own selves, it is viable to say that women
do not have the control of their own bodies, as a result from the
aforementioned manipulation. It seems to be a problem not only with the decapitation that Cixous also pointed
out, but it tends to become an annihilation
in a way that it is not only the head
that women have lost, but also their body.
The
availability of writing as one of the only means for the women to, at least,
try to regain the control over both
of their heads and body ends up as another way of manipulation conducted by men
to make them suffer even more as it is said that “…writing is at once too high,
too great for you, it’s reserved for the great—that is, for “great men””
(Cixous, 1976: 876). Not only implying the idea that the word great is not proper to be assigned to
women, it also implies both the cruel dominance of the men and the problematic innocence of women. As harsh as it may
sound, the problem relating to women does not start only from the
overly-dominant men but also the overly-innocent women. Some may say that their
innocence is also a product of the
manufacture of men, yet women do have to show the effort to resist themselves
against the manipulation of men. Wouldn’t it be ironic if then the liberation of
women is established with the aid of men, not from the strength of the women
themselves? They have to start speaking
and writing for their own selves.
I
am not going to bother explaining what women will achieve by starting to both speak and write. What has become my concern, however, are the outcomes and
the manifestations of the aforementioned repression that women experienced.
It
has been obvious that language is one of the ways with which men have managed
to assert their dominance against the women. Both the angelic and demonic masks of imagery, pointed out by Gilbert and Gubar[1],
which is the manufactory product of men, have been proved to incapacitate women
in their attempt to fully and honestly define their own selves. It is indeed a
difficult obstacle to overcome yet it is also required in order to increase the
awareness for the women about what is the real thing that they are facing. However,
these ramification within language does not incapacitate women only with its
ambivalent imagery—trap of imagery—but also the situation of silence. The inability to speak is considered as one of the dogmas
in relation to their problems within the
fights for the rights of their own selves. It even goes to the extent of how
such situation ought to construct the idea that “…she is passive”, and even
when being asked “”What do women want?”” is “to pose it already as answer…because the
answer is “She wants nothing”” (Cixous, 1981: 45). Yet, again, my emphasis will only be towards
the idea of silence as it situates
what Cixous believes as “the mark of hysteria” (pg. 49).
Hysteria,
or being hysteric, is one of the different forms of fear. Its influence of
astonishment is able to cause “The great hysterics” to “lost speech…and at
times have lost more than speech: they are pushed to the point of choking,
nothing gets through” (Cixous, 1981: 49). It situates not only the condition of
silence but also a prevention for something to get through, and this situation implies the severity of mental abuse that
is experienced by the women. Mental-related matter has become significant, at
least at this particular point of elaboration, as not only it has been
explicitly mentioned but it does imply a relevance with the relation of muse,
thoughts, memory and past. The question that I asked to the condition of
hysteria is simply how it does prevent something to get through out of a
woman’s mind. Even though it seems to be as simple as a mere influence, what I
am fascinated about is the whole correlation that the influence situates. The
silence of women does not necessarily repeat itself in every single occasion
that a woman may have. It is the hysteria, induced by the silence that has
become the source of such influence. It stays within her memory, and it keeps
on interfering every single attempt of her in speaking or writing thus
the outcome is nothing. Even though I am not yet able to specify any kind of
psychological or mental-related terms on such phenomenon, it is simply an
example of the variety of forms which the past—the
hysteria that women may have—has taken in its involvement in the present
interpretation that a woman conduct through her attempt of speaking and writing. However,
in an occasion when there is something that goes
out from a woman’s mouth, it comes as
something that no one would hear as they do talk but “they don’t actually speak” (Cixous, 1981: 49). Thus, it
merely emphasize both the irony and severity of their inability to let something get through.
Similar
yet very distinctive repression and fear
is also experienced by the victim of colonialism. The New World is then
considered as the aforementioned victim as Derek Walcott pointed out that
colonialism is their “common experience” (1995: 370). It is indeed another experience—which is somehow similar to
the experience of being a victim to the society of men that women has—even
though this particular experience is particularly in correlation with the
matter of colonialism, and or the idea of imperialism.
Let’s
begin with the basic of imperialism which Said pointed out that “…imperialism
means thinking about, settling on, controlling land that you do not possess,
that is distant, that is lived on and owned by others” (1994: 7). We ought to
say the previous problem between men and women is imperialistic as the men is
trying to settle and control the body of women which is
clearly something that the men do not possess and also distant as
physiologically speaking, they are different, and thus, distant. Nonetheless,
the idea of colonialism or the act of colonizing is a ramification of
imperialism in a way that through colonizing one will be able to acquire the
literal land that one does not possess, yet. Again, I would not bother
explaining about the actual process and details in the attempt of colonization
yet I would like to emphasize my elaboration towards the consequences situated
for the one that is colonized.
The
outcome that ought to be my main concern is not only visible through the actual
resistance or uprising within the certain society but it is at most significant
when being both presented and represented through texts or writings. Walcott
mentioned that “The muse of history”, relating to the bitter experience that
the colonized people may have, “has produced a literature of recrimination and
despair, a literature of revenge written by the descendants of slaves, or a
literature of remorse” (1995: 370). Slightly different with the women who may
still be facing the hysteria that causes them to not yet write or speak, the
product of writing and speech from the colonized society ends up as a vent of
anger and repulsion towards the cruel history
which forced to the state that they were or are having—both matter, with the
women and the colonized, seems to be as problematic. The experience seems to be
that severe in a way that it causes them to grow such hatred which later be
bluntly manifested through the literature. It is said to be caused by the
“Violence”, that, “is felt with the simultaneity of history” (Walcott, 1995:
371). And it seems to be vivid that the anger and repulsion has become the form
which their pasts have established in
intervening with their own present.
However,
anger and hatred are not the only memory
that has been established within the minds of the New World society. Amnesia is
also a phenomenon that is ought to be experienced by the New World minorities.
Similar to the idea of Bhabha’s displacement
that in turn, later within this essay, ought to be elaborated, the amnesia situates a situation in which
there is an exchange of feelings
between the master and the slave as “…the contrition of the master replaces the
vengeance of the slave” (Walcott, 1995: 372). Such circumstances implies a
distortion occurring within the remorse between the master and the slaves as
its border becomes problematic. Yet, it is ambiguous to believe that the
remorse of the master could easily substitute
the vengeance of the slave. It seems to me as a totally different matter.
And
later on his elaboration, Walcott also pointed out that poetry has become the home in which the New World poets are
able to bluntly exhaust the repressed anger and hatred influenced by the
historical significance of their pasts.
Walcott argued that the poetry does contain the mixture “of the acid and the
sweet” (1995: 372) which refers to the savory and yet sweet contradictions that
the New World society have towards the culture of the past and the one at their present.
Within
the same establishment, that is literature, Bhabha pointed out that there is a
commotion going on relating to the idea of the unhomely. It is both an ambiguous and ambivalent state in which “…the
border between home and world becomes confused; and, uncannily, the private and
the public become part of each other” (1992: 141). Different from what has been
the main concern of Walcott’s elaboration which emphasizes the matter of hatred,
vengeance and scorn, Bhabha’s argument magnifies the distortion of border that is situated especially on
between the home and the world, the private and the public. The
ramification of the distortion is established through a breach from one place in another; there is a world in a home, yet there
is also a home in a world. We might be confused about the words home and world as its own boundaries are not that
limited, explicitly. However, for my own convenience, I would like to refer
them as private and public.
“The
unhomely moment relates the traumatic ambivalences of a personal, psychic
history, to the wider disjunctions of political existences” (Bhabha, 1992: 144)
as it somehow exploits something that is private to a public audience. The
unhomely situates a moment in which the borderline between privacy and
publicity diminishes and there is a problematic yet ambivalent interaction between the private and the
public. The issues of such circumstances emerges when within a certain
literature transforms “…a “public” symbolic or ethnical realm” that “demands a narrative agency” which situates “often
alienating “intent” and disturbing “causal” determinism” (1992: 143). The
problem-inducing allusion of diminishing border between the private and the
public does not simply situate a circumstances in which both sides ought to be equal but it ends up becoming a place
that allows such manipulation, like alienation, possible. This is the reason why Bhabha also pointed out
that there is “...the profound divisions of an enslaved or apartheid society”
which “are re-located in the midst of the ambivalence of psychic
identification” (pg. 145). To my comprehension, such situation seems to be
similar with the minority and the majority as the majority tends to be the
public and the minority is the private. Even though it would be
difficult to uncover a direct alienation in such society, the existence of the
process is still possible as it is a situation in which two different
communities with their own distinctive historical condition and social issues
meet with each other; collision is ought
to be inevitable.
Moreover,
the unhomely does not only situate a collision but also a series of surveillance as Bhabha pointed out that
“the historical or social process must pass through an “aesthetic” alienation,
or “privatization” of its public visibility” (pg. 143). Such situation, yet
again, emphasizes the ambiguity of the border
which is the main concern of this particular matter as the border is not then
demolished but substituted by the aesthetic
that alienates and privatizes the process itself. It is indeed an ambivalent as
the unhomely does not only diminish
the border but also exploit it in a way that it has become the source of
problematic processes of representation. All of which, within Bhabha’s
perspectives, ought to be elaborately situated within literature in its attempt
to construct its own world, and such
scheme can be discovered through the “…sleight of hand with which literature
conjures with historical specificity” (pg. 147).
Derek
Walcott’s A City’s Death by Fire
(1962) is one of the examples that is able to simulate both the cynicism that
the New World society, or poets, have developed and also the unhomeliness in a
way that it situates an ambivalence and irony between the public and the
private. It is a narrative poetry as we are provided with both internal and
external point of view upon the event being told. The narrator’s references
towards religious terms like gospeller, churched, Christ, blessing, baptism,
and even a candle implies subtle yet vivid references towards the old culture that he does remember.
Emphasis on memory or historical association is also pointed out by the use of
the word “tales”, the “rubbled tales”, as a metaphor for the destroyed cities. Then,
the idea of cynicism upon the present situation is mentioned from the “wall
that stood on the street like a liar”, implying that there are nothing left,
all ablaze by the fire yet the narrator does believe that there are images of
wall standing before him. However, the narrator’s own remorse towards the
calamity is somehow denied through the acceptance by rebuilding the city and
building the idea that it is a blessing. Such situation does not only imply the
unhomeliness that the narrator experienced in a way that his private thoughts (his cynicism) ought to
be that different from the public
(the acceptance), but also the state of amnesia
that the narrator must go through by forgetting all the scorn that he may feel
with the acceptance influence by the public or the society that surrounds him.
The
previous elaboration, however, are only the beginning
as there is one other thing that have to be encountered by either the women in
their attempt to finally speak and write, the amnesia of the New World
society, or the unhomeliness within the House of Fiction, that is regarding
censorship. Its existence as a hurdle for them comes with a reason as it is the
consequences for such problematic, ambivalent and ambiguous matter like the
aforementioned hysteria, amnesia and the unhomeliness (Adipurwawidjana, Amalia,
and Manggong, 2005: 59).
Censorship
is considered to be relevant, or in correlation, with what Coetzee[2]
pointed out as offense. However,
rather than taking it as an offense—while
also having the difficulty in fully comprehending Coetzee’s words—it seems to
me that it can be considered as a threat. A thing is giving something a threat
so the thing is then censored thus it will not be a threat to something. Thus,
it would be possible to associate such relation with the relationship between one that does possess a higher power and the
one that is that powerless in a way that at some point the powerless managed to
become a threat for the one that
possesses higher power so that the one with power tends to censor the powerless
so it will not become a threat. Such interaction, within my point of view, is
similar to the problem between the private
and the public pointed out by Bhabha
in a way that there will be a time when the private has become a threat to the
public so that it alienates the private in order to make it harmless. Yet, the
only difference between the two distinctive ideas is its manifestation; one is
established through censorship, and the other is established through
alienation. However, both of the terms seem to be similar in a way that both do
tamper with the location and even existence of what has become its object of
doing. To censor is to prevent and suppress the undesirable elements of something,
and to alienate is to isolate something out of its mere strangeness. Both terms
do have relevant point of measurement; the thing that is undesirable and the thing that is strange. Nonetheless, such similarities will not be my concern,
yet.
The
aforementioned censorship is not merely external but internal as well. It turns
out that the act of censorship does not only come from the one who possess a
higher power, but also from the powerless one as well. And it can be considered
as one of the manifestations or form of influence from the cycle of muse,
thoughts, memory and past for in my comprehension the idea of something become
a threat itself is barely historical, and political. One is afraid about the
other one which is becoming a threat because the one knows that the other one
was harmless until certain turn of event. It is not only a
censorship, but also self-censorship. It is not only an alienation, but also
self-alienation. Such process is not only visible within general discourses but
also within the specific discourse relating to literature.
Despite
the abundant elements relating to literature itself, narration has become my
main concern relating to this particular matter with all of the possible
manipulation or alteration that it may present to us in narrating a text of
literature. Yet, in this certain occasion I am going to emphasize my
elaboration and arguments on the filter
of a character. The kind of filter that I am talking about is “…a vivid sense
of the life of the mind”, evoked by the authors, “by creating an illusion
called filter” (Chatman, 1993: 130). In
its actualization, the filter “turns
the character’s consciousness into a kind of “screen””, and, the most interesting
part of the explanation, “Like any screen, it lets only some things through” (my emphasis; pg. 130).
To
my understanding, we are able to associate this filter with the act of censorship being mentioned about earlier. Even
though we are not able to identify under what kind of measurement being used by
the filter, it does let only some things through its screen, meaning that there is something
that sorts out what goes through and what does not. Moreover, knowing the fact
that this particular filter works
within the consciousness of a character inside certain texts of literature, the
act of censorship conducted by the filter
is then a self-censorship, or an internal censorship. It
can be considered as a product or means of manipulation that the author
situated in order to achieve certain effects within the text of literature. In
doing so, Chatman said, “there are two main options. A narrator may quote the
very words a character “says” to himself…Or she may supply her own words”,
referring to the narrator, “to articulate the character’s thought or feeling”
(1993: 131). It is then a censorship through deciding for a choice; using the
character’s utterance or the
narrator’s own narration.
In
Derek Walcott’s As John to Patmos
(1962) for example, there is a frequent exchange of narration, or point of
view, between the I-narrator and the distant one. The narration shifted from
the third-person centered to the I-person centered between its lines, in at
least 3 stanzas of the poem itself. And from the distinctions of distance that
occurred within the line of narration inside the poem implies a different type
of filter situated on the poem
itself. At certain point, it provides us with such panoramic filter as it is able to provide us with
the abundant visual imagery, not to mention the glimpse of images that we have
on John. Yet, it also provides us with an insight towards the thoughts of the I-narrator, showing us the subjective filter towards the event being told in the poem. But,
those are only the explicit outcomes from the filter. The implicit ones will be relating to the reason and point of measurement for the filter
being used in the poem. Not similar to the idea between the public and private in A City’s Death by
Fire, the manipulation of narration in this poem tends to point out the
comparison between the life of the I-narrator and John. In addition, the
general narration of the poem also provides us with another comparison between
the island and the dust blown blood of cities, implying the desirable shock
that the I-narrator may have relating to the changes of place the narrator
experience.
All
of the preceding elaboration, yet again, is merely to signify the interesting
bits which comes to my interest. The muse, thoughts, memory and past manifests
through the hysteria, amnesia, the unhomely and even the censorship within the
narration as it has been mentioned about. Understanding should be deepen, then,
as my approach in the nearest future will attempt on uncovering not only the
mere explicit treasures that these ideas do situate, but also the implicit
ones. Historical is then the word that I ought to get acquainted with as all of
the previous ideas is necessarily based on the idea, correlation and interest
that I do have on the enigmatic and problematic past.
Work
Cited:
Adipurwawidjana, Ari Jogaiswara; Amalia,
Lien, and Manggong, Lestari. 2005. “Ambivalensi Naratif dan Transisi Sosial: Lady Chatterley’s Lover dan The Satanic Verses” in Kalam (Vol. 22, 2005; pp. 55-79) ed.
Supartono, Alex, et al. Indonesia: Yayasan Kalam
Bhabha, Homi K. 1992. “The World and the
Home” in Social Text (No. 31/32,
Third World and Post-Colonial Issues; pp. 141-153). United States: Duke
University Press retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/466222
Chatman, Seymour. 1993. Reading Narrative Fiction. New York,
United States: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cixous, Hélène. 1976. “The Laugh of the
Medusa” translated by Cohen, Keith and Cohen, Paula in Signs (Vol. 1, No. 4. Summer, 1976; pp. 875-893). United States:
The University of Chicago Press retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173239
1981.
“Castration or Decapitation?” translated
by Kuhn, Annette in Signs (Vol. 7,
No. 1. Autumn, 1981; pp. 41-55). United States: The University of Chicago Press
retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28198123%297%3A1%3C41%3ACOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N
Coetzee, J.M. 1996. Giving
Offense: Essays on Censorship. United States: The University of Chicago
Press
Gilbert, Sandra and Gubar, Susan. 2004.
“The Madwoman in the Attic” in Literary
Theory: An Anthology ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (2nd
edition; pg. 812-825). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Said, Edward W. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York,
United States: A Division of Random House, Inc.
Walcott, Derek. 1962. “As John to
Patmos” and “A City’s Death by Fire” from “In A Green Night” in Derek Walcott: Collected Poems 1948-1984
(1992; pg. 5 & 6). Great Britain: Faber and Faber Limited.
1974.
“The Muse of History” in The
Post-Colonial Studies Reader ed. Ashcroft, Bill; Griffiths, Gareth and
Tiffin, Helen (1995; pg. 370-374). London and New York: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment