Thoughts on Fanon's article

In this week's post, I'll respond to this quotation from Fanon's article.

"To speak a language is to take on a world, a culture. The Antilles Negro who wants to be white will be the whiter as he gains greater mastery of the cultural tool that language is."

The main point here is that the mastery of the language of the dominant culture enables one to assume a culture. For some reason, I immediately thought of Obama. He's now the first African-American president of the US, and by extension also the most powerful person in the whole world yada yada ... but at the same time, is Obama "black" or "white" ??? Yes, he has a black body, but in many ways, he's also white. He's not only really well-educated (all the great schools!), speaks well, speaks the language of the educated white Americans etc; or perhaps we can consider him as black in a way that is acceptable to many whites. In many ways, Obama's success at being able to "take on a world" can be attributed to his being able to "gain greater mastery of the cultural tool" of the Americans. In comparison however, if we were to come across a black drunkard in an alley, we would immediately classify him as a black. But of course, this black drunkard speaks the same English as Obama, so I think the question then to ask is if they're speaking the same language?

Whilst writing this blogpost, I suddenly thought of a show that I use to be quite crazy over. "mind your language"-- in which Mr Brown teaches a class of foreigners English and all the cultural stereotypes start showing themselves. It's hilarious, okay, maybe also racist. But at the same time it shows how we can all be speaking the same English, but actually speaking a different language.

the ironic tone of the novel

I would like to suggest that novel invites us to take an ironic view of Stephen's artistic ambitions. This can be seen from the title of the novel- "The portrait of an artist as a young man." The word "portrait" suggests that the novel is a self-conscious attempt at framing the artist as a young man. If this is so, the novel then highlights the artist and his inexperience, thereby setting up Stephen's ambitions and his perspectives as flawed and perhaps even foolish. This invites the reader to stand at a critical distance from Stephen, and to evaluate his ambitions. Therefore, when Stephen triumphantly proclaims that his art will be the means of liberation for the Irish people;

"Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race"

is the title of the novel then hinting at the impossibility of this success?

Thoughts on Stoler

Stoler's article argues that "categories of 'colonizer' and 'colonized' were secured through forms of sexual control," these forms of sexual control and the “rationality” behind them are furthermore dynamic, and change overtime for the purpose of maintaining imperial power. Stoler supports her argument by giving examples of how concubinage is viewed differently over time.

Despite these shifting views of concubinage, what remains static for me is not just simply that the binaries of 'colonizer' and 'colonized' are maintained, but that concubinage is never discouraged (not until the early 20th century- when way to many mixed kids started popping out) and sex remains a common denominator in these shifting views. This is interesting because these sexual exchanges seem to be a consequence of [???- not sure] the economic exchange and trade that colonialism is about.

Economic exchange and sexual exchanges are perhaps one and the same thing. (think commodification of bodies). As a result, everything is reduced and thought of in terms of money. Someone said last week that money effaces race, perhaps its not the erasure of race in the sense of being able to transcend the social class that is associated with your race, but rather, the unmarking and effacement of your individual cultural past, and also the act of re-inscribing you with a new kind of marking/worth- in terms of dollars and cents, in order that the native might remain dependent. The institutionalization of these hybrid children as a form of containing hybridity is then just another "thing”/mechanism that arises from this capitalist system, just as it is also the capitalist machine that in the very first place gives rise to these shifting forms of sexual control that “secure” these binaries.

I hope I make sense, got a bit confuse myself while typing. ☺

Capitalism in Burmese Days.

"We seem to have no authority over the natives nowadays, with all these dreadful Reforms, and the insolence they learn from the newspapers. In some ways, they are getting almost as bad as the lower class at home."

Here, Mrs Lackersteen complains about the increasing difficulty of controlling her servants. But at the same time, by comparing the 'lower class' in English society to the 'natives,' this quotation also highlights the stark parallels between the social structure in English society and the colonial enterprise in India.

"Everyone is free in England; we sell our souls in public and buy them back in private, among our friends. But even friendship can hardly exist when every white man is a cog in wheels of despotism ... you opinion on every subject of any conceivable importance is dictated for you by the pukka sahibs' code."

Here again, the narrative describes the capitalist regime of English society in Hindu terms (ie: Pukka sahibs' code). This again highlights the parallels between the situation in England and in Burma. Therefore, I think it is perhaps arguable that "Burmese Days" is also a critique of the capitalist discourse and not just imperialism per se. Perhaps it is even arguable that Burma is merely a tool used by Orwell to unveil the evils of capitalism in England. By highlighting the similarities, I think the novel also exposes the nature of these systems, suggesting that institutional power doesn't rely on any individual (whether the pukka sahib in Burma or the bourgeois in England), and ultimately results in the alienation of the individual as exemplified by Flory.

"If our prestige iss good, we rise; if bad, we fall"

Unlike in Forster's "Passage to India," where membership to the club is strictly British-only, the Kyauktada club in "Burmese Days" is considering the admission of orientals ( not sure what happens later. sorry, I'm only at chapter 10!). This seems to be an 'opening up' of the club. Hence, I find it strange that the narrative voice of "Burmese Days" should describe the club in esoteric terms -- as a "Nirvana" and as also as a "spiritual club." I believe it is through this contradiction that Orwell's "Burmese Days" highlights the importance of honor and reverence to maintaining imperial rule.

By describing the club as a transcendent space is to suggest that it is both exclusive to the honorable colonial masters and desired by the less honorable natives. When orientals are admitted however, spatial boundaries are eroded, and the colonizer/colonized relationship is threatened. Hence, the honor of this sacred space is vehemently protected by Ellis, when he says "No natives in this Club! It’s by constantly giving way over small things like that that we’ve ruined the Empire." Elli's sharp vehement dismissal simultaneously exposes the the frantic manner in which the colonizer clings onto his seat of honor -- "the real seat of the British power." This emphasizes the importance of maintaining this prestige. Similarly, as a colonial officer, the narrator in "Shooting an Elephant" must shoot the elephant in order to maintain the honor of the empire and by extension imperial rule.

To shoot or not to shoot?

I think Orwell's short story raises an important dilemma, which I'm not quite sure how to solve. As a colonial policeman, both the natives and the British government expect him to fulfill his role and his duty towards society -- this would mean restoring order by shooting the elephant. Yet the elephant is not altogether disorderly and violent, but also has a "grandmotherly air" about it.

Here, what seems to be highlighted is the conflict between the self and the institution that the self is part of. This reminded me of something that I either read or something that someone told me really long ago. Basically, some MP who wasn't a part of the PAP criticized its policies a lot ... however, later on in his career he joined the PAP and he stopped criticizing it not because he suddenly agreed with everything the PAP did, but because it is incredulously hard to do what is right when one is also a part of the institution. The question then to ask would be how it is possible for one to remain as an individual while still be part of an institution, especially when one disagrees with something that the institution preaches? Audrey (for those of you who know her) once told me that the great Milton stayed cooped up in his home till his death because he didn't believe in institutionalized religions, and he was trying to escape from it.

However, I’m wondering if the escaping from institutions are the right way to go about dealing with these sort of things, or should we instead remain "plugged in" like in the Matrix and fight it out? But how?

What should we do?

Although having finally reached chapter 30 (yay!), I find myself still asking many questions about Jim. In fact, I'm not even sure if I got some of the facts right, its all very messy. But to get to the point, I think Jim is quite fickle because it is as if he cant decide what to do all the time, and sometimes I find myself getting really irritated by him. So in an attempt to understand his character, I tried to imagine myself in his dilemma, and I realized that if I had chosen to play romantic hero and tried to save the people instead of jumping off, it would only be because I fervently and totally believed that it was morally and socially right to fulfill my duty as officer. Yet the modernist narrative techniques in this text and many others suggest that there is no way of ever fully understanding Jim, and by extension no way of ever knowing the truth or what-is-right.

But if there are no universal truths how can we believe? And if we can't believe, how can we act 'appropriately' on this belief? In other words, since there is no universal truths or values, what justifies anyone's actions (e.g even the seemingly correct French officer's act of fulfilling his role by staying aboard the Patna and seeing it through the storm)? How can we resolve this conflict? Is this one of the issues that the novel is rising as well? I'm not sure.

issues of representation

The first thing that came to my mind when I read Achebe’s essay was that he was over-reacting, and I found myself thinking about Things Fall Apart. In that novel, the African characters are of course much more nuanced than in HOD, but the English characters are also in comparison not as developed. Which is of course acceptable, because “on the grounds of actuality,” TFA is about helping the world understand and “learn about the customs and superstitions of an African Tribe.” This made me wonder which was the lesser of the two evils, trying to give a more ‘nuanced’ representation of both sides, and in doing so inevitability? having to represent the consciousness of someone else as well and then risk being accused of misrepresenting and doing injustice and violence to it, or not intentionally representing the consciousness of “the other,” and then be accused of generalizing, dehumanizing, and being a “bloody racist”?
ha. Actually I’m a bit confused, I hope I’m making sense here.

the diabolical aspect of decolonisation

The novel seems to hint at the presence of universal values such as love. This is represented by the birth of a child at the beginning of Part 3. This birth is interesting because it not only has very strong Hindu and Christian resonances, but also conflates both religions. "Infinite Love took upon itself the form of Shri Krishna, and saved the world" (257). Here, Jesus Christ who is born into the world to save the it, takes the form of Lord Krishna- who is often worshiped in several forms, one of them being as the Child God. Just as Krishna is the Child God is Jesus also the Child God, both of whom represent the infinite love that can save the world. Through this, I think Forster is trying to highlight the transcendental quality of virtues and values (that both the British and the Indians believe in) such as that of Love and Moral Courage (as exemplified earlier on by Fielding). Yet, this is sadly not recognized by the characters at all. Fielding does not recognize the 'christian slant' to it. "Do you know anything about this Krishna business?" (285) he asks Aziz. While Aziz is simultanously unable to explain it to Fielding, finally brushing it off. "Don't spoil our last hour with foolish questions. Leave Krishna alone, and talk about something sensible" (286).

Through this, I think Forster suggests the impossibility of an equal friendship between the British and the Indians. The reason for this can perhaps be explained by Fanon's article. He suggests that "decolonization unifies this world by a radical decision to remove its heterogeneity, by unifying it on the grounds of nation and sometimes race" (10) Perhaps Passage to India is similarly trying to reveal this same diabolical aspect to decolonization, that it "unifies" the world by (ironically) classifying people into 'types' and categories, therefore disallowing friendships across classifications, when instead a 'true-blue' decolonization should be one that unifies the world based on universal values such as Love and Sacrifice.

Even towards the end of the novel, Forster hints that there are complications to nation-building or decolonization. When Fielding asks Aziz whom he would rather have instead of the English as governors of his country, Aziz surprisingly replies "the Afghans. My own ancestors." (287) This contradicts the idea of India as a nation, "rid of foreigners", where "Hindu and Moslem and Sikh and all shall be one" (287). It is violence according to Fanon, that cleanses the world of these categories, yet when this violence has achieved "national liberation, the masses allow nobody to come forward as the 'liberator'" (51). Similarly, perhaps the novel is suggesting that when the Indians have worked as one to get rid of the foreigners, there will then be another problem hindering nation-building- that of civil strife, as the Indians begin to choose race over the nation.

Maintaining Power

Knowing only very little about the historical events that took place during the period of Imperialism, Levine's article was quite an informative read for me. What struck me was how easily the British initially managed to secure the "long-term loyalty ... of the [Indian] administrators" (69), despite the fact that they were a minority. One of the ways in which they did this was by 'allowing' the Indians/native culture and traditions to play a role/be a part of the administering of India- though significantly a limited one. Some of these examples include "reinvesting the Hindu Caste system with power" (72), "enforcing the caste system in courts," and allowing Indian princes to remain as local rulers. These measures made it seem as through the British were actually accommodating local traditions and customs instead of going against them, hence minimizing the totalitarian image of the British government.

This instantly reminded me of the recent move by our government to allow Singapore citizens to hold outdoor demonstrations without a permit, albeit only at the Speaker's Corner. At the surface level, it does seem as though the government has finally decided to loosen its foothold on political dissent, and many of the people interviewed by The Straits Times seemed to be really quite pleased about it. Yet, I guess this just another one of its ploy to strengthen its dominance. By creating a specific space or a 'playground' for opposing forces and ideologies to voice their dissent, the government is infact containing these opposing political groups and their voices in a space that appears to be relatively neutral to all Singaporeans, through a supposedly altruistic move (since this does not seem to benefit the government). In other words, this move that is widely perceived to be a 'relaxation of political control' is in fact, ironically strengthening the power of the government as it (a) makes the government seem very understanding, open to change etc, hence gaining the favor of the masses (b) contains any political dissent.

Although, these are pretty clever and cunning little ways of controlling huge groups of people, I can't help but wonder about its long-term effectiveness. As in Levine's readings, this move proves to be ultimately ineffectual, as the Indians do not stay contend for long and finally revolt against the British. As Fielding says in Passage to India, "Justice never satisfies them [the Indians], and that is why the British Empire rests on sand" (230)(mine's the penguin edition) In light of this, perhaps it is quite impossible to have an equal world, or "justice" anywhere, simple because people will not be contend with justice ?? Perhaps what people really want is to be IN power ... thus when the one in power falls, another will simply rise to take its place.

Thoughts on Auerbach's The Brown Stocking.

I wasn't really able to understand some of the readings, and to be honest, I must admit that I got quite lost in them. But the one thing that stood out for me was Auerbach's close-reading of To the Lighthouse. It is very different from the other kinds of critical essays that one would usually find on any other literary work. Auerbach painstakingly analyzed almost every single line! The intention must have been to acutely highlight the many unconscious and silent 'slips' in Mrs Ramsey's thought process and also the inconspicuous weaving from "exterior action" to "interior thought." These are the techniques frequently used in modernism, which according to Auerbach, "puts emphasis on the random occurrence, to exploit it not in the service of a planned continuity of action but in itself" (552). Just as "exterior events lose their hegemony" (538), do the overarching narratives of the British Empire also 'lose their hegemony' and the strata of society as a result, becomes "inextricably mingled" (552), such that "there are no longer even exotic people" (552). In other words, I think Auerbach is trying to say that modernist techniques show that the world is far from manichean, and that these techniques promote randomness, hence finding common ground and shedding light on how similar we all are. This by implication helps to coalesce the binaries of self/other, civilized/exotic.

Auerbach's essay is also interesting because the book that it is part of is titled Mimesis- The representation of Reality In Western Literature. The word representation stood out to me because I instantly recalled something I learned in another module- that it can stand for two different meanings. To represent something is to stand for something (as in to portray or to exhibit) and also to stand in for someone. Therefore, when one represents, one is not only portraying or exhibiting something, but also making a representation for someone, meaning on the behalf of that person. As a result, I can't help but wonder which 'representation' of the 20th century Auerbach is doing or both???? Moreover, Auerbach claims somewhere in his essay (I remember reading it somewhere, but I can't find it anymore) that he has chosen this extract from To The Lighthouse randomly (i truely hope I'm not imagining this!), even adding that "he who represents the course of human life, or a sequence of events extending over a prolonged period of time, and represents it from beginning to end, must prune and isolate arbitarily" (548-549).

It is here that I'm confused because when Auerbach claims (as per his title) that he is trying to compile a representation of reality in western literature- more specifically modernism (in this case, and in this chapter), I'm really wondering if he not (through this 'random' process of compiling and selecting) also ironically positing the sort of "unification and simplification" (553) that he warns off at the end?

opps. I just realize I didn't really talk about the Empire part? But I'm thinking it works in the same way? I'm not sure. Just as Auerbach's Mimesis might be a simplification of the vastness of western literature (or in this case modernism), the idea that modernity corresponds to the end of the authoritative empire and the beginning of a global market is also an over-simplification?