Nationalism and the Other

I found this week's readings on Post-Colonialism to tie in to our readings from two weeks ago for race and ethnicity studies. Particularly, the readings on nationalism are relevant to our class discussion from that week when we talked questioned how Shelley treats nationality in Frankenstein. We asked if she is in any way contributing to the development of English national identity, and some of us came to the conclusion that she might be critiquing nationalism through the hybridity of the creature. Benedict Anderson argues in "Imagined Communities" that nationalism is a modern phenomenon - created to fill a need for a connection among people who no longer shared the same religion and made possible through print capitalism. Homi K. Bhaba builds off of this by stressing how nationality is narratively produced and not coming from an intrinsic essence. So I again ask, how does nationality figure in Frankenstein. As a work of writing, it might help to narratively produce national identity, or does it combat against the rising idea of nationalism, as some of us argued a few weeks ago? Is Shelley's nationalism/treatment of the other problematic in any way? Furthermore, I want to point out the description of Frantz Fanon's experience in France given by the editors of the Norton. They say that in France, Fanon "found that his service to the French state made no difference to the whites around him, who regarded black French subjects like himself as the Other - as alien and inferior, yet frightening and dangerous. He came to understand that despoite his intelligence, high level of education, and mastery of the French language, he was regarded not as a human being but as a specimen of an exotic and savage race, viewed through stereotypes developed over centuries of racial prejudice" (1437). This description screamed Shelley's monster to me. Even though he is clearly intelligent, has at least some education, and mastery of language, he is regarded as a savage and not a European. What I wonder is if it's possible that we have an other because nationality is developed? Or has there always been an other? I understand Anderson's argument about the development of nationalism, but didn't people always have a sort of patriotism for their nation? In Roman times, conquered peoples were referred to by the state from which they came. And since Fanon writes about the national identity that needs to be created in de-colonized African countries, would this imply that their lack of national identity prior to being colonized is what made them so easy to colonize? The key for Anderson is that this shared identity is "imagined." So for smaller groups such as African tribes, the sense of community is not imagined? I guess what I'm trying to get to through all of these questions is what is the connection, if there is one, between nationalism and the creation of the other?

The Creature Said

I see that many posts have considered Frankenstein as the paradigmatic colonizer, and I suspect that we will have very heated class discussions about the Creature as a colonized entity and its relation to Spivak’s notions of the subaltern, but to what extent is the Creature to be considered a colonizer? While the story Shelley’s devises between Safie and Felix is problematic on its own, the Creature’s narration of that story is of particular interest. In its delivery of Safie’s portion of the cottage narrative the Creature seems to adopt or partake in certain strategies and discourses associated with colonizer. Even if one were to argue that the Creature does not so clearly communicate through its narrative European imperialist conventions, the Creature’s representation of Safie, her father and the cottagers’ interaction with her does seem to suggest an underlying sense of difference. Safie’s father is referred to as “the unfortunate Mahometan” in the relation of his being sentenced to jail (Shelley 82). It seems peculiar to stress the religion of an unjustly convicted individual, but then the Creature presumably learns from the cottagers that Safie’s father’s “religion and wealth” are the cause of his incarceration (Shelley 82). For the rest of the narrative, Safie’s father is simply referred to as the Turk. The Creature’s representation of Safie is usually infused with emphases of the sensual and exotic. In his study of the study of Orientalism, Said addresses authority in terms of “strategic location” and “strategic formation” (1881). Said’s meta-study explains strategic location as the “way of describing the author’s position in a text with regard to the Oriental material he writes about”, while strategic formulation refers to an analysis of the “relationship between texts and the way in which groups of texts, types of texts, even textual genres, acquire mass, density, and referential power among themselves and thereafter in the culture at large” (1881). How does the portion of the Creature’s narrative that is devoted to Safie fit in with these concepts and concerns? Ostensibly, the Creature’s means of representation and signification of Safie in the narrative could be seen as the regurgitation of that which it observed and then internalizes from the cottagers, but what of the Creature’s description of its initial reactions and feelings towards Safie? The Creature may have be availed previous, even if unconsciously, inculcation or means of conceptualizing Safie as a member of ‘the orient’ from the readings (like Paradise Lost) and discussion of the cottagers. Its reactions to Safie seem to be strikingly consistent throughout. Does this suggest inherent feelings in the Creature toward Safie or inherent and essential aspects of Safie’s character? Or may this consistency in reaction and representation be an implied example of the Creature revising and editing his experience, or authority?

Fear the Subaltern.

Spivak uses the word "subaltern" to describe the Other in her postcolonial critique from this week's reading. "A subaltern, according to the dictionary, is a person holding a subordinate position," the book notes, also noting that it was originally used to describe a junior officer from the British army (2111). Let's remove that latter half, shall we? The "term's nuances" is what Spivak draws out- the unorganized mass caught between the "detested superiors" and "feared natives" (2111). "The "subaltern" always stands in an ambiguus relation to power- subordinate to it but never fully consenting to its rule, never adopting the dominant point of view or vocabulary as expressive of its own identity" (2111).

Ok, now I want you to picture the monster as an example -GET THIS!- of a subaltern. ( I know. you didn't think I'd go there. But I did, and so we continue. ) "Because subalterns exist, to some extent, outside power, theorists and advocates of political transformation have consistently looked to them as a potential source of change" (2111). It's hard to picture the future of the novel Frankenstein within the diegesis that Shelley sets up, and I'm completely sure that this was done on purpose. Does the monster kill himself? Does he move to the tropics anyway, by himself? Does he entertain himself by continuing his murderous hobby? Does he move to Russia and join the circus? Essentially, none of the answers to these questions matter- it is the fact that these questions come up at all that Shelley drives for. But I digress.

The reason I bring up the "subaltern" is to not only place the monster under its light, but to also draw out whether or not he is a "potential source of change." Obviously, he has "potential" to do something- he's affected more lives than just Victor's- but I feel that the only "change" he is the source is for more security. I don't think De Lacy or Feliz ever realize the monster's responsibility for the firewood, nor the extent to which the monster watched them. They never went into the room that the monster lived in! As soon as they met the monster, they abandoned their home in fear.

We haven't spoken too much in class about it, but fear is what motivates and influences people to the greatest extent. At least to me, it is fear that motivates more than... love, per say. Fear of another holy book's influence on its people in another country. Fear of terrorism for more airport security measures. Fear of someone else's sexuality because you don't understand the science behind it and feel that they'll rub off some of their gayness on you... but again, I digress.

In this light, the monster is influential. Now, it seems that he does not completely live up to his "subaltern" potential, or he does outside of the text of the novel. Nevertheless, the subaltern is one who "should be" feared, for it is the subaltern that exists outside of the power structure. It is out of control. This touches on the greatest fear of all time, what humans fear the most: not being in control.

Now, there are too many of us here on planet Earth for there to be no control- no country borders, no laws, no society, no classes, no races, no religions. And so the subaltern reigns.

The Global Creature

Because post-colonial studies “overlap with those of race and ethnicity studies,” one is able to view Frankenstein through the combination of theories and critiques employed in both schools of thought (Norton 28).

Indeed, it appears to be a study that shares many familiar concepts with our conversations surrounding Frankenstein as “it aims to describe the mechanisms of colonial power, to recover excluded or marginalized ‘subaltern’ voices, and to theorize the complexities of…identity; national belonging; and globalization” (Norton 27).

It is of great interest to imagine that Shelley created a character facing these exact issues itself. The creature does experience being a “marginalized” voice and also questions his identity, not only nationally, but globally! In 17__, the creature had a global perspective: a concept that the twenty-first century reader is wholly familiar with, but one that would have been a hard sell in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It could not identify with any other creatures on the globe because it was not of them, however, its “Otherness” instilled within it a global frame of reference so as to grasp its global place.

How does Frankenstein go against the usual “representations of third world countries” and “the political interests of their makers” (27)?

Reality A & Reality B

Thought some of you might be interested in the article "Reality A & Reality B," which appeared last month in the New York Times. Haruki Murakami is a Japanese novelist whose work (in translation) has done fairly well in the US. I read his novel, After Dark, a couple of years ago and it is interesting in that it represents the "chaos," to use his word, of a single night in a strictly linear narrative. In some ways I think you could say that it is this very rigid linear structure that creates the sensation of chaos, which is sort of odd. It also uses what I remember as a "camera angle" feel to distance the reader from the narrative and keep our perception of the story very tightly focused. This close-up framing leaves the reader very much aware of what you are unable to see and creates an interesting tension with the images that are revealed.

Anyway, I digress and it has been a while since I read the novel so maybe I'm remembering it wrong. In any case, give the article a look. I think it fits in nicely with our readings this week.

Chris

Edited to note that my response to the readings is on Blackboard.

Edited again because I'm procrastinating writing my paper and thought this was interesting, too: "If an Island State Vanishes, Is It Still a Nation?" Now, no more internet! Back to work!

Victor's Vision - Ultimate Colonialism

While reading about Post-Colonial theory, I began to wonder if we might interpret Victor as the Ultimate Colonialist. Rather than having to resort to “cultural obliteration [that is] made possible by the negation of a national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs” (Fanon, 1440), etc., Victor plans to create a new race with no culture to speak of. A tabula rasa to be molded and controlled from the ground up. Consider: “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley, 32). Of course this all goes wrong, as we know, but we might say that Victor is driven by an extraordinarily strong and yet suppressed colonial drive.

Dan

New Methods of Approaching Language and Literature

The New York Times had an article about new methods being used in looking at language in texts; the researchers are taking a quantitative approach and analyzing texts digitally. Relying on text scans, they looked at the frequency words appeared during the Victorian era. I thought it interesting that "Christian" falls over time while "science" rises in frequency.

Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers