Resistensi terhadap Konstruksi Gender dalam A Country Doctor Karya Sarah Orne Jewett

Dalam novel “A Country Doctor” karya Sarah Orne Jewett, tokoh protagonis Nan Prince, yang merupakan yatim piatu, diasuh oleh Dr.Leslie setelah neneknya meninggal. Tumbuh besar bersama Dr.Leslie memberikan banyak pengalaman bagi Nan di dunia medis. Sejak kecil, Nan sering ikut bersama Dr.Leslie mengunjungi pasien yang sakit. Nan Prince, karakter utama dalam novel “A Country Doctor” karya Sarah Orne Jewett ini akhirnya memilki kertertarikan yang besar di dunia medis hingga ia dewasa. Sering berkutat di perpustakaan milik Dr.Leslie dan membaca buku-buku yang berhubungan dengan kesehatan membuat Dr.Leslie menyadari ketertarikan Nan di dunia medis. Meskipun demikian, ia tidak pernah memaksa atau mendorong Nan untuk berkecimpung di dunia medis. Namun, Nan Prince digambarkan sebagai tokoh yang melakukan resitensi terhadap konsturksi gender yang telah terbentuk di masyarakat.

Dalam “A Country Doctor”, konstruksi gender terbentuk dari orang-orang di sekitar Nan. Digambarkan pandangan dari tokoh perempuan bernama Nyonya Fraley yang mengatakan “But I warn you, my dear, that your notion about studying to be a doctor has shocked me very much indeed. I could not believe my ears,—a refined girl who bears an honorable and respected name to think of being a woman doctor! If you were five years older you would never have dreamed of such a thing. It lowers the pride of all who have any affection for you. If it were not that your early life had been somewhat peculiar and most unfortunate, I should blame you more; as it is, I can but wonder at the lack of judgment in others. I shall look forward in spite of it all to seeing you happily married”. Terlihat seolah konstruksi gender yang terbentuk bahwa perempuan tidak pantas untuk melanjutkan pendidikan tinggi. Nyonya Fraley berharap Nan akan menyadari bahwa sebagai perempuan yang harus dilakukannya adalah menikah dan mengurus urusan rumah tangga. Mengambil keputusan meneruskan pendidikan hingga menjadi dokter dianggap perbuatan yang tidak tepat untuk seorang perempuan dan akan dipandang buruk oleh orang-orang sekitar. Penulis memberikan gambaran konstruksi gender mengenai perempuan yang dianggap ideal tidak hanya melalui tokoh perempuan namun juga tokoh laki-laki. Dr.Ferris yang berkunjung ke kediaman Dr.Leslie merasa kaget dan tidak yakin saat Dr.Leslie mengungkapkan bahwa Nan memiliki ketertarikan di dunia medis. Ia merasa Nan dapat menjadi apapun yang diinginkan tanpa harus dihalang-halangi. Namun Dr.Ferris berargumen “"You're right!" said Dr. Ferris; "but don't be disappointed when she's ten years older if she picks out a handsome young man and thinks there is nothing like housekeeping.”. Terlihat bahwa tokoh laki-laki pun memperkuat akan adanya batasan bagi perempuan. Seperti halnya Nyonya Fraley, ia beranggapan bahwa pada akhirnya perempuan harus memilih menikah daripada menjalani karir sebagai dokter.

Saya melihat selain menampilkan Nan Prince sebagai tokoh yang menentang konstruksi gender, dihadirkan juga Eunice yang seolah berada di persimpangan. Eunice yang tidak menikah mengurus ibunya sampai ia sendiri berumur 60. Eunice tertarik akan kemandirian Nan. Di Bab 8 Eunice berargumen bahwa “ Though I believe every word you said about girl’s having an independence of her own. It is a great blessing to have always had such a person as my moter to leon upon”. Walaupun Eunice merasa iri pada kemandirian Nan, namun ia juga merasa senang karena ia memiliki seseorang yang bisa diandalkan dalam hal apapun, yaitu ibunya. Di sini saya melihat, dengan adanya tokoh Eunice semakin menonjolkan karakteristik Nan yang gigih memperjuangkan keinginannya. Nan telah melihat berbagai macam pilihan hidup, namun ia tetap yakin akan keputusannya menjadi dokter.

Jika merujuk pada tahun pembuatan novel, yaitu tahun 1884, kondisi yang terjadi di Amerika yakni masih kentalnya ketidaksetaraan gender antara laki laki dan perempuan. Pada masa itu perempuan tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk memberikan suara, melanjutkan pendidikan ke jenjang yang lebih tinggi, juga tidak memiliki wewenang atas hak properti. Saya melihat dalam “A Country Doctor”, tokoh laki-laki dan perempuan menyetujui adanya batasan bagi perempuan. Walaupun Eunice, menyadari adanya ketidakadilan antara laki-laki dan perempuan, namun ia pasrah karena tidak dapat melakukan apa apa. Selain itu, ia juga tidak mempermasalahkannya karena ia merasa mendapatkan keuntungan. Di laih pihak, Dr.Leslie juga memegang peranan penting pada keputusan Nan. Saat orang-orang di sekitarnya mempertanykan  kenapa ia tidak membelikan Nan pakaian yang bagus agar nampak cantik selayaknya seorang perempuan anggun, ia berargumen bahwa ia harus membiarkan seorang anak tumbuh apa adanya tanpa terlalu diatur atau dihalang-halangi. Ketika Dr.Ferris dan Nyonya Fraley menentang keinginan Nan untuk menjadi dokter pun Dr.Leslie beranggapan bahwa ia percaya setiap orang memiliki panggilannya sendiri. Dan jika Nan merasa menjadi seorang dokter adalah panggilannya, maka Dr.Leslie tidak akan menentangnya, ia justru akan sangat membantu agar Nan bisa menjadi dokter yang lebih hebat dari dirinya. Di sini saya melihat adanya dukungan bagi Nan untuk melakukan pertentangan terhadap anggapan masyarakat tentang pendidikan bagi perempuan.

Selain seolah mendapat pengaruh dari Dr.Leslie yang membuat Nan tertarik di dunia medis, keputusan Nan juga dianggap tepat oleh Dr.Leslie. Hal tersebut dikarenakan Dr.Leslie khawatir apabila Nan terjebak di gaya hidup yang buruk layaknya ibunya. Setelah kematian suaminya, ibu Nan menjalani gaya hidup yang buruk. Ia suka mabuk-mabukan. Di sisi lain, Nan dirasa mendapat pengaruh dari ayahnya yang dulu bekerja di dunia kesehatan. Hal tersebut menjadi salah satu faktor Dr.Leslie yakin menjadi dokter adalah jalan yang tepat bagi Nan.

Resistensi terhadap konstruksi gender dalam novel Jewett ini juga terlihat dari kegigihan Nan melanjutkan pendidikan yang tinggi walaupun tidak sedikit orang yang meremehkannya, bahkan menganggap keinginannya hanyalah mimpi atau sekedar gurauan belaka. Tokoh Nan digambarkan sebagai perempuan yang mandiri. Meskipun ia tahu bahwa hidupnya dapat terjamin dengan terus menjadi rekan Dr.Leslie dalam dunia medis, atau sekedar merawat rumah Dr.Leslie, namun ia tetap memperjuangan cita-citanya menjadi dokter. Ia merasa itulah panggilan untuk dirinya. Ia menolak menikah dengan pria yang ia sukai, Gerry George, dan memilih melanjutkan pendidikan untuk menjadi dokter. Ia bahkan membandingkan jika ia menikah, ia akan membahagian keluarganya, namun jika ia menjadi dokter dan menyembuhkan orang-orang yang sakit, ia dapat membahagiakan banyak keluarga. Ia tidak berusaha memaksakan dirinya untuk menjadi layaknya perempuan lain agar dapat diterima di lingkungannya, namun ia memilih menghadapi anggapan remeh dari orang sekitarnya akan cita-citanya. Saya juga melihat bahwa melalui novelnya, Jewett ingin menunjukkan keberhasilan tokoh yang menentang konstruksi gender yang ada di masyarakat.

Resistance to Gender Construction in Sarah Orne Jewett’s Novel

Sarah Orne Jewett, an American novelist and short stories writer, was born in South Berwick, Maine on September 3, 1849, to Dr. Theodore Harmon Jewett, a country doctor, and Caroline Frances Jewett. Living in well established family, as a woman, she had privilege to continue her study at Miss Olive Rayne's school and then at Berwick Academy, graduated in 1865. Accompanying her father as a country doctor made her could expand her knowledge about many regions and its people. Thus she got inspiration for her writing. Jewett published her first important story in the Atlantic Monthly when she was 19, and her reputation grew throughout the 1870s and 1880s. Many of her writing are reflecting her father and her early ambitions for a medical career. Willa Cather  also described Jewett as a significant influence on her development as a writer, and "feminist critics have since championed her writing for its rich account of women's lives and voices." (http://www.poemhunter.com/sarah-orne-jewett/biography/)

Jewett was heavily influenced by another American female writer, Harriet Beecher Stowe, writer of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Life Among the Lowly that were the most popular American book of the 19th century. It was told that Jewett was inspired to write the novella after being disappointed by Stowe's portrayal of Maine in The Pearl of Orr's Island. Some years later, Jewett became inspiration for Willa Cather, whose 1913 novel, O Pioneers!, was dedicated to Jewett.

Jewett chose not to marry, and earned money for living by writing. This decision not to be a wife and taking care of household for women had become more possible in the social climate of nineteenth-century America.Jewett also adapted her life experiences in her writing. Like other nineteenth-century American writers, Jewett employs this representation of medical woman to expand the possible narratives of woman’s fiction and woman’s lives. Through the characters in her novel, she also confronts unstable construction of nature and gender and dismantles associated culture dualisms. (Jurecic, 1994)

In nineteenth century, woman’s position in America was far away from gender equality with man. At that time, they were denied to vote, barred from professional schools and most higher education, forbidden to speak in public and even attend public conventions, and unable to own property. (VanSpanckeren, 1994). Women were expected to remain subservient as a wife. Their occupational choices were also extremely limited. Women in that era generally had to take care of the household, children and be obedient with their husband or father.

Portrait of American woman also could be seen in The Madwoman in the Attic by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. Patmore in The Angel in the House shows how woman have to be obedient to man figure, her husband. Patmore also adduces many details to stress the almost pathetic ordinariness of her life: she pick violets, loses her gloves, feeds her birds, waters her rose plot, and journeys to London on a train with her father the Dean, carrying in her lap a volume of Petrarch borrowed from her lover but entirely ignorant that the book is, as he tells us,”worth its weight in gold” (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979). Woman placed as the party that did not have authority to do other things except taking care of household. Woman had to make sure that the house is neat and the members of the family are all happy served by her. If woman could have a trip, it was not as her independent trip but rather accompany male figures (her father or husband). In short, like Goethe’s Makarie, Honoria has no story except a sort of antistory of selfness innocence based on the notion that “Man must be pleased; but him to please/ Is woman’s pleasure (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979). It clarifies that woman primary duty is to please man. Woman’s pleasure would not be in any sphere but pleasing man. Women are defined as wholly passive that they even do not know what actually they want because they are always dictated by man. The arts of pleasing men, in other words, are not only angelic characteristic; in more worldly terms, they are proper acts a lady (Gilbert and Gubar, 1979). It made not only man that wants woman as Angel in the House, but rather woman, too. Woman was enticed to be an Angel in the House also because it portrayed as perfect figure; a lady.

The delineation of woman also could be seen in Cixous’ Castration or Decapitation?. Woman described as the one who was lack of opportunity to be greater than man because woman is small, inferior, low, and even History. Culture made as it is woman’s nature to be inferior to man. With the opposition between Man and Woman, it is clear that they have different competence. Like what Cixous argues that there is difference between activity and passivity. Of course the activity is for man. They have more authority than woman. There are many things than man can do otherwise woman cannot. The differences based on gender clearly shown here. While man is obviously the active, upright, the productive . . . and besides, it’s how it happened in History. (Cixous, 1981). It shows that History support the delineation that man is the active one, the productive that hold important role in many cases. Meanwhile, woman is delineated as the one who cannot do anything without man. Most interesting! It’s all there, a woman cannot, is unable, hasn’t the power. Not to mention “speaking”: it’s exactly this that she’s forever deprived of. (Cixous, 1981). With the limitation that woman cannot speak, it shows hat that there is distinction of language based on gender.  These distinction and definitions contribute to the construction of gender-based identities because it creates the opposition between man and woman. With the explanation about the passiveness of woman through act and language, it strengthens man’s position.

In the nineteenth century, as I explained before that woman endured many inequalities. They were denied to vote, barred from professional schools and most higher education, forbidden to speak in public and even attend public conventions, and unable to own property. (VanSpanckeren, 1994). Meanwhile, many women did not just surrender in such this destiny. Many of them bravely speak up through letters, personal friendship, formal meetings, woman’s newspaper, and books. They struggled for furthered social change. Woman writers began to lift up the issue of men and woman are created equal and includes a resolution to give woman the right to vote. The struggle of woman writer gave the portrait that woman started to shift the position of being passive into more active. They tried to shift the idea that woman’s faith was taking care of household.

In Jewett’s writings, she showed the resistance to gender construction through her character in the novel. She did not bring the idea of The Angel in the House, but rather in the contrary. Marriage was not the focus of woman character in Jewett’s novel. The issue of inequality between man and woman began to be lift up through novel. Resistance to gender construction started to speak loudly through the novel. As in the character in Jewett’s novel, she presented woman character refused to end up her life marry and take care of household. She insisted to reach vocation as high as man although education was not proper thing for woman in that period. The resistance also showed through the character’s point of view that she could be anything she want without be glued in certain norms. Jewett’s medical woman, and ever her male physicians, operate such a third type. They denaturalize  the difference between men and women, and they also suggest that the categories male and female not unified within themselves, that there is no gendered nature (Jurecic, 1994). The passage clarifies that woman has tight boundaries in every aspect of her life, include the vocation. Medical woman even classified as third type that is outside the normal norms. Woman placed as a party that had to accept her destiny to be passive in her whole life. Being active is not her right. Woman character in Jewett’s novel also portrayed as anxious woman to choose her life path. She gained many disagreement because she refused to follow the common path for woman. Woman’s vocation assumed includes of being obedient to male authority and domestic service and reproduction within marriage, or if one does not marry, in domestic service to the family. In the contrary, the character in Jewett’s novel had such a belief that woman also have individual callings, just as man. It began to appear that through the novel, woman could speak for her disagreement of patriarchal.


Works Cited
Cixous, H. (1981). Castration or Decapitation?.

Gilbert,Sandra and Susan Gubar. (1979). The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer
and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jurecic, Ann.(1994).Gender and the Healing Arts in the Writings of Sarah Orne Jewett.In Ann Jurecic, The Genus Medical Woman: Representation of Female Doctors and Nurses in America Fiction from the Civil War into the Twentieth century.

VanSpanckeren, K. (1994). American LIterature-Revised Edition. USA: United States Departement of State.

(n.d.). Retrieved January 3, 2015, from PoemHunter.com:
http://www.poemhunter.com/sarah-orne-jewett/biography/

Defining Self and Other in Mirror Stage

“This act, far from exhausting itself, as with the chimpanzee, once the image has been mastered and found empty, in the child immediately rebounds in a series of gestures in which he playfully experiences the relations of the assumed movements of the image to the reflected environment, and of this virtual complex to the reality it reduplicates the child's own body, and the persons or even things in his proximity.” (Lacan, page 442)

In The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience, Lacan stated about an infant age 6-18 months about his own experience seeing chimpanzee and its behavior. Looking at chimpanzee’s movements made him recognize the differentiation with his own movements. He would find out that he was different from the chimpanzee looked from the movement and the images he saw on the mirror. He started gain experience in series of gesture, his environment, and people around him. Then he would find out about his own moving.

” We have only to understand the mirror-phase as an identification, in the full sense which analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation which takes place in the subject when he assumes an image -whose predestination to this phase-effect is sufficiently indicated by the use, in analytical theory, of the old term imago.” (Lacan, page 442)

Unable yet to do many activities such as walking and standing, and infant would ask other people to help him to fix his attitude to get proper image on the mirror. Realizing the difference of objects he saw on the mirror made him understand the reflection of himself on the mirror. Lacking of intelligibility about his position or place in family or society, he would understand himself narrowly as “I”, that was different from other people that is not-I. When he started to understand about the language, he would know about interaction and know more about himself. Thus he was able to see the Other.

“…the mirror-image would seem to be the threshold of the visible world, if we go by the mirror disposition which theimago of our own body presents in hallucinations or dreams, whether it concerns its individual features, or even its infirmities, or its object-projections; or if we notice the role of the mirror apparatus in the appearances of the double, in which psychic realities, however heterogeneous, manifest themselves.” (Lacan, page 443)

The reflection that an infant saw in the mirror seems real. It seems like the threshold of the visible world. When he saw his reflection, he would see the whole reflection of his body. Meanwhile, without seeing the mirror, he could not see his body as unity. His body would be fragmented into many parts. He would only saw his hands seem like hanging in the air and his foot that separated from the body. However, it seems impossible for “I” to see himself as a unity. He can only see the unity through the mirror.

Work Cited
Lacan, J. (n.d.). The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.

Structure and Deconstruction in Literary Works

There is development of term “structure” in human life. Since the beginning that “structure” had been analyzed from the etymology that came from Latin structura, until finally classify in differentiation of the usage of structure.

“In its modern usage, “structure” more commonly to “built up” than to “scatter, spread here and there as by scattering or sprinkling, “ in the conventional usage of the verb strew.” (Rowe, page 23)

The quotation above states that structure in the meaning of scatter, spread here and there shows that there is relation between the elements that are being scattered. The space was already there before, so the elements that are related could be scattered. In the other side, structure in the meaning of built up shows that the connection between the elements will create space. Thus, foundation is important thing in this concept. If the foundation is changed, it will change the structure too.

From the etymology of “structure”, there began come linguists who studied about structure that finally became important knowledge. One linguist that did some research about structure is Saussure. Saussure brought the theory of arbitrariness of the sign and the basic division of the sign into “signifier” and “signified”. These lead to the difference between structural linguist and philology.

“Philology is basically concerned with meaning, even though the study of historically different meaning for the same word (such as those given in the Oxford English Dictionary) made etymology a speculative venture at best. Structural linguist like Saussure are less interested in the meanings of words and more interested in how meaning is made possible.” (Rowe, page 27) 

Although working in same field, philology and structural linguist had different view. Philology focused finding the proper meaning of words. Meanwhile, structural linguist revealed much more complicated system of relation even in synchronic stability of a particular moment in the history of language. Because of the view that there is such a foundation and heaped elements, in short it could be said that there is an existing construction in structure. What linguist did was not describing the function of each element, but rather describing the relation of each element.  How meaning is made also related with Saussure’s theses about arbitrariness.

“Saussure insists that the world’s different language teach us that there is no necessary relation (or “motivation”) between signifier and signified.” (Rowe, page 29)

It clearly shows that the different words in different language came from the conventional of each region. There is not any relation of the sound uttered with the things or object represented. The signifier and signified cannot be separated from the historical side. The signifier and signified that is used nowadays is a result of agreement of people long time ago until finally many words are valid to use. Like Saussure’s other argument that words are not things they name and the only arbitrarily associated with those things (Miller, p.201). It related with Derida’s argument:

“Derida suggests that all language is constituted by difference, …: words are the deferred presence of the things they mean, and their meaning is grounded in difference.” (Miller, page 201)

It related with people needed to utter things to make their conversation easily. So, a word emerges along with the needed. With a word represent a thing they want to say, they will run communication well with people around.

Seeing structure in a text could emerge a term “deconstruction”. According to J.Hillis Miller;

“Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. “ (page 199)

It means that to deconstruct a text is not about describing the elements in it but rather seeing the relation, opposite “discourse”, and the arrangement of meaning. Many people misunderstand the concept of deconstruction thinking that they have to find certain meaning of the text, or show the text has the opposite meaning.  As what Derida argues that we tend to think and express out thought in terms of opposite. (page 200). It shows that people just want to make it simple after they read a text with classify something is black but not white, beginning/end, speech/writing, etc. From the opposite also could be classified which is the superior and inferior. As a philosopher of language, Derida doesn’t seek to reverse the hierarchized opposition but he seeks to erase dividing line or boundary between oppositions.

Being familiar with words they utter daily, deconstruction reveal the other fact that can be seen in Deconstruction and Heart of Darkness, there is written that

“Once deconstructed, “literal” and “figurative” can exchange properties, so that the prioritizing between them is erased.” (Miller, page 206)

Related to agreement that create signifier and signified in a language, all word would stay in human mind as figures. People will not notice that it is a real figure like in their mind, but rather a result of agreement that they used for so long. Then they will forget how arbitrary, metonymic they are. There are two groups that working in the development of text. Although having similarity focus on the literary text, formalist and deconstructors have their own view of text.

“Whereas the formalist believes a complete understanding of a literary work to be possible-and understanding in which even the ambiguities will be seen to have a definite, meaningful function---post-structuralist celebrate the apparently limitless possibilities for the production of meaning that come about when the language of the critic enters the language of the text.” (Miller, page 205)

Based on that argument, it could be seen that formalist assumed that total understanding of a work is possible. Every aspect must render big role in a text that will make the text has organic unity. It strengthens the structuralist’s belief that text has “center” of meaning. Formalist will treat possible configurations or patterns that make no contribution are rejected as irrelevant. Meanwhile, post-structuralist treats every element or aspect as having important role, so they do not limit the possibilities.

Works Cited
Rowe, Carlos John. (1995). “Structure”
Miller, J. Hillis. (1989). “Deconstruction and Heart of Darkness”

Criticism and Representation in Literary Works

In Horace’s The Art of Poetry, he gave statement about the necessity of poetry, and about how poetry works related to the spectators. He delivered his argument in rhetorical form that seems like it is the idea not people cannot argue with. He delivered it rhetorically just like it has validity. Here is one of the statements: 

 “It is not enough for poems to be beautiful; they must be affecting and must lead the heart of the hearer as they will. As many people’s face smile on those who smile, in a similar the similar way they emphasize with those who weep. If you wish me to weep, you must first feel grief yourself. Only then O Telephus or Teleus,will your misfortune affect me. If your words are not appropriate to a sorrowful face, furious words are fitting to the angry, gay jets to the merry, serious words to the solemn.” (P.80)

It shows that poetry has role to make people understand about the idea or certain meaning behind it. Not only about the understanding, but also about the feeling that also obsessed them related to the poems. Meanwhile, in the other side, the poet also cannot be separated with the poems. In The Art of Poetry is written about it that

“You may say,” Painters and Poets always had equal privilege of daring to do anything they wish.” This is true; as poets, we claim this license for our self and grant it to others. But we do not carry it so far as to allow that the savage animal should be united with tame, serpents with birds, lambs with tigers.” (P.79)

In the other hand, Horace also admitted that poets and painter have privilege that they can pour their idea freely into their works, but they also have to underline the urbanity point. There are such rules that automatically formed that in the making of the works must consider about the suitability like in what he uttered that they cannot allow the savage animal be united with tame, etc.. Indirectly, Horace showed this point on urbanity lead him and the other poets to place poetry in high culture. It is shown in

 

“The humblest craftsman near over the Aemilian school will be model fingernail and imitate waving hair in bronze; but the total work will be unhappy because he does not how t represent it as unified whole. I should no more like him, if I desired to compose something, than to be praised for my dark hair and eyes and yet go through life with my nose turned awry. You who write, take a subject equal to your powers, and consider how length, how much your shoulders can bear. Neither proper words nor lucid order will be lacking to the writer who chooses the subject within his powers.” (P.79)

From that statement, it shows that Horace in some way distance himself (as poets) with others. He claimed that the others just imitate in something that finally make the unsatisfied with their own works.  In the other way, Horace placed poetry in higher culture because he claimed that poets realize that they have power and if they used it well they would come with such a great work. Horace also indirectly separated between “good” and “bad” poetry. It shows in the argument below.

 “Avoiding a fault (in this case attempting to avoid monotony), only may fall into a worse unless there be real artistic skill.” (P.79)

The argument above shows that poets often try to impress the readers with their work. They can come up with the idea to make their works be different with the other (attempting to avoid monotony). Meanwhile, the more try to be different or to break the natural rules, they just make their works worse and far from their expectation to be a great work. It concludes that when poets push their self to deep to impress the readers, they just can produce bad poems. 

In Ion’s Plato, it agues about poetry in different way with The Art of Poetry, mostly it tells about the sources of the idea of the poetry itself.

“For in this way the God would seems to indicate to us and not to allow us to doubt that these beautiful poems are not human, on the work of man, but divine and the work God; and the poets are the only interpreters of the God by whom they are severally possessed. “  (P.12)

From the statement above, it gives argument that actually what rhapsode called art is not an art but it is inspiration that come from God. Poets are just doing the imitation mimesis the inspiration from God. In other word, there is an exact form of all the kinds of inspiration or works. The role of the poets or rhapsodes is just interpreting the form, while there are not works that really come from their own idea. Socrates argued that it is inspiration, not an art because he said that if it is art, Ion can speak well about all poets, not only Homer. Meanwhile, Ion said that he is only speak the best about Homer that Socrates concluded that as inspired from God. When the conversation between Sorcates and Ion came up with the place of literature in social discourse, it became such questioned about the place of literature itself. It is because Socrates argued that every subject in discourse than has its own authority to can understand it more that the rhapsode. For example, if the work was about the medicine, the doctor would know more about it, if it was about the rule of sea tossed vessel, the pilot would understand more about it. Then it becomes unclear about the role or authority of rhapsode. 

Besides the matter about the form or the inspiration of literary works, there is also representation existing in literary works. 

In The Madwoman in the Attic by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, there is a passage claimed that 

“Their argument in this selection is that even the positive images of woman in literature express negative energies and desires on the part of male writers” (p.812)

It shows the impossibility for woman to genuinely be portrayed as positive images because there must be man’s importance behind it. It also seems that women can do nothing because women see is also not genuine from their “glasses”, but it is from men’s “glasses”. The assumption also spread that women cannot write because they have no story to write. Their duty is just to please their men. Gilbert and Gubar also wrote

“For us feminism critic, however, the act of “killing” both angles and monsters must here begin with an understanding of the nature and origin of these image” (p.812)

In the other words, from the language style of the sentence above shows optimism that there is a way for woman for their own voice. Woman writers first must wipe out many ideas that man has planted on them that makes what they see is based on male’s construct. In Gilbert and Gubar’s writing, The Madwoman in the Attic, also presents one of the works that women become men’s tool for their own prosperity. As verse in Patmore’s The Angel in the House:

“Dedicated to “the memory of her by whom and for whom I became poet,” Patmore’s The Angel in the House is verse-sequence which hymns the praises and narrates the courtship and marriage of Honoria, one of the three daughters of a country Dean, a girl whose unselfish grace, gentleness, simplicity, and nobility reveal that she is not only pattern Victorian lady but almost literally an angel on earth".  (p.815)

It shows that women’s fate is to please man. Argue with that, Gilbert and Gubar give many elaborations that support the idea of woman must please man. Women will please man with their passiveness. In other word, women cannot emphasize of their own interest or willing, but they have to make men’s interest or willing become their priority. From the passage above also shown that to be the pattern of Victorian lady and angel on earth, man must be proud of her because she perpetuates the patriarchal idea. Like what Sandra and Susan wrote that 

“In short, like Goethe’s Makarie, Honoria has no story except a sort of anti-story of selflessness innocence based on the notion that “Man must be pleased; but him to please/Is woman’s pleasure.” (p.816)

In Gilbert and Gubar’s writing, The Madwoman in the Attic also shows the irony about the representation of woman. In the writing is written that

“Finally, the act that angel-woman manipulates her domestic/mystical sphere in order to ensure the well being of those entrusted to her care reveals that she can manipulate; she can scheme; she can plot-stories as well as strategies.” (p.818)

The irony in the representation of women is that previously woman portrayed as a human with no willing or power to human that actually can play the strategies well. The arguments about the representation that seems like preserve patriarchal that finally come up with argument that woman play strategies that means break the patriarchal idea show how what seems to be apolitical, sentimental fiction engage in such a highly politically charged discursive context as patriarchy   

Meanwhile, in Edward Said’s Jane Austen and Empire, it analyzes Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park. There is a sentence in Jane Austen and Empire stated that

“Almost all colonial schemes begin with assumption on native backwardness and general inadequacy to be independent. “equal”, and fit” (p.1112)

It shows that non-colonial cannot be as successful as the colonial because they did not have enough power to be independent. This case also appeared when Said argued about Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park.

“To earn life to Mansfield Park you must first leave home as a  kind of indentured servant or, to put the case in extreme terms, as a kind of transported commodity-this clearly, is the fate of Fanny and her brother William-but then you have the promise of future wealth. I think Austen sees what Fanny does as a domestic or small-scale movement in space that corresponds to the larger, more openly colonial movements of Sir Thomas, her mentor, the man whose estate she inherits.“ (p.1118)

In other words, the writing shows that Fanny just did the movement from her hometown to Mansfield Park because she did not feel comfortable in her “home”. She felt distance in her home that make it was not such a home. Fanny could leave it and went to Mansfield only if she could leave her old life. She wanted to move from indentured servant to get future wealth in Mansfield Park. It shows that Mansfield Park is a place that is much better than Fanny’s home. We can say that Fanny’s home is backwardness because she cannot get future wealth there. The issues of gender also shown that Fanny can only get better life if she follow Sir Thomas that play as colonial, the man who have power. Meanwhile, in Jane Austen and Empire the portrait of the Fanny’s hometown do not show in cruel ways, but with explanation such as “home as a  kind of indentured servant”, and the portrait of Mansfield Park do not use exaggerate description but “the promise of future wealth”. From the explanation before, it can conclude that the role of Mansfield Park or Fanny’s hometown in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park is not only about a places but  it shows how what seems to be apolitical, sentimental fiction engage in such a highly politically charged discursive context as British imperialism.

Gayartri Spivak in Three Woman’s Text and a Critique of Imperialism gives analysis of woman’s character in Jane Eyre. Spivak wrote that

“It is unquestioned ideology of imperialist axiomatics, then, that condition’s Jane move from the counter-family set to the set of family-in-law. Marxist critic such as Terry Eagleton, have seen this only in terms of the ambiguous class position of governess. Sandra Gilbert and Susah Gubar, on the other hand, have seen Bertha Mason only in psychological terms, as Jane’s dark double.” (p.842)

It shows the uncertainty that with Jane’s movement from counter family to family-in-law, then she can totally enjoy her new role.  From the writing above, we could see that critical analyses psychoanalytical, economical and literary spheres intersect. In Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, it is not just a narrative with certain plot but in psychoanalytical, Sandra and Gubar see the exchange of Jane from counter-family to family-in-law caused confusedness in Jane that create herself as Bertha Mason. In Three Woman’s Text and a Critique of Imperialism also written that the movement is a form of active ideology of imperialism that provides the discursive fields. The text seems like agree that Jane cannot easily enjoy her new role that is shown in assumption that Bertha Mason is a figure produced by the axiomatic of imperialism. In short, the figure of Bertha Mason is needed in order to clarify that Jane has done the movement into family-in-law. She needs to realize that she is now different from the old her, that finally appear unclear figure, Bertha Mason, that makes her shock and curious about what is that creature actually because what she saw is unclear between human or animal. What Terry Eagleton had seen is related to Sandra and Gilbert. Because Terry Eagleton assumed there is the ambiguous class position of governess, it can make Bertha Mason only as Jane’s dark double, just like what Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar had seen. 

Work Cited

Plato. (n.d.). Ion.

Horace. (n.d.). Art of Poetry.

Said, E. (n.d.). Jane Austen and Empire.

Gilbert, S., & Gubar, S. (n.d.). The Madwomen in the Attic.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” 1986.

Analysis of Lula’s and Clay’s Characterization

Dutchman by Amiri Baraka

Dutchman is a play written by Amiri Baraka that is played at the Cherry Lane Theatre in Greenwich Village, New York, in March 1964. The setting of place is in the subway train. The Dutchman involves two players. They are Lula and Clay. There will be also many passengers in the train later, but the main story is the conversation between Lula and Clay.

LULA

Lula is tall, slender, beautiful woman with long hair hanging straight. She is thirty years old. She is the one who starts conversation with Clay. She came into the same coach with Clay and started conversation until finally she sat beside Clay. From the beginning of the conversation, Lula leaned to be temptress.

Lula: (She gets one out of herself) Eating apples together is always the first step. Or walking uninhabited Seventh Avenue in the twenties2 on weekends. (Bites and giggles, glancing at Clay and speaking in loose sing-song) can you get involved…boy! Get us involved. Um-huh. (Mock seriousness). Would you like to get involved with me, Mister Man?

Lula: (Starts laughing again) Now you say to me, “Lula, Lula, why don’t you g to this party with me, tonight?

Lula: Then? Well, he we’ll go down the street, late night, eating apples, and winding very deliberately toward my house.

In many of her saying, she tried to tempt Clay. Meanwhile, the Lula’s act was not whole tempting, but the expression was little bit like lunatic person. That’s why Lula’s act needed to be as temptress and lunatic as the same time. When she tempted Clay, it was clearly appear not only with her spoil tone, but also from her movement and gaze. Her expression and movement also could make the spectator slowly understand about her character. The fact that Lula’s mimic was not smooth as temptress, but also lunatic and mysterious at the same time make it was not clear that Lula’s real purpose is to tease Clay or she had another purpose. Meanwhile, in many of her saying, Lula’s act also quip Clay. It was showed like many of her saying like:

Lula: I told you I didn’t know anything about you... you’re a well-known type.

Lula: Oh, really? Good for you. But it’s got to be Williams. You’re too pretentious to be a Jackson or Johnson.

From what she says to Clay, it started to show that Lula underestimate Clay in some points. It might be because she was white and Clay was colored (African-American). Racial issue started to reveal here. Lula was not just quip Clay, but she was also explicitly brings the racial issue. It could be seen like in:

Lula: everything you say is wrong. (Mock smile) That’s what makes you so attractive. Ha. In that funnybook jacket with all the buttons. (More animate, taking hold of his jacket) What’ve you got that jacket and tie on in all this heat for? And why’re you wearing jacket and tie like that? Did your people ever bur witches or start revolution over the price of tea? Boy, those narrow-shoulder clothes come from a three-button suit and striped tie? Your grandfather was a slave, he didn’t go to Harvard.

Lula: I bet you never once thought you were a black nigger. (Mock serious, then she howls with laghter. CLAY is stunned but after initial reaction, he quickly tries to appreciate the humor. LULA almost shrieks) A black Baudalaire.

Lula: ‘Cause you’re an escaped nigger.

Lula: You’re afraid of white people. And your father was. Uncle Tom Big Lip!

From that, it obviously showed that Lula intentionally mock Clay because he was colored. What Lula has said to Clay shows that she still thought that white people are still as a master to black people, so it made them have more power than black people. It shows that even it was not colonized period anymore, and black people still could be placed same as white people. Lula enjoyed her position as white, so she treated Clay as she wants. Then it was not clear that she took conversation with Clay randomly or intentionally she wanted to show discrimination to colored/black people. Then when she saw a colored man (Clay) staring her through the window, she decided to pick Clay as an object she play with. Lula also explicitly showed her awfulness with saying that Clay as colored man was not proper with the well-dress because no matter how hard he tried to be like educated or upper class man, he was still generation of a slave. She also tried to make Clay realizes that he was not suppose to feel free or peaceful with saying ‘Cause you’re an escaped nigger. It showed that Lula still can accept that in that time, colored or black people also could have proper job or better life. When Lula said Clay is well-known type, she also showed that it is very easy to guess what kind of life or people that Clay, as a colored, has. It was one of underestimation form for black or colored people. She also underestimate that black people won’t go to college. She assumed that black people will still do not suitable with school because she places them as slaves. Lula kept mock Clay in many ways because it looked that Clay also did not show any offense. At the end of the Dutchman, when Clay started to show his anger, Lula stabbed knife to him calmly. Then she asked other people there to get him off from her.

CLAY

Clay is colored man with well-dress and good appearance. He was sitting alone holding magazine in the train staring at the window where there was Lula. He felt that Lula is staring at him, so he was staring at Lula, too. Then Lula smiled to him. Suddenly, Lula chose to sit beside Clay and begun conversation with him. Clay showed his welcome having conversation with Lula. When Lula showed that she knew many things about Clay, Clay felt curious. The conversation kept going till finally Lula begun to mock him, he still tried to be patient and appreciate it as humor. It is obviously shown in:

Lula: I bet you never once thought you were a black nigger. (Mock serious, then she howls with laghter. CLAY is stunned but after initial reaction, he quickly tries to appreciate the humor. LULA almost shrieks) A black Baudalaire.

CLAY: That’s right.

It shows that Clay still tried to control himself from anger although Lula set up the conversation to underestimate him as colorist. Even after what she’d saying, Clay still paid attention on what she said and answered her like they still have funny conversation. Clay also like trapped in Lula’s act when she tempts him. Even Lula continued to mock Clay’s background that is colorist, Clay still opened up his life story to Lula.

CLAY: My mother was Republican.

It made Lula has another object to tease Clay. Meanwhile, Clay acted like Lula is not bending him. Clay even continued to follow Lula’s game. He even felt so interest when Lula asked him to go to her house after the party. It shows that even Lula (white people) mocked him, he pretended like it is not happening and still to have good relation with her. Even Lula obviously hooked him with half mocking-half joking words, Clay still controlled himself not to offense her. Then Clay begun to angry and full of emotion when Lula danced and embarrassed him. It is shown when he says:

Clay: Lula! Sit down. Be cool.

Clay: Lula! Lula! (She is dancing and turning, still shouting as loud as she can. The DRUNL too is shouting, and waving his hands wildly) Lula… you dumb bitch. Why don’t you stop it? (He rushes half stumbling from his seat, and grabs one of her flailing arms)

From that, Clay changed from calm man into wild man who cannot control his anger. He did not look to be polite anymore.  He spoke out about his reaction of Lula’s discrimination to him as colored man. He also said that he can murder Lula, and he even can murder all white people. He also shows that actually he realize about what people think about his racial. He realizes that white people still underestimate him. He is drowning in his long argue react about the racial issue until finally he decides to get of this train. Meanwhile, all of sudden Lula stabbed him until he died.

Bibliography

Baraka, A. (n.d.). Dutchman.

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchman_(play).

Purgatory By W.B.Yeats

In the drama Purgatory written by W.B.Yeats, there is conversation between a man in his 60s and his 16 years old son. The drama is about old man’s life experience and the big thing that he had done (killed his father) until finally he also killed his son used the same knife for killing his father.  The properties and the sound effect will support the drama performance to make it more meaning and more interests for the spectators.

            In the beginning of the drama, it can use mysterious music to build up terrified atmosphere. It can make the spectators become curious about what will appear or happen. The stage also can be dark with just a bit of light. After the music stops, it can appear the property like a house that was burnt many years ago and a bare. There also can be many stones there to support the setting of place. The property also has big role when the old man starred to look there are shadows of her mother and father on the window. The side behind the window will be better to be darker, so when that scene is happening there can be a woman and a man make some movement behind the window with light in order to show the shadow.  It can help the spectators to understand more about the drama. It can also make they feel fear, as what the old man feels. In addition to make the atmosphere is match with what is happening in the story, it could be add by woman’s whispering voice. That woman’s whispering voice can be placed as old man’s mother’s voice. When the old man told about his anger of his father’s behavior, the actors who plays as the old man can stand face the spectators. It is in order to the spectators can look nearer about his anger. The way the old man speaks also like he is reading a poems. It will make the spectators get the story line. At the end of the drama when he old man stabbed his soon, the knife property should look like real knife. It can help the situation tighter. Then it would be better if when the boy is stabbed, there is blood out of his part of body that was stabbed. 

Bibliography

W.B.Yeats. (n.d.). Purgatory.