"I am not an animal! I am a human being!" -- John Merrick
On Wednesday night I watched The Elephant Man for the first time. I wasn’t sure what to expect – the title indicated it somewhat, and I wasn’t looking forward to watching a film about a man suffering from elephantiasis. Nonetheless, being the studious and nerdy student that I am, I found the film online, and pressed “play,” kind of annoyed at the whole thing. But, within the first 10 minutes, I found myself completely taken by the story…I think I may have used about 2 boxes of tissue paper. In retrospect, I think my initial reaction of not wanting to see a film about a man with elephantiasis is ironically fitting with its theme of people making judgments and assumptions. In other words, this was a good reminder not to judge a book by its cover.
Now that a day has passed and I have stopped weeping like a 5-year-old, I think I can begin to associate some theories to this amazing film. There is much to discuss: identity, the interpretation of dreams, Bakhtin’s “carnival,” the mirror stage, capitalism…where does one begin?!
Since there is an incredibly large pool of potential ideas to explore, I will mainly focus on Mikhail Bakhtin’s “Carnival” in relation to the film. “Carnival is the people’s second life, organized on the basis of laughter,” but what about when this laughter is at the expense of another human being? (Bakhtin 686). John Merrick, born Joseph Carey Merrick, tells the story of a young man suffering from a medical condition which completely deformed his physical appearance. He is covered with disfiguring tumors all over his body, including his head. Because of this “abnormal” appearance, Merrick spent his life being mocked, ridiculed, and laughed at. As if this isn’t enough humiliation, he was also displayed as a “freak” in the circus, where people paid money just to point and laugh at Merrick’s pain. Bakhtin writes, “laugher degrades and materializes…To degrade is to bury, to sow, and to kill simultaneously”(688).
But laugher isn’t the only response Merrick receives. Upon seeing him for the first time, many people scream in horror. This adds to the innumerable degradation Merrick faces because of his incurable fate. Each look of disgust and every sound of inhumane laugher kills Merrick’s soul. This type of humiliation “digs a bodily grave,” (688).
Works Cited:
Bakhtin, Mikhail. "Rabelais and His World." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 686-92. Print.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Final Paper -- The Start (DRAFT!)
In her novel Zabelle, Nancy Kricorian depicts a character who represses her tragic past. Zabelle is very young when the Armenian Genocide takes place; she witnesses the deaths of members of her family, even seeing her mother slowly die of starvation in front of her eyes. Zabelle represents the few lucky ones who were able to survive because of personal strength and strings of good luck. Years later, Zabelle’s marriage is arranged to an older Armenian man in America, where she begins a new and very different life. Living under the same roof in a new country with her jealous mother-in-law and new husband, Zabelle faces many obstacles as an Armenian woman in a patriarchal culture. Nonetheless, she bravely assumes the role and raises 3 children. At times, her tragic past comes back to haunt her in her sleep, but it is not talked about. It does not interfere with everyday life, and “the effects of the experience are not apparent” (Caruth 8). It is only in her old age that Zabelle’s repressed tragedy unfolds as she hears voices from her past and imagines the Turks coming to harm her. Thus, Zabelle embodies Freud’s analysis of belated effects of a trauma, which he terms “latency.”
Zabelle is one of many Armenian-American works centered around the theme of loss, memory, and identity. In writing this novel, Nancy Kricorian shares more than just the story of Zabelle, for her story transcends the individual experience and acts as a unifying force for the Armenian diaspora spread throughout the world. In many ways, Zabelle is a “trauma novel,” which “refers to a work of fiction that conveys profound loss or intense fear on individual or collective levels (Balaev). In this paper, I will argue that the representation of trauma in Armenian-American literature, such as the Genocide in Nancy Kricorian’s Zabelle, serves to coalesce the Armenian diaspora’s sense of national identity. Therefore, this particular trauma, which has yet to be acknowledged as such by its perpetrators, serves a greater purpose for a dispersed population. Literary trauma, then, becomes a medium in which the Armenian community’s collective tragedy stands as a beacon to their national identity.
Zabelle is one of many Armenian-American works centered around the theme of loss, memory, and identity. In writing this novel, Nancy Kricorian shares more than just the story of Zabelle, for her story transcends the individual experience and acts as a unifying force for the Armenian diaspora spread throughout the world. In many ways, Zabelle is a “trauma novel,” which “refers to a work of fiction that conveys profound loss or intense fear on individual or collective levels (Balaev). In this paper, I will argue that the representation of trauma in Armenian-American literature, such as the Genocide in Nancy Kricorian’s Zabelle, serves to coalesce the Armenian diaspora’s sense of national identity. Therefore, this particular trauma, which has yet to be acknowledged as such by its perpetrators, serves a greater purpose for a dispersed population. Literary trauma, then, becomes a medium in which the Armenian community’s collective tragedy stands as a beacon to their national identity.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The First thing you have to learn is how to be quiet
“Even now China wraps double binds around my feet” (Kingston 48).
It is no coincidence that the first line of The Woman Warrior reads, “You must not tell anyone” (3). With this, the theme of female silencing arises. The narrator’s mother tells her that she must not tell anyone the story of her aunt, who had an illegitimate baby and was disowned by the family as a result. “…it is as if she had never been born,” her mother tells her (3). Her mother continues, “Now that you have started to menstruate, what happened to her could happen to you. Don’t humiliate us.” You wouldn’t like to be forgotten as if you had never been born” (5). The story of the aunt, then, is used as a warning. It is a warning for many things: not to have sex, not to humiliate the family, and perhaps most importantly, to obey the unwritten rules written for women in Chinese culture.
One of these rules is to obey (men) and stay quiet. Silence is a major theme in the book, and the narrator is taught that it is an important part of being a Chinese girl. She realizes that the demand to keep her aunt’s story quiet is not just for the sake of her family’s reputation, but, she says, there is more to this silence” they want me to participate in their punishment. And I have” (16).
The punishment has been growing up haunted by this story – this story has trapped her, keeping her boxed in the restrictions placed upon her by her culture. She admits, “My aunt haunts me – her ghost drawn to me because now, after fifty years of neglect, I alone devote pages of paper to her” (16). Even as an adult, she cannot escape the binding of her culture. It is a part of her, keeping her enclosed in specific expectations.
Works Cited:
Kingston, Maxine Hong. The Woman Warrior. New York: Vintage International, 1976. Print.
It is no coincidence that the first line of The Woman Warrior reads, “You must not tell anyone” (3). With this, the theme of female silencing arises. The narrator’s mother tells her that she must not tell anyone the story of her aunt, who had an illegitimate baby and was disowned by the family as a result. “…it is as if she had never been born,” her mother tells her (3). Her mother continues, “Now that you have started to menstruate, what happened to her could happen to you. Don’t humiliate us.” You wouldn’t like to be forgotten as if you had never been born” (5). The story of the aunt, then, is used as a warning. It is a warning for many things: not to have sex, not to humiliate the family, and perhaps most importantly, to obey the unwritten rules written for women in Chinese culture.
One of these rules is to obey (men) and stay quiet. Silence is a major theme in the book, and the narrator is taught that it is an important part of being a Chinese girl. She realizes that the demand to keep her aunt’s story quiet is not just for the sake of her family’s reputation, but, she says, there is more to this silence” they want me to participate in their punishment. And I have” (16).
The punishment has been growing up haunted by this story – this story has trapped her, keeping her boxed in the restrictions placed upon her by her culture. She admits, “My aunt haunts me – her ghost drawn to me because now, after fifty years of neglect, I alone devote pages of paper to her” (16). Even as an adult, she cannot escape the binding of her culture. It is a part of her, keeping her enclosed in specific expectations.
Works Cited:
Kingston, Maxine Hong. The Woman Warrior. New York: Vintage International, 1976. Print.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Deconstruction of Femininity in Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point"
In his famous essay, “The Subjection of Women,” John Stuart Mill argues that the “nature of women is an eminently artificial thing – the result of forced repression in some directions, unnatural stimulation in others” (128). Femininity is a result of social constructions and fixed roles; this is especially clear in most 19th century Victorian poetry and prose. While reading Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem, "The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point," for another course, thoughts about the construction and deconstruction of femininity came to mind. While the poem is often read as a response to and support of the anti-slavery movement of the time, it is also a response to female subjection. What differentiates this poem from other feminist works is the fact that it presents oppression in threefold: the speaker is not just repressed because she is female, but she is also a black slave. Hence, Barrett Browning offers a space for the discussion of femininity in terms of class, race, and sex. The most significant issue in terms of femininity, however, is the speaker’s role as a mother.
As mothers, women are seen as “bearers of value” (Irigaray 802). A mother’s role is to instill values into future generations; to do so, they must reinforce customary traditions, and in this case, white supremacy and patriarchal dominance, by raising their children to maintain social order. In fact, her responsibility “is to maintain the social order without intervening” (807). In other words, she is to raise her children to carry on the traditional customs of the culture. By ingraining these suppressing notions into their children, the mother is involved in continuing the cyclical process of unfair class order and treatment. The subjection of women is common during the time the poem was written, so the departure from this universal custom “quite naturally appears unnatural” (Mill 125). Nevertheless, the speaker in the poem is able to depart from this traditional concept of motherhood in the most radical way possible: infanticide. In this case, however, killing her child is not necessarily seen as “unnatural;” rather, it is an empowering act since it represents the destruction of fixed roles and female repression. The speaker’s violent act in killing the baby she had by her white master illustrates Barrett Browning’s attempt at deconstructing femininity. By strangling her baby, the speaker is expressing her frustration with her role as a female slave, and in this violent act, she is able to free herself from the constraints placed upon her by a world dominated by white males.
In many ways, the speaker’s story relates to the story of Lilith in Hebrew mythology. “Created not from Adam’s rib but, like him, from the dust, Lilith was Adam’s first wife,” according to “apocryphal Jewish lore. Because she considered herself his equal, she objected to lying beneath him, so that when he tried to force her submission, she became enraged” (Gilbert and Gubar 823). In a similar vain, the speaker in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point,” becomes enraged at the thought of submissively continuing to live as a subordinate member of society. The similarities between Lilith and the speaker do not end at their refusal to carry on as lesser beings among society. Lilith “flew away to the edge of the Red Sea to reside with demons,” and “Threatened by God’s angelic emissaries, told that she must return or daily lose a hundred of her demon children to death, Lilith preferred punishment to patriarchal marriage” (823). She then “took revenge against both God and Adam by injuring babies” (823). Aside from the obvious connection of injuring and killing their babies, Lilith and the speaker in the poem both represent “the price women have been told they must pay for attempting to define themselves” (823). In both of these instances, the price involves killing their own children.
In “The Madwoman in the Attic,” critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar classify Lilith as the “monster-woman” since she is far removed from the “angel in the house” phenomenon. Although the speaker in the poem could certainly be classified as the “monster-woman” because she kills her child, she differs from Lilith in the sense that the killing of her own child does not bring her more suffering. I maintain that the speaker’s situation differs from that of women who do not experience oppression in several different contexts. Unlike the speaker, Lilith was not included in racial minority, nor was she a slave. Hence, when Gilbert and Gubar claim that the killing of their own children brings “more suffering” to women, it does not necessarily ring true for the speaker in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point.” For the speaker, the killing of her child, to some degree, actually offers freedom.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning is able to deconstruct the concept of femininity in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point” by presenting a character who escapes perhaps the most oppressing notion of the female role: motherhood. In fact, she does so by killing her own baby, an act far removed from the traditional concept of the female. This deconstruction is made possible because the infanticide is performed by a woman who experiences the restraints of femininity in three ways: race, class, and of course, sex. Since her oppression is multiplied, this violent act is not deemed as demonic; instead, it is an empowering move aimed to escape the suppressing role of her life as a black female slave.
Works Cited
Barrett Browning, Elizabeth. “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point.” The Norton
Anthology of English Literature: The Victorian Age. 8th ed. Ed. Carol T. Christ and Catherine Robson. Vol. E. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 1085-92. Print.
Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” Rivkin and Ryan 812-26.
Irigaray, Luce. “Women on the Market.” Rivkin and Ryan 799-812.
Mill, John Stuart. “The Subjection of Women.” Victorian Prose: An Anthology. Ed. Rosemary J. Mundhenk and LuAnn McCracken Fletcher. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 121-31. Print.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.
As mothers, women are seen as “bearers of value” (Irigaray 802). A mother’s role is to instill values into future generations; to do so, they must reinforce customary traditions, and in this case, white supremacy and patriarchal dominance, by raising their children to maintain social order. In fact, her responsibility “is to maintain the social order without intervening” (807). In other words, she is to raise her children to carry on the traditional customs of the culture. By ingraining these suppressing notions into their children, the mother is involved in continuing the cyclical process of unfair class order and treatment. The subjection of women is common during the time the poem was written, so the departure from this universal custom “quite naturally appears unnatural” (Mill 125). Nevertheless, the speaker in the poem is able to depart from this traditional concept of motherhood in the most radical way possible: infanticide. In this case, however, killing her child is not necessarily seen as “unnatural;” rather, it is an empowering act since it represents the destruction of fixed roles and female repression. The speaker’s violent act in killing the baby she had by her white master illustrates Barrett Browning’s attempt at deconstructing femininity. By strangling her baby, the speaker is expressing her frustration with her role as a female slave, and in this violent act, she is able to free herself from the constraints placed upon her by a world dominated by white males.
In many ways, the speaker’s story relates to the story of Lilith in Hebrew mythology. “Created not from Adam’s rib but, like him, from the dust, Lilith was Adam’s first wife,” according to “apocryphal Jewish lore. Because she considered herself his equal, she objected to lying beneath him, so that when he tried to force her submission, she became enraged” (Gilbert and Gubar 823). In a similar vain, the speaker in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point,” becomes enraged at the thought of submissively continuing to live as a subordinate member of society. The similarities between Lilith and the speaker do not end at their refusal to carry on as lesser beings among society. Lilith “flew away to the edge of the Red Sea to reside with demons,” and “Threatened by God’s angelic emissaries, told that she must return or daily lose a hundred of her demon children to death, Lilith preferred punishment to patriarchal marriage” (823). She then “took revenge against both God and Adam by injuring babies” (823). Aside from the obvious connection of injuring and killing their babies, Lilith and the speaker in the poem both represent “the price women have been told they must pay for attempting to define themselves” (823). In both of these instances, the price involves killing their own children.
In “The Madwoman in the Attic,” critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar classify Lilith as the “monster-woman” since she is far removed from the “angel in the house” phenomenon. Although the speaker in the poem could certainly be classified as the “monster-woman” because she kills her child, she differs from Lilith in the sense that the killing of her own child does not bring her more suffering. I maintain that the speaker’s situation differs from that of women who do not experience oppression in several different contexts. Unlike the speaker, Lilith was not included in racial minority, nor was she a slave. Hence, when Gilbert and Gubar claim that the killing of their own children brings “more suffering” to women, it does not necessarily ring true for the speaker in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point.” For the speaker, the killing of her child, to some degree, actually offers freedom.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning is able to deconstruct the concept of femininity in “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point” by presenting a character who escapes perhaps the most oppressing notion of the female role: motherhood. In fact, she does so by killing her own baby, an act far removed from the traditional concept of the female. This deconstruction is made possible because the infanticide is performed by a woman who experiences the restraints of femininity in three ways: race, class, and of course, sex. Since her oppression is multiplied, this violent act is not deemed as demonic; instead, it is an empowering move aimed to escape the suppressing role of her life as a black female slave.
Works Cited
Barrett Browning, Elizabeth. “The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point.” The Norton
Anthology of English Literature: The Victorian Age. 8th ed. Ed. Carol T. Christ and Catherine Robson. Vol. E. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 1085-92. Print.
Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” Rivkin and Ryan 812-26.
Irigaray, Luce. “Women on the Market.” Rivkin and Ryan 799-812.
Mill, John Stuart. “The Subjection of Women.” Victorian Prose: An Anthology. Ed. Rosemary J. Mundhenk and LuAnn McCracken Fletcher. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 121-31. Print.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Angel in the Attic; The Madwoman in the House
“…the monster-woman, threatening to replace her angelic sister, embodies intransigent female autonomy” (Gilbert and Gubar 819)
How does one begin a discussion about something as complex as feminism? How about a controversial video by Madonna?
While there are many issues to explore in this video, I will focus on the relationship between the old lady and Madonna and the ambiguous crash in the final scene.
First, I’d like to point out that there are only 3 women portrayed in this video: the old lady, Madonna, and the waitress. Next to the old lady and the chubby waitress, Madonna becomes the most beautiful character in the video. This is significant because in this context, she represents the ideals of beauty in popular culture. Throughout each scene, she violently deconstructs all the notions that have repressed her as a female. She is in effect becoming the antithesis of the “angel in the house.”
To understand the significance of the old lady in the video, it is important to consider what she represents. Upon close examination, it becomes clear that the old lady is solely dependent on Madonna. She is only there for the ride; thus, she represents the traditional notion of the female as the “angel in the house.” In 1865 John Ruskin affirmed that the “woman’s power is not for rule, not for battle, and her intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet orderings of domesticity” (816). Clearly, then, Madonna takes on the opposite role, destroying these oppressing ideas one at a time. To escape or protest suppression, “Women must kill the aesthetic ideal through which they themselves have been ‘killed’” (812). So why does Madonna bring this poor old lady for this violent ride?
I argue that the old lady’s participation (albeit not actively) is crucial since she is the representation of female oppression. Madonna wants, perhaps even needs her to witness this destruction. After she crashes into the car with the 3 men, Madonna even takes a moment to make sure the old lady’s glasses are securely placed over her eyes, clearly illustrating the importance for the old lady to see what is happening. She does not want her to be blinded by a patriarchal society anymore.
Madonna’s aggressive and brutal behavior places her in the “monster-woman” category. If the traditional representation of the ideal woman has been the “angel in the house,” then “the mysterious power of the character who refuses to stay in her textually ordained ‘place’ [generates] a story that ‘gets away’” from the creators (819). In this video, Madonna is this mysterious power. The most vital part of this is that she places herself in that position; she is able to escape the “angel in the house” phenomenon by stepping out of the predictable, expected, and traditional role of the passive female.
Now, let’s consider the ambiguous ending of the video. I will argue that there are at least two different ways to analyze the ending. One is to argue that the deadly crash at the end implies the death of the “monster-woman.” Some people may say that this rebellious new role for woman is unattainable, and that the crash represents the impossibility for women to escape their traditional roles.
Another analysis, and one that I will argue is more powerful, is that the deadly crash is the final act of empowerment for Madonna. It is not clear whether Madonna or the old lady die, but I wonder whether that’s important, anyway. The key point here is that Madonna was able to give this traditionally repressed old lady (who represents the everywoman) her last hurrah. In fact, she assists in her death by euthanasia.
The old woman represents someone who is considered useless in our society and Madonna helps her end her life. Because Madonna is in the car herself, however, this act is subversive. Does this suggest that Madonna, the “monster-woman,” and the old lady, “the angel in the house,” are in fact the same person? Are they simply different versions of the same self?
Finally, I want to discuss the actual crash itself. It is especially important to note how the car crashes. The car crashes into a pole – why is this important? The pole could be viewed as a phallic symbol; in this case, then, Madonna actively destroys the symbol of patriarchy. Hence, the crash is not the death of female empowerment, but the beginning of it.
Works Cited:
Gilbert, Sanda and Susan Gubar. "The Madwoman in the Attic." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
812-25. Print.
How does one begin a discussion about something as complex as feminism? How about a controversial video by Madonna?
While there are many issues to explore in this video, I will focus on the relationship between the old lady and Madonna and the ambiguous crash in the final scene.
First, I’d like to point out that there are only 3 women portrayed in this video: the old lady, Madonna, and the waitress. Next to the old lady and the chubby waitress, Madonna becomes the most beautiful character in the video. This is significant because in this context, she represents the ideals of beauty in popular culture. Throughout each scene, she violently deconstructs all the notions that have repressed her as a female. She is in effect becoming the antithesis of the “angel in the house.”
To understand the significance of the old lady in the video, it is important to consider what she represents. Upon close examination, it becomes clear that the old lady is solely dependent on Madonna. She is only there for the ride; thus, she represents the traditional notion of the female as the “angel in the house.” In 1865 John Ruskin affirmed that the “woman’s power is not for rule, not for battle, and her intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet orderings of domesticity” (816). Clearly, then, Madonna takes on the opposite role, destroying these oppressing ideas one at a time. To escape or protest suppression, “Women must kill the aesthetic ideal through which they themselves have been ‘killed’” (812). So why does Madonna bring this poor old lady for this violent ride?
I argue that the old lady’s participation (albeit not actively) is crucial since she is the representation of female oppression. Madonna wants, perhaps even needs her to witness this destruction. After she crashes into the car with the 3 men, Madonna even takes a moment to make sure the old lady’s glasses are securely placed over her eyes, clearly illustrating the importance for the old lady to see what is happening. She does not want her to be blinded by a patriarchal society anymore.
Madonna’s aggressive and brutal behavior places her in the “monster-woman” category. If the traditional representation of the ideal woman has been the “angel in the house,” then “the mysterious power of the character who refuses to stay in her textually ordained ‘place’ [generates] a story that ‘gets away’” from the creators (819). In this video, Madonna is this mysterious power. The most vital part of this is that she places herself in that position; she is able to escape the “angel in the house” phenomenon by stepping out of the predictable, expected, and traditional role of the passive female.
Now, let’s consider the ambiguous ending of the video. I will argue that there are at least two different ways to analyze the ending. One is to argue that the deadly crash at the end implies the death of the “monster-woman.” Some people may say that this rebellious new role for woman is unattainable, and that the crash represents the impossibility for women to escape their traditional roles.
Another analysis, and one that I will argue is more powerful, is that the deadly crash is the final act of empowerment for Madonna. It is not clear whether Madonna or the old lady die, but I wonder whether that’s important, anyway. The key point here is that Madonna was able to give this traditionally repressed old lady (who represents the everywoman) her last hurrah. In fact, she assists in her death by euthanasia.
The old woman represents someone who is considered useless in our society and Madonna helps her end her life. Because Madonna is in the car herself, however, this act is subversive. Does this suggest that Madonna, the “monster-woman,” and the old lady, “the angel in the house,” are in fact the same person? Are they simply different versions of the same self?
Finally, I want to discuss the actual crash itself. It is especially important to note how the car crashes. The car crashes into a pole – why is this important? The pole could be viewed as a phallic symbol; in this case, then, Madonna actively destroys the symbol of patriarchy. Hence, the crash is not the death of female empowerment, but the beginning of it.
Works Cited:
Gilbert, Sanda and Susan Gubar. "The Madwoman in the Attic." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
812-25. Print.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The American (Dystopian) Dream
“No matter how poor a man was, or how much he suffered, he could never be really unhappy while he knew of that future; even if he did not live to see it himself, his children would..." (Sinclair 357)
Of all the themes, symbols, and ideologies presented in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, the one that stuck out most to me was “The American Dream.” Maybe it’s because I, too, come from a family of immigrants who came to the United States with a few dollars and big dreams; or maybe it's because of all the success stories I’ve heard, and all the failures too. Perhaps still it is because this dream never seems to die in America. For people living in developing countries around the world, America is a symbol of freedom and opportunity, but we’ve all heard this before. Jurgis’ family came to America in the hopes of attaining this dream only to realize that it is merely an illusion – a utopia created in the minds of the optimists, hoping for something better in the world. For the less affluent population, the American dream is more often than not, merely a distant and unattainable fantasy.
It’s funny (not “haha” funny, but funny in the ironic sense) that the problems with capitalism presented in this book are still very much relevant and problematic today as they were in 1906, when the book was published. America remains a capitalistic nation, divided by class, where the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. Of course, there are some “rags to riches” success stories, but for most, the American Dream will always remain a dream. Why is this? I think it is safe to assume that economic statuses in this country are cyclical, meaning they replicate generation after generation. If grandpa was rich, then Johnny III will probably be wealthy too. “One major assumption of Marxists is that culture…functions to reproduce the class structure of society,” and “culture,” I maintain, includes the work force (Rivkin, Ryan 644). This is clear in the labor conditions presented in The Jungle, where Jurgis and his family (who represent the “working class”) are faced with greedy bosses and corrupt politicians. How interestingly relevant that seems to politics in 2010.
The most disturbing part in all of this is the fact that the politicians, businessmen, or the otherwise “wealthy” population, use the working class only to get wealthier themselves. They do this by simple manipulation. A good example of this in the book is the advertisements to buy property: “Why not own your own home? Do you know that you can buy one for less than your rent? We have built thousands of homes which are now occupied by happy families” (Sinclair 51). Manipulating the working class by reinforcing the notion of the American Dream is a strategy that’s still being used today and it is not always that people realize “It [is] all robbery, for a poor man” (55).
Works Cited:
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. "Introduction: Starting with Zero." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 643-46. Print.
Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
