Devi is clear to point out early in the story that Munabar Singh is the owner of the small community of Palamu. Ganori Negesia is one of the Singh’s unfortunate bond laborers that Devi highlights. The following statement tells of Ganori’s bondage, “its fate’s decree to become a kamiya. No one can evade what he (Lord Fate) writes down” (22). For Ganori, what he is born into is what he unfortunately has to become, a slave. Devi does this to show the tribes’ lack of power over their own fate and the fact that they may remain in such a position for the rest of their lives.

Devi uses Ganori to represent the awfulness that took place throughout the entire land of India. Ganori did a “million things for the master” as a bond laborer. His daily duty was to work for Munabar. Devi helps us to see that Ganori could only break free from his condition when his daughter is sold into slavery. Devi points out the injustices done by the upper class on the tribes because there were no laws and the tribes had no other resources.

Another aspect Devi points out in the story is the abuse of women’s bodies. She does so in her portrayal of Ganori’s daughter, Douloti. Douloti was promised marriage by Lord Paramananda in exchange for the cancellation of her father’s three hundred dollar debt to Munabar. However, what Devi wants to bring clarity to, is that Ganori’s freedom came at the cost of his fourteen year old daughter. Despite her family’s plea she is ripped away from the security she had. Devi is exposing, as well as fighting those in power as they continually abuse the tribes.

Douloti’s misfortune was that she didn’t become the bride of a Brahman god, but a prostitute. Her youth and naivety is evident as Devi portrays her happiness as she is prepped and pampered. Devi helps us to see that her virginity and youth brought a high price for Munabar. She is “drugged and left bloodied” by her first client. Her form of bond labor came at the continual abuse of her body. Munabar has one purpose, “the boss plows and plows their land and raises the crop” (59). The injustice Devi points out is the constant abuse on Douloti and other women’s body for profit. Like her father she will never be able to repay her debt; she will work until her body is used up.

Devi does a great job showing the injustices done to the outcasts in India. I think Devi presents Douloti as a feminist who experiences things differently. Women were carrying the burden of this society with their bodies. Douloti’s body becomes India. The destruction of the land is seen through the rape. Devi’s cleverness is seen in the title because the Bounty did not go to Douloti but to Manabar. I think Devi allows Douloti to die at the end to show her story and to raise awareness to the injustices done to the tribes.
JM

Speaking about her latest book: A Jury of her Peers: American Women Writers from Anne Bradstreet to Annie Proux
4:00-6:00 p.m.

Friday, April 24, 2009
2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Room 4406, English Lounge
Followed by a reception in 4406

In the beginning of the story, Mary is described as a woman of superior physical abilities.  Not only is she strong, but she’s intelligent, generous, funny, and respected by others.  She is also considered to be a businesswoman.  The owner’s wife is impressed by her abilities she says, “you have to take words from a girl who works like an animal, carries a forty-pound bag on her back, and boards the train, cleans the whole house in half an hour” (7).  Even when she goes to the marketplace, she is still receiving praise and respect.  “Mary has countless admirers at Tohri market. She gets down at the station like a queen.  She gets down at the station like a queen.  She sits at her own rightful place at the market” (3).  She is a very easy person to like.

One of her admires is a male logging contractor by the name of Tehsildar.  He attempts to take a male-dominant role.  Tehsildar grows lustful towards Mary and tries to sexual abuse her many times.  Soon enough, Mary becomes the predator, and kills Tehsildar.  What is important about the murder scene is the description which Devi provides.  “Mary laughed and held him, laid him on the ground.  Tehsildar is laughing, Mary lifts the machete, lowers it, lifts, lowers” (16).  Mary stabbing Tehsildar repeatedly represents Mary doing the raping.  Of course there is plenty of blood, which represents Mary’s virginity if Tehsildar would have successfully raped her.

“The Hunt” serves as a narrative of a woman who has been victimized by male sexual aggression.  Devi juxtaposes the male and female gender roles by slowly and ironically reversing them.  Tehsildar, a male sexual predator contains lustful and immoral desires towards Mary.  Mary attempts to stop him with verbal threats.  After attempts which failed, Mary was left with no choice but to take a male-dominant role.  She brutally murdered Tehsildar, symbolizing her power over him.

It seems rather ironic that Mary would eventually overpower Tehsildar.  It was much unexpected of how she decided to go about killing him.  The way she killed him was a pure symbol of aggression.  It seemed as it was repressed anger that was bottling up.  Furthermore, we see how this reversed gender roles manifested themselves in Devi’s short story.

Imagining The Impossible: Spivak’s Goal For Ethical Singularity and Responsibility

Gayatri Charkravorty Spivak writes in the afterword of her translation of Imaginary Maps by Mahasweta Devi about her views on social justice and the ethical responsibility First and Third World nations have to the ecology of an undivided world even if this may be an impossible fantasy. The title of Devi’s novel painfully points to the structuring of history and the complicity of both colonialism and modernity in these constructions. The current maps of the world did not always and already exist prior to colonialism and western expansion but became the reality of the world after European hegemony. Modernity brought prosperity to many, the colonizers and oppressors, but at the cost of human life, histories and civilizations. The indigenous groups, the “Fourth World” as Spivak names them, were marginalized and “othered” in society if not wiped out completely. Instead of fully realized humanity, the indigenous peoples such as the Tribals of India lost all control and rights they had before colonial expansion and modernity.  The narratives of the world and the mapping of landmasses cannot be viewed without the acknowledgement of the marginalized nations and excluded members of the world order that have fallen victim to the violence of colonialism.

Spivak offers in her afterword an alternative mode and structure to attain social justice on a global scale and reach an ethical singularity void of power relations. One must acknowledge the precious and precariousness of nature and humanity. The ecological consequences of capitalism on nature have led to devastation of land and displacement of nations who have been forcibly removed from their homelands to make room for the incoming society and civilizations. But Spivak believes nature and humanity should be seen as sacred, though the “sacred” she discusses has no religious connotation. She writes, “In order to mobilize for nonviolence, for example, one relies, however remotely, on building up a conviction of the ‘sacredness’ of human life. ‘Sacred’ here need not have a religious sanction, but simply a sanction that cannot be contained within the principle of reason alone. Nature is no longer sacred in this sense for the civilizations based on the control of Nature” (199).  All of humanity, whether deemed subaltern or not, should be seen as sacred members of nature. With this recognition, the shared responsibility for an ecological just world becomes ever the more apparent according to Spivak. Reason alone will not suffice in changing inequalities and devastations on nature and man that continue in the world’s civilizations. If the reason people mobilize in the name of change and ecological improvements is merely for global survival then the self-interests get in the way of fundamental reconstruction. The recognition of the relationship the human community, First, Third, Fourth and otherwise, has to one another and nature offers the only hope for Spivak’s goal of ethical singularity.

An undivided world, one where the maps are seen as imaginary, may be possible only without religious theology as a liberation tool according to Spivak. Power and the control it has over others make theology a harmful system in the mind of individuals.  When ethical singularity and a shared recognition in the responsibility humanity has over nature is the goal, then a belief system where ultimate power and change do not belong to humanity but a higher being or deity must be reconsidered. I agree with Spivak’s contention that theology can be counterproductive and dangerous. If humanity can accept the idea that they can control the narrative of the world and that everyone holds influence and responsibility over others regardless of creeds or cultural norms, then, perhaps, an ethical singularity can be reached and reason and obligation will trump ideology. 

Grant Gilmore 

The Hunt

As a result of the decolonization of Indian, the country was no longer pure culture, pure people or pure language. The British rule of India for approximately two hundred years has changed things. It tinted things. From here on out (from independence to present day) India struggles to get back on her feet. She struggles to maintain an authentic Indian identity, an identity that has been diluted by the British. The British has influenced everything from classical Indian movies, music, fashion, language to even caste system. Though the caste system existed before colonial rule, it ended up reinforcing this system by adding on to it. It was now the time for the social class system, the “white caste.” Gayatri Spivak acknowledges this dilution in language, this British influence, and thus this hardship. In her translator’s note in Imaginary Maps by Mahasweta Devi, she states “All words in English in the original have been italicized. This makes the English page difficult to read. The difficulty is a reminder of the intimacy of the colonial encounter.”

Mahasweta Devi is an activist for the almost forgotten tribal societies of India. She is the voice of the oppressed and the sustainer of truth; the truth of the oppressed. Through her experiences with tribal societies, she has been able to incorporate these experiences into her fictional stories. One such story is “The Hunt.” The effects of colonization, corruption, capitalism and gender politics are all portrayed in “The Hunt.” Thus the protagonist, Mary Oraon, is Devi’s fighter, cure and solution to all of these. Mary rises up above many levels of subservience; the oppression of the tribes, feminism and self governance. Mary is smart, independent; makes her own money, a hard worker, trustworthy and a fighter. For Devi, Mary is the solution for “when the system fails in- justice.”

Mary Oraon is India! She is the post colonial India with diluted blood; half native, half white. This synthesis of India that has gained strength through hardships is willing to fight. “At a distance she looks most seductive, but close up you see a strong message of rejection in her glance.” India is rich in a variety of ways, many wants what she has, but none can possess her. Tehsildar represents the colonizer, and according to Devi’s philosophy, only violence can save Mary from this mainstream bad guy. Devi declares, “When the system fails an individual has a right to take violence or any other means to get justice. The individual cannot go on suffering in silence.” Hence India kills the colonizer before he ruins her.

Devi’s story touches on more than one level. She not only writes about post colonial India, but touches on feminism and the power of women. As well as focuses on the tribes of India, how they’re being taken advantage of and giving us an insight to what their society is like. Devi’s “The Hunt” is as powerful and inspiring as it is beautiful. Though I do not believe in violence, I now believe that there is truth to what Devi says. We must at times take a stand to fight, protect and defend all that is important not just to us, but society as well.

S. Lalchan

There have been a lot of absences lately. Please remember that excessive absences (more than 3) will impact your participation grade.

Specifically, in the 1970’s there was a literary explosion of anthologies and poetry which only dissipated shortly after their success (213). The anthologies were released because of the undervalued support for women’s writing. Women’s writing was not accepted as a literary genre not because of the female content, but by the fact that it was a woman telling the tale – “[t]he body in this context begins to look like a superior technology […]” (225). Ashton does not deliver a very convincing argument, it also sounds contradictory at times, however, she is not concerned with the bias of women— she is concerned with the bodies of women. Ashton mentions the opposing beliefs about women writing lyrically, but she articulates the importance of the anthology in order to give an equal voice to men and women. She touches on Muriel Ruckeyser’s poem “The Poem as Mask” and how it indicates that since women should not hide behind a mask, but express themselves through their words and seek out our own form. Ashton continues that the pressure of a “male-oriented” culture should facilitate a necessity for women to speak from the heart instead of sitting idly by and allowing men to take control of women’s writing as well (216).  

It is not just our minds that should be accepted into the literary spectrum, but our bodies, which is the basis of Ashton’s argument. Ashton recalls back to Andy Warhol’s “piss painting” where he used his body to “paint” a masterpiece. According to Ashton, “[i]f ‘splatter’ is the distinctive formal characteristic of such masculine painting, the feminine equivalent is the ‘stain’” (223). Both women and men share this bodily function of urinating; men just cannot relate or appreciate the “stain”, they do not live it month after month. Warhol’s use of his body to pay respect to another pissing artist Jackson Pollack was associated with women’s use of their “stain”, which was a painting that represented the menstrual cycle. Women did not directly use their bodies to create the “stain”, they expressed vividly on canvas a replica of what the “stain” represented – Warhol and Pollack urinated on a canvas. The injustice is wickedly present.

Ashton’s argument reminded me of Helene Cixous and how she proclaimed to women in society to recapture their bodies and to not be ashamed; Cixous urged that emotional and physical feelings go hand in hand. I find that reading about someone’s personal experiences and beliefs is a lot easier to digest rather than listening to their experience of childbirth or their first menstrual cycle. By reading their experience, I do not need to see the “stain”, I create my own mental picture of the heartache, the pain, the joy and the feeling that the writer is intimately expressing. I also feel that the written word is an easier way to express gratitude, your fortitude or your attitude in a polite and definite way. Ashton simplifies the idea by just using the human body as a formative way to brand your mark into society, even though society may not always be willing to accept it.

-Tiffany Smith

           What influence does one’s color and culture have on the way a text is to be analyzed? Clearly the reader brings to the table a plethora of preconceived notions which shape the way the text comes to life for them. Toni Morrison’s “Recitatif,” with its ambiguous protagonists calls on social constructs to assign color. Ultimately the reader, with all his or her own loaded images, is left to decide which color fits which character.

            When I read this story, I saw Twyla as white. Just as Elizabeth Abel delineates the evidence for Twyla’s whiteness, so too does she support this idea. “Twyla’s sense of social and physical inadequacy vis-à-vis Roberta, like her representation of her mother’s inferiority to Roberta’s, signaled Twyla’s whiteness to me by articulating a white woman’s fantasy (my own) about black women’s potency. (829) This notion comes from Abel’s own fantasies that she reads the story with. I brought my own experience as I read. When Twyla says she thought her mother would be mad about her rooming with Roberta (88), I interpreted that to be some sort of white superiority. Maybe I read it that way because I am white and that’s all I have ever known. I didn’t grow up hearing black people think that they were better than whites. I suppose another reader might assume something else, depending on what they’d been exposed to in their own life. Where you are reading the text may also inadvertently affect the who, what, where, how and why you read in a particular text.

            What really seems so thought provoking about reading “Recitatif” is that it calls on preconceptions on so many levels. As Abel alludes to in her article, the stereotypes we call on are at a subconscious level. (828) What do we assume about clothing? Who do we envision wearing tight green pants? Who wears a larger than life crucifix and who doesn’t?  What about looks and smells?  Are they important clues? Roberta couldn’t read in this story. Should the reader use that fact to assign her a race? Which of the parents would be a “dancer” and whose would be mentally ill?  Which of the girls do we envision wearing pink scalloped socks? Morrison’s story is oh so clever, but equally disturbing. She doesn’t have to tell us which one is which- our own lives do it for us. How can a reader come across any text at all and see it as a clean slate? It’s really an impossible feat.

            When Elizabeth Abel dissects black feminist Lula Fragd’s interpretive reading of “Recitatif,” it is an equally viable analysis. Fragd envisions Twyla black and Roberta white. Abel concedes “even in her evading of this first half of the story, Lula’s interpretation differed from mine by emphasizing cultural practices more historically nuanced than my categorical distinctions in body types, degrees of social cool, or modes of mothering.” (829) So what does this signify? Two equally skilled critics were able to approach the same text through two completely different lenses. The greater ramification is that no two readers will ever see a work in the exact same light. What a reader brings in their reading is a large stuffed valise, enveloping all the ideas and beliefs their past has brought their way. Ultimately it is up to the individual how he or she sees to it to unpack that luggage. Race will undoubtedly be of significance.

Response to “Recitatif” by Toni Morrison

     After I finished reading the short story “Recitatif” by Toni Morrison, I was left with some unanswered questions, but not one of those questions was which one of the characters was the Black woman and which one was the White.  I immediately assumed Twyla was the Black woman, primarily because the story was told by Twyla in first person narrative, and being that Toni Morrison is a Black woman, then Twyla must be Black as well.  After reading the supplementary essay “Black Writing, White Reading” by Elizabeth Abel, my jaw nearly dropped to the floor.  You can imagine how stupid I felt for making such a narrow minded assumption.

     Unfortunately, now I can not differentiate whether my assumption that Twyla was the Black woman influenced the rest of my reading of the short story, or if the rest of the story proved my theory that Twyla must be the Black woman to be true, but I never once doubted or had to think twice about who was who in the story.  For example, in the scene where the mothers come to visit St. Bonny’s, Twyla’s mother is portrayed as the embarrassing mother, with a very loud and obnoxious voice and pants that are way too tight, and Roberta’s mother is the religious mother who thinks she is better than Twyla’s mother and refuses to even shake her hand.  This superior attitude displayed by Roberta’s mother is a typical reaction to the actions of Black women by White women that have been demonstrated numerous times throughout history, film, and literature.  That is why it made perfect sense to me and I didn’t second guess it.

     Another reason why I was certain Twyla was the Black character and Roberta was White also took place in the scene where the mothers visit.  Roberta’s mother brought an enormous spread of food for lunch including chicken legs and ham, and Twyla’s mother did not bring anything.  Twyla tries to make sense of this when she says, “The wrong food is always with the wrong people.  Maybe that’s why I got into waitress work later-to match up the right people with the right food.”  I assumed that because chicken legs and ham are stereotypically referred to as “soul food”, and yet it is Roberta’s mom who brought it, must be why Twyla says that it is the wrong food with the wrong people.  In other words, she should be eating that food, not Roberta.  Now I realize it is just because Roberta did not appreciate the food and just let the chicken legs sit there, and Twyla would have greatly enjoyed that lunch.

     What Morrison did in this short story, by never disclosing which race either woman was, was sheer brilliance.  Every one of the stereotypes mentioned in the story, such as pink scalloped socks, tight green slacks, and the adoration of Jimi Hendrix, could have been true for either of the women, regardless of their race.  She displays how the divide between the races has a lot to do with how Blacks and Whites define themselves in opposition to one another, which Roberta and Twyla both do throughout the story.  They go from being very close friends to strangers with absolutely nothing in common in just a few years.  In the supplementary essay, Abel makes an excellent point which helped my reading of the story when she says, “By forcing us to construct racial categories by highly ambiguous social cues, “Recitatif” elicits and exposes the unarticulated racial codes that operate at the boundaries of consciousness.”  My interpretation of this is that everything is relative, and until you have been in someone else’s shoes or have seen a situation through their eyes, you can not possibly understand what they have been through or how they may see things.  Yet by building friendships like these two women have, we can certainly try to understand each other a little bit better.