Microsoft Word Narrative Exploits docx
Yüklə 327,68 Kb.
|
|
particularly to their home and to Old Rimrock, where political violence—though unacknowledged by the Swede—has long existed.
When Merry sets off the bomb at the post office and kills the local doctor, the Swede’s vision of domestic space as an apolitical domain begins to fall apart. Roth writes, “The bomb might as well have gone off in their living room. The violence done to his life was awful” (70). The reference once again to the living room is significant, as the political violence perpetrated by Merry is itself an attack on the discourses of domestic space that, she correctly recognizes, are fundamentally tied to the state. Merry becomes “The daughter who transports him out of the longed-for American pastoral and into everything that is its antithesis and its enemy, into the fury, the violence, and the desperation of the counterpastoral—and into the indigenous American berserk” (86). For the Swede, the fragmentation of domestic space is traumatic for reasons that go beyond the loss of his daughter and the death of a member of his community; the intrusion of the political on domestic space effectively forces him to regard his own existence as inseparable from the political discourses of the state. In short, Merry’s bomb is an act of political violence against a culture of complacency contained and perpetuated in the discursive space of the house. What is most significant about Merry’s act of domestic terrorism—both in its relation to the Swede’s fantasy and, more broadly, in our conception of a secure homeland—is the way it collapses public and private boundaries. Domestic space inherently depends on a rhetoric of separation; the home is articulated as a space of safety and stability in response to an outside environment understood to be threatening, chaotic, and dangerous. As Bachelard has shown, the sense of security we attach to the home is predicated on boundaries that divide the inside from the outside. Faced with the reality of political violence arising from within the home/homeland, however, we can see how these boundaries begin to dissolve. In his reflections on political violence and the homeland in the twenty-first century, Michael Rothberg explains, “there once were clear differences between home and away, inside and outside, peace and violence, innocence and experience, but […] those distinctions have been lost” (151). Amy Kaplan takes this further, arguing that the collapse of inside/outside boundaries by the threat of terrorism and the emphasis on homeland security is in fact a rhetorical tactic that works to justify further political intrusion on private life. She writes, Although homeland security may strive to cordon off the nation as a domestic space from external foreign threats, it is actually about breaking down the boundaries between inside and outside, about seeing the homeland in a state of constant emergency from threats within and without […] If every facet of civilian life is subject to terrorist attack, if a commercial airliner can be turned into a deadly bomb, then every facet of domestic life—in the double sense of the word as private and national—must be both protected and mobilized against these threats. Homeland security calls for vast new intrusions of government, military, and intelligence forces, not just to secure the homeland from external threats, but to become an integral part of the workings of home, a home in a continual state of emergency. (90) The linguistic collapse of public and private boundaries suggests that no space is free from political intrusion, and that institutional politics are fundamentally tied to every aspect of American life. The kind of political intrusion that Kaplan addresses is solely a product of an institutional presence that attempts to claim the discourses of domestic space to disengage individuals further from productive political exchange, and the rhetoric of homeland security is merely another step toward interpellating Americans as static, politically-complacent subjects. In American Pastoral, Merry’s act of political violence and the intrusions of the political that, the Swede believes, anticipated it certainly work to dismantle the boundaries between the public and the private, but the Swede is largely unable to gain political agency over the course of the novel, which, I argue, is a result of the conflation of institutional politics and domestic space. The novel’s final chapter sees the Swede hosting a dinner party attended by his parents and family “friends” (he discovers during the dinner party that Bill Orcutt, one of his so-called friends, is having an affair with his wife and that Shelly Salzman, another friend, had secretly given refuge to Merry after the bombing). After dinner, the Swede imagines Merry—now destitute, emaciated, and incompatible with his stilted worldview—returning to the house, to the horror of his father and his friends. This scene demonstrates the Swede’s latent fear of domestic subversion, as Merry continually represents a threat to domestic stability, even here at the novel’s conclusion when, one would think, the Swede would have come to accept the realities of political violence. Roth writes, “He had made his fantasy and Merry had unmade it for him. It was not the specific war that she’d had in mind, but it was a war nonetheless, that she brought home to America—home into her very own house” (418). Two components of this scene are worth exploring. First, the Swede still appears to understand his home as a space of inherent stability, which is surprising, considering the unpleasant political debate that took place over dinner minutes earlier and the recent discovery of his wife’s infidelity. Roth, during this scene, writes, “The outlaws are everywhere. They’re inside the gates” (366), suggesting that the fortified exterior of the old stone house has been breached by politics and behavior that the Swede cannot reconcile with his fantasy of domestic stability. Second, although narrated as an event occurring in real-time, Merry’s arrival proves to be a product of the Swede’s imagination (the shriek he heard from his father was the result of an incident involving one of the intoxicated dinner guests), and his belief in domestic stability presumably continues after the novel ends. The Swede’s nightmare-fantasy of his daughter’s return reveals that, although cognizant of the presence of political violence in domestic space, he cannot bring this knowledge to bear on how he constructs his identity and how he understands the symbolic function of the Old Rimrock house; he therefore remains incapable of dismantling the bourgeois domestic fantasy we have seen throughout the novel, even in the face of immediate and horrifying political violence. Claire Sigrist-Sutton explains, “In his wish to bring Merry back into the household, Seymour fails to recognize her criticism of that household as bourgeois and therefore complicit in forwarding the aims of the dirty war” (61). Sigrist-Sutton correctly identifies the Swede’s failure to adopt a politically- informed perspective, but she and many other critics of the novel are unable to identify the root causes of this phenomenon. Elaine B. Safer’s explanation that his tragic fall occurs “partly because of his own innocent self deception, and partly because of an outside world in convulsions, a chaotic world that he never made” (98) does not quite address the more complex machinery behind the Swede’s political inflexibility. In his recent book, The New American Exceptionalism, Donald Pease explores the emergence of the homeland security state, claiming that Americans’ identification with the American “homeland” occurred as a traumatic response to a dissolving fantasy of American political innocence initiated by the attacks on the towers. The attacks, he explains, distanced Americans rhetorically from their country, requiring them to manufacture a “homeland” in order to reclaim America as “country of origin” stolen from them by the terrorists (170). This process helps to explain why the Swede, even when confronted by political violence, intensifies his faith in domesticity. Instead of embracing a political position after Merry’s act of violence, he opts to continue believing, even into his old age, in “the illusion of stability” (Roth 37). This impulse, perhaps, reflects the Swede’s unacknowledged psychological attachment to the Holocaust as a traumatic event underlying his manufactured American identity. Realizing that his relationship to institutional power is every bit as tenuous as that of Jews in Europe in the years preceding the Holocaust, he retreats to the comforts of domestic space, repressing political trauma with a domestic symbol that promises affiliation with a new American homeland. The political violence that Merry introduces, indeed, collapses the boundaries between the interior and the exterior, in Kaplan’s terminology, but instead of embracing political heterogeneity, the Swede—like the American public responding to the threat of terrorism—retreats to the domestic. After his daughter’s death, in an evident attempt to repress the violence of his former life, the Swede remarries and has two children, effectively recreating and perfecting the bourgeois existence Merry had succeeded in exploding. His brother describes a recent dinner outing attended by the Swede and his new family: “Seymour loved it. The whole handsome family there, life just the way it’s supposed to be” (71). His desire to reclaim what he sees as his American “country of origin” through the performance of domestic normalcy has not diminished, even in the wake of horrific political violence. Immediately following this idyllic moment, however, the Swede retreats to his car, where he breaks down over the news of Merry’s recent death. Again, try as he might to repress the political through continued faith in the comforts and security of domestic life, which are undone by Merry’s death, the specter of political violence continually intrudes, from within, on his manufactured fantasy.9 If the Swede’s political disengagement is a result of his relationship to his home, how, then, are we to assert political subjectivity in a culture where reality is largely defined through our experience of domestic space? Roth poses this question, in so many words, in the novel’s final lines. He writes: Yes, the breach had been pounded in their fortification, even out here in secure Old Rimrock, and now that it was opened it would not be closed again. They’ll never recover. Everything is against them, everyone and everything that does not like their life. All the voices from without, condemning and rejecting their life! And what is wrong with their life? What on earth is less reprehensible than the life of the Levovs? (423) Here Roth exposes the inherent difficulty of negotiating a world in which institutional narratives—here, invested in domestic space—have permeated our most intimate spheres. We feel sympathy for the Swede largely because discourses of domestic space are so much a part of our own lives, and to divorce ourselves from these discourses seems as jarring as confronting the political
violence that threatens to undermine them. This process also speaks to the ease with which we are able to locate Merry as an outsider and a political deviant, despite her function as an agent of necessary social and political change; even as we critique the Swede’s reactionary worldview, we find it difficult to identify with Merry’s radical departure from normalcy. To answer the question, “what is wrong with their life?” requires us, as complicit participants in a culture of domestic politics, to step outside of these discourses and enter a hostile territory of domestic instability. This, again, is facilitated by Roth’s depictions of domestic space. Midway through the novel, when the Swede encounters Merry, now a Jain devoted to protecting all forms of life at whatever cost to her own life, he is shocked and appalled first and foremost by her squalid living space. Located in the most run-down part of Newark, Merry’s “room was tiny, claustrophobically smaller even than the cell in the juveniles’ prison where, when [the Swede] could not sleep, he would imagine visiting her after she was apprehended” (233). Later, Roth writes, “Her room had no window, only a narrow transom over the door that opened onto the unlit hallway, a twenty-foot-long urinal whose decaying plaster walls he wanted to smash apart with his fist the moment he entered the house and smelled it” (237). Confronted by a vision of domestic space that refuses to cohere with his Old Rimrock fantasy and one which incorporates, rather than shirks, the harsh realities of urban life, the Swede proves unable to separate his daughter discursively from the space in which she lives. Imagining his wife’s reaction to Merry’s house, the Swede thinks to himself, “How could he bring Dawn here? Driving Dawn down McCarter Highway, turning off McCarter and into this street, the warehouses, the rubble, the garbage, the debris…Dawn seeing this room, smelling this room, her hands touching the walls of this room, let alone the unwashed flesh, the brutally cropped, bedraggled hair…” (239). The Swede’s thought process in this passage is revealing, as he seamlessly moves between descriptions of the city, the house, and his daughter, conflating the three separate concepts under a single indictment of what he considers to be deviant modes of living. He is incapable of differentiating his daughter from the place in which she lives; her home and her identity, in the Swede’s eyes, are one and the same. Of course, this scene reveals more about the Swede’s politically-constructed domestic fantasy—one which projects American identity in domestic terms—than about Merry, whom we only perceive from her father’s skewed perspective. Merry’s rejection of her father’s bourgeois existence is most clearly established through their divergent visions of domestic space. While the Swede seeks an authentic connection to an American cultural and national heritage, his daughter desires transience; her home, situated amid a section of the city continually ransacked by poverty-stricken inhabitants, is under a state of constant transformation and revision. At one point, the Swede sees the “cornices stolen. Aluminum drainpipes even from the occupied buildings, from standing buildings—stolen. Everything was gone that anybody could get to. Just reach up and take it. Copper tubing in boarded-up factories, pull it out and sell it. Anyplace the windows are gone and boarded up tells people immediately, ‘Come in and strip it. Whatever’s left, strip it, steal it, sell it’” (235). Unlike the 170 year-old stone house which “regularized irregularity,” Merry’s home is in a state of constant flux: a project of deconstruction. Although she admits to having lived in a room in Newark for the past six months, her domestic experience is one of transience rather than rootedness. Roth writes, “By the time she left Chicago she had discovered she no longer needed a home; she would never again come close to succumbing to the yearning for a family and a home” (258). Her homelessness, admittedly accompanied by the kind of squalor that repulses even the reader,10 serves as the only viable outlet to an institutional presence that has inscribed itself on and claimed domestic space. Sarah Bylund explains, “Merry is an itinerant wanderer…Merry has no real ‘home’ and certainly has no desire to claim America as her country. The run-down, stinking building where Merry resides is just a temporary stopping place” (25). Bylund correctly identifies the novel’s implicit connections between domesticity and national identity. For the Swede’s America, the nomadic lifestyle Merry adopts holds no promise for legitimate national identification. Because of her rejection of bourgeois domesticity, Merry is excluded from an American identity, and this is significant, considering the ways that nationalist discourse has permeated and co-opted domestic space.
Merry’s reaction against her father’s domestic vision is, of course, a reaction against political narratives embedded in domestic space; her transient existence can be read more specifically as an attempt to produce a counternarrative that contests the fantasy of American normalcy invested in domestic space. I would be remiss, at this point, to ignore the narrative stylistics of American Pastoral and the ways that Roth’s narrative strategies speak to the very issues at stake in this chapter. The novel’s first three chapters establish Roth’s frequently-used narrator, Nathan Zuckerman, as the agent of narrative invention. In these early chapters, Zuckerman “writes” in first-person, describing his encounters with the Swede and his brother, Jerry, whom he sees at a high school reunion. During these scenes, Zuckerman, himself a successful novelist, reveals his fascination with the Swede, and the chapters that follow function as his attempt to narrativize the life of a man about whom he knows little. The story of the Swede, therefore, is exposed to be a project of narrative invention, one that calls into question the stability and legitimacy of narratives, and the faith we place in these narratives. Early reviews of the novel largely ignored Zuckerman’s frame narrative and instead focused almost exclusively on the Swede’s primary narrative. This is not surprising. As readers, the impulse to locate a primary narrative speaks to our desire for familiar, stable narrative production in much the same way we search for familiarity and stability in our domestic spaces. Once we acknowledge Zuckerman’s role in the production of narratives, we can see how the novel’s formal mechanics in fact speak to the tensions between the Swede and his daughter as they vie over competing visions of domesticity. Early in the novel, Zuckerman concedes the inherent failures in representation and narrativization, particularly in reference to understanding people and interior motivations. He explains that one ought to approach others as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you’re anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you’re with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. (35) Two elements of this passage help to untangle the novel’s complex commentary on narrativization. First, Zuckerman admits that narratives are founded on error. We channel our misperceptions into narratives in order to make sense of the world around us. This suggests that the Swede’s narrative—a product of Zuckerman’s imagination—is in fact founded on error as well; his narrative, like all narratives, we are to believe, cannot be taken as truth. This is important to keep in mind when considering the narratives of stability and protection that the Swede produces through his Old Rimrock house; Merry seems to realize that the values embedded in bourgeois domesticity are as much an act of narrative invention as anything else, and that political ideology invariably uses narrative as its mode of transmission. In the Swede’s case, the house subtly functions as the locus for ideological transmission. The other interesting element of the passage above is Zuckerman’s repeated appeal to war and violence as two concepts closely linked to representation. He seems to suggest that when we engage in processes of narrativization, we inevitably misrepresent, and in doing so we perpetrate violence on the world around us and produce dangerous fictions that, we can say at this point, are always ideologically founded. In light of these comments on the violent nature of narrative, Zuckerman finds himself between a rock and a hard place; his narrative—his attempt to set the record straight—is constantly being undercut by the violence he is perpetrating on history and on those whom he is attempting to represent. Roth, of course, utilizes Zuckerman in this way in order to dislocate the reader from the familiar space of the primary narrative. If our tendency is to regard the Swede’s story as the primary narrative of American Pastoral, then the distance generated by the frame story allows us to critique the Swede’s worldview, furthermore exposing the violent processes of narrativization involved in the production of narratives. Aliki Varvogli explains that the novel “asks urgent and unsettling questions about the meaning and importance of authorship. More specifically, through its structural complexity, it suggests the figure of the author is linked with that of the terrorist” (103). As the author of the Swede’s narrative, Zuckerman positions himself as the chief agent of narrative violence in a novel heavily invested in both narrative and violence. It might be best here to revisit the connections between space and narrative, established in the previous chapter, that also inform this reading of Roth’s novel. In The Practice of Everyday Life, de Certeau explains, “[narratives] traverse and organize places; they select and link them together; they make sentences and itineraries out of them. They are spatial trajectories” (115). Later, he explains, “space is a practiced place…an act of reading is the space produced by the practice of a particular place: a written text, i.e., a place constituted by a system of signs” (117). Although de Certeau’s commentary refers specifically to our negotiation of urban space, the spatializing potential of narrative that he describes applies equally well to domestic space; familiar, stable, conventional narrative structures provide textual spaces discursively linked to domesticity. Utilizing Zuckerman as a framing device, Roth destabilizes what the reader would identify as a familiar narrative structure in the Swede’s narrative. This process generates what could be called a “domestic textual space” and provides a locus of stability in our otherwise disorienting experience of the novel. Zuckerman’s presence therefore encourages us to critique the machinery that underlies our conceptions of stable narratives. In the same way that Merry’s bomb—a symbolic act of narrative violence—seeks to dismantle the political discourses embedded in domestic space, discourses that have been normalized and are therefore largely invisible, Zuckerman’s presence encourages us to be highly suspicious of narratives and the political ideologies that underlie them.11 His presence distances us from the familiar space of the primary narrative, a home, of sorts, causing us to question the processes of narrativization at its heart. Timothy L. Parrish asks, “Why does Merry throw bombs? A plausible answer might be another question: Why does Zuckerman write? Although Roth often assigns possible motivations for the kinds of stories Zuckerman writes— psychological, sexual, cultural, etc.—the truth is that there is for Zuckerman no necessary justification other than the desire to create a persona and enact its possibilities” (139). These answers certainly explain the impulse behind Zuckerman’s narrative inventions, but they do not explain Roth’s motives for framing the Swede’s story. When we recognize the limitations of narrative, we, like Merry, are able to expose the politics that underlie narrative. In the same way that Merry, in her transience, rejects the illusory stability of domestic space, we, as readers, embrace the discursive mobility afforded by multiple layers of narrative, rejecting the illusion of political truth invested in any one narrative space.
Through these complex formal strategies, Roth creates a textual environment that suggests the impossibility of successfully fortifying domestic space against ideological intrusion. If domestic space is inherently a repository for political discourse, then it is similarly founded on narrative production. The discourses of domesticity that Merry rejects stem from the narratives of home life that the Swede espouses, narratives that locate the home and the family within a particular white, bourgeois paradigm. Furthermore, these discourses of domestic space are linked to American institutional politics and the forces of nationalism, which insist on the need for security and stability in order to justify further intrusions on private life; in doing so, they disenfranchise those who choose to adopt alternative visions of domesticity. Merry’s act of violence is an attempt to disrupt these discourses, and in recognizing them as social and political constructions, she exposes the deeper connections between domestic space and narrative production. Roth simulates this experience through his formal strategies. By distancing the reader from the Swede’s primary narrative, we are able to critique the processes of narrative production at the heart of the novel and recognize the ways that narrative violence is necessary for contesting the deeply- embedded politics of domestic space. Applying this lens to American Pastoral helps us to better understand our relationship to institutional politics and how the state infiltrates, redefines, and ultimately controls narratives produced through domestic space. As the boundaries of public and private space continue to erode under the discourses of national security and the protection of the homeland, so, too, does our ability to establish political positions that exist outside the lines of discourse provided by the state. Approaches to the novel that fail to acknowledge Roth’s complex use of domestic space and narrative cannot adequately explain the Swede’s refusal to modify his worldview in light of his daughter’s acts of domestic terrorism. His mental decline and his inability to confront the realities of political violence are the consequence of his investment in politically-repressive, state-endorsed narratives that are communicated through domestic space. Roth’s novel has achieved newfound relevance in post-9/11 America, as, in probing the connections between domestic space, the homeland, and narrative production, it speaks directly to a culture increasingly fearful of ideological and political intrusion. Such fears permeate the frames of Michael Haneke’s film, Funny Games (2008), which I discuss in the following section. Unlike Roth’s novel, which suggests that Americans’ attachment to domestic space signifies a repression of the political, Haneke’s film suggests that Americans’ innate desire for violence is both contained within the trope of the house and enacted, more broadly, at home and abroad, through regimes of torture and political violence. Yüklə 327,68 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|