Monday, June 10, 2024

Of Human Consciousness: New York Moments

 

Of Human Consciousness

 

Upper West Side

 

“It is the hat that matters most,” she says, as she careens forward, a near miss. A Hermes-like bicycle delivery guy brushes past.  “If the hat is not consistent to the period, then the whole costume will be off and all of the purists will notice.  Of that, I can guarantee you.” 

She is walking with Benton down Madison Avenue on a sunny late afternoon.  Sun in the city seems a rarity.  And Benton.  What in the world would she do without him? He has been here for her.  That he has. Not in a way that she had expected to need him, but the way he came to her years ago and filled in as that missing puzzle piece in her life, she could have never expected.  Benton was a surprise, a gift.  The kind of gift someone gives you, and you wonder, “What could they mean?”.  Later on, you understand exactly what they meant.  They were anticipating your needs, which is quite a gift in itself.   

They make their way across the street at the crosswalk, headed in the direction of the sun and the production company they had been working for.  She looks him up and down as she follows behind him.  Benton, wearing his usual attire (khakis and a crisp white shirt) has always managed to look so fresh. No matter the weather, his hair is always perfectly cut and styled, and his shoes are polished to an opaque shine.  His body is like a metrosexual marble statue, created just to express the 21st century human ideal until the end of time.  One wonders if he sits at home when not working and preens like a peacock, cleaning his feathers for the next conquest:  a technique that has been well-proven to produce the optimum results.

 

            An older Chinese lady with a hot dog cart is stuck on the curb. She hurries over to help her lift it up and onto the sidewalk. Pamela notices she is wearing a pair of those soft black cloth Mary Janes with the rust-colored soles that were one of those coveted exotic Chinese finds of the youth back in the 80`s.  Hers are old, and the backs of her shoes are crumpled into accordions, her pink socks permanently grey from months or even years of splashing puddles and the tenacious grime of the road.  Benton continues to walk, oblivious to anything happening around him. Typical Benton, his legs mechanically working like the geared mechanisms in a factory assembly line, just never stops. 

She laughs. 

“Would you wait a second?”

She rushes forward in her high heels, still nimble and balanced at the mature age of 48. 

“Ok… we are not late.  In fact, we are early! Where are you rushing off to?”

She is a bit perturbed, but used to it.  Benton is a man on a mission.  Any mission, he will be there and will not fail. She catches her breath beside him and says,

“As I was saying, we need to emphasize the fact that this film will be different.” 

“I know, Pam.  I heard you the first time.  Do you doubt me?  I would think you would know by now that I have no trouble giving you what you want.”

She grumbles.  “Ah, but sometimes, you are much too confident.  That is what worries me right now.  I get the feeling that you are not as serious about this project as I am.”

The last project they worked on together was a disaster to finish.  The final product was breathtaking and wildly innovative, but the journey through completion was a horror.  So many details left undone at the last minute, so much rushing and so many complicated transactions going on. It made her head spin.  He makes her head spin. She does not want another one of those projects.  She is determined to lead this one, and Benton will just have to follow her lead.   She will make sure of it. Somehow, she wonders, will I be consuming my words like communion wafers, hidden on the roof of my mouth? Benton is one brilliant force to be reckoned with…well, deftly managed, if she was being honest.

Benton is similar to someone, she thinks to herself. How funny life can be.  One person leaves your life because you realize that they were no good for you and the “trying harder” part is only leaving you completely emptied, then another comes along and is so similar to the last.  One would think that you would stop for a second and say, “Wait a minute! This feels similar”, but we never do, do we? We merely carry on, having parallel relationships all of our lives.  Almost like we were given an imprint at birth and that is what we would follow until we finally got it right.  Benton was that “got it right” person.  The one who untangles the misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and insensitivities of the past, the one who ties the strings together, makes things right, and never, ever gives up.  He can be an ass.  No doubt about that one.  But, he is also her hero.  She would not have come nearly as far with her goals without him.

Before Benton, there was Trudy (short for Theresa).  Yes, Trudy is a strange nickname, but it matched her persona. She did always tell the truth.  Pamela could trust her, but she turned out to be someone she could not rely upon.  A train wreck, they would say.  Her life was a bomb site, the crater left after an asteroid hit, the derailed train car hovering off of the side of a lurching suspension bridge.  Every day something new, but not in a good way with Trudy.  Never in a good way.  Any phone call coming from her end was sure to result in a visit to the hospital, the funeral home, or the jail in order to bring bail money and/or a change of clothes, and sometimes, these would be her only clothes.

They arrive at Lincoln Square as a monstrous art deco skyscraper with 6 elevators and 130 floors emerges before them.  The offices of CCM Productions begin on the 128th floor, with the more senior executives as you approach the top.  They pass the doorman who tips his red hat with fingers like sausages, quickly hiding his magazine as we drift swiftly by.  Pamela is always nervous as she enters these elevators. She adjusts her stockings and skirt and holds her chin higher.  Benton waits, resting on his elegance, at the elevator keypad.  He glances her way, looking cool and confident, removing his sunglasses. He turns and gives her a light hug. 

“You look worried, my dear. Let me handle it, and we will be fine.”

She thinks to herself, “Yes, I could do that, but I won`t this time, not matter how easy it sounds. I must maintain control. Things will change from this moment forward.”

Pamela checks her reflection in one of the mirrors along the wall: red hair, thick and brushed to a sheen, rose lipstick still intact and creamy cleavage visible, yet not too daring, expression is…. well, doable for now. She is hoping it will change as she reaches that crucial moment.  She steels her backbone, hoping that strengthening herself physically will, in turn, strengthen her resolve.

And they wait.  The secretary in her tight expensive sweater, mohair perhaps, cold as ice tells them that Mr. Covington, the man himself, is held up at a meeting. Mr. Covington is an imposing man.  Mid 50`s, medium height and build, balding, but not well.  His demeanor gives one the creeps:  almost “dirty old man” in a way, but with a thick wallet, so it gives that stereotype a positive twist.  Being a woman in this particular situation is hard, very hard. She continues to meditate on evoking power and authority, all the while reserving her femininity as a backup tool in case. She may need it.

Pam, somehow, in that tense waiting room scene looking down at her shoes, is brought back to the Chinese lady on the street that day.  Her hot dog cart is her dream.  If she sells some hot dogs, she will be content.  If she sells even more the next day, she will be even happier and more satisfied. All the while, she does it all alone.  Utterly self-reliant, she braves the cold of winter and the heat of summer; her own backbone strong and resilient.  What makes her different than me?  Who is this man, Mr. Covington? He could be just another hungry guy buying hot dogs.  For some reason, this thought gives her a sudden rush of courage and determination.  Just think of him as just another hungry human being looking for his own level of contentment.  Just like the doorman and his magazine, just like Benton and his feathers, even poor, troubled Trudy, and her lack of clothes. 

We all face these moments in our lives in our own way.  Tension, expectation, fear, and apprehension come over all of us.  We are all just puzzle pieces in the big panorama of life.  We have our roles, our own engagement with others.  We are all necessary in the larger scheme of things.

Her mind raced as she sat there in the charcoal grey office chair, next to the potted orchid, the latest issue of Vanity Fair, and the picture of a seaside cottage on the wall.  This moment is not unique to her, but it is still hers.  It represents a continuum.  If she plays her role well, the continuum remains unbroken and flowing.  She must do her best.  She must stay with the flow.

The girl in dusty plum mohair rises up to open one of the double doors leading to her future.  Pamela and Benton rise; Benton allowing her to enter first.  The vast red space ahead, filled with curtains and bottles and woodwork and glass, collapses and expands, welcomes and prohibits, coddles and caresses, fondles and ignores, as she enters, her high heels grazing the carpet carefully. 

And there he is. Head held erect, she greets the hungry man with a firm hand shake and a strong female glance. His eyes falter a bit, and she notices that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Covington is in need of a sandwich. 

 

 

Rockaway Beach


We finally make it to the beach in one piece, after marching like soldiers, each equipped with our compatible loads on our backs: beach blankets, towels, umbrellas, food cooler half full with beer, football, sunscreen, blow up floats, still deflated of course. We help each other to set up our territory among the scattered blankets around, careful not to upset the others, leaving the appropriate distance between us.

We sit down in our chairs with our beers, to relax at last, when, over the sounds of waves and seagulls and distant music, Carl begins to speak, out of the blue.  Ordinarily a very quiet guy, always reflective, he now becomes animated and engaged, as if the beach itself has enlivened him:

“By any chance did you see the crushed and tattered egg that we passed on our way over the stony area of beach under the trees?”

None of us admitted to having remembered or even noticed.

“A potential life is discarded there amongst the stones from its home like a piece of trash on the beach. Discarded even before it has had the chance to pop its head out and look around to see if it even likes our world.”

He pauses for a few moments.

“When we were born, did we like it here? Or did we find the world cold, harsh, unwelcoming, sterile--like a hospital operating room filled with the scent of betadine and latex and the faint smell of stale expensive cologne coming from underneath the doctor’s scrubs? Was that cologne given to the doctor by his wife, carefully chosen to provoke the desired reaction, primarily from her own physical response to the scent, not even having touched his skin yet? Does the newborn baby wonder what all of this means? What were those smells and why did they both appeal to him and revolt him at the same time? Does the baby want to return to his safe haven, pull the blanket back up so that he is comfortable again, back to a place where he did not require a thing? All of his needs were met by his mother. No questions asked. No intrusion by enemy environmental irritations. Just bliss. Throughout our lives, do we search for this bliss? Do we wish to return, forever longing for that which we left behind?”

Carl adjusts his lounge chair so that he can lie back more comfortably. He looks out to sea for a while.

“Did we even belong here? Or would someone, our mother, our father, have thrown us out of the nest had they the choice? The nurses that are present on that day, on that shift, at that hour and moment, care for us with confident hands. Bathing us, washing away the afterbirth, allowing us to become one with the present moment in time. We are not after birth then. We are wiped clean, and our slate becomes fresh and untethered. We are then, and only then, allowed to become one with the present moment in time.  For the first and only time. Once we are given a name, placed into the family line, the biological evidence is discarded to make room for the genealogical, the social and familial hierarchy. So, I ask once again, do we belong here? or have we been forced here against our will? Did we even have a choice?  Could we actually admit to ourselves and to others that life is, in fact, the ultimate imprisonment, the biggest lie that we face? And again, do we even belong here?”

Sophie drops her beer and gasps.

“Carl, that’s enough! What in the world has gotten into you today? Let’s just enjoy the beach, ok? I didn’t come here to get all philosophical. Jeez.”

She sighs and lays back down, flipping over on her stomach. After a moment, she decides to put her earbuds in her ears, to block out Carl’s musings entirely, nodding her head to the beat while entering her version of bliss.

John and Carol are still just sitting there. Listening silently. John is smoking and has a far away look in his eye. Carol is staring at Carl, admiring his tanned legs, a longing look in her eye. Carl is still gazing out to sea.

He gets up suddenly, throws open the top of the cooler and takes out a tuna hoagie. He begins to eat ravenously, like a man who has been on hunger fast for weeks. He turns towards the ocean, his back to Carol. He brings the hoagie to his lips and starts to sing. Softly at first, then louder. People are starting to turn around. The song is not recognizable, but his voice is stunningly strong. He continues to eat and tenses his muscles as he belts out the tune. The whole beach watches in awe.

Carl has now become, through his own devices, the star of his own show, the key player in his own life, if only for a moment. That particular moment in time. For that moment, his past and future disappear. He is only himself. Not Carl. Just himself. The guy with the tanned legs, the voracious hunger, and the limitless spirit.

 

 

South Street Seaport

 

I drape my tie loosely over the back of the chair after a long day of performing for an audience.  Only, this time, the audience does not know that they are watching me.  Are they watching intently without knowing? Are we all just watching intently without knowing?

I see myself as creating desire with every movement I make: when those who watch, subsequently will then wish. This then leads to desire.  When I perform, I create something from nothing.

I slip on my bra, finally after a long day of being saggy and limp; breasts pressed against my chest like a crushed loaf of processed bread.  I slip my nightgown on, let my hair out of the intricate hairstyle I have created to mimic a sort of `metro-sexual` male, the only male whom I could in fact mimic convincingly. I am tall 5 foot 9 inches, so that helps, and my hips are on the narrow side, allowing me to be admired for my apparently masculine litheness.    

Let me begin from square one.  I am a woman, born a woman, and very happy to `be` a woman.  I am trying on an experiment for size.  I wish to `be` a man.  To feel what it is like, to understand through the eyes of others how a man is perceived, a man feels among others, and how a man copes with these perceptions.  It is not only an experiment of experience; it is an experiment to prove a theory:  that we are shaped by perception, by our mirroring out in society, not so much by whom we are inside.  

 

            I have been an actor for 22 years, more in fact if you count the years that I dreamed of working as one, and even more if you count that fact that I am an actor and was born as one.   I live for my career and do not mind sacrificing myself in order to embrace another character.  In fact, I revel in it:  the ability to feel how others feel, to enter their psyche, to feel their pain and pleasure. 

My experiment has just begun.  I have convinced everyone, No one has given me a sideways glance at all. They have all treated me with respect and manly acknowledgement.  It is different.  It is more of a solid treatment, therefore less soft, less warm.  Do I miss the warmth?  Sometimes.  I am now moving on to the next step.  To attempt to seduce a woman, or at the very least, connect with one as a man. To understand the difficulty in walking the line between masculine strength and power and that ever-elusive union between two people without gender.  I want to hold masculinity in the palm of my hand, feel its texture, but then drop it in an instant.

As I hurry to leave the next morning, pulling another tie off the rack and swiftly looping and tying it carefully, I notice one thing a little off with myself today.  I am feeling weak.  I have lost that initial feeling of aggression that was so exhilarating at the start of my experiment. I feel reluctant to begin another day again, but quickly collect myself and my things to exit the haven of my apartment.

My shoes feel snug and a bit too clunky as I march down the hall to the elevator.  My limbs feel heavy because of it.  I pull my shoulders up strong and ready to face that sea of faces in the city below.   I must remember that this newfound persona of mine should not be so conscious.  If I am to live as a man, I must feel comfortable within my own skin and not think about the fact that I am only playing a role. I must rid myself of the awareness that I am feeling.  As an actor, this is the ultimate challenge: to just drink in another life. I plunge forward into my day, one life consumed in order to fuel me.

 

 

Saranac Lake

 

I put in a call to book the weekend of June 4th at the lake house.  The receptionist relays to me that there is only one cottage remaining--Siren’s Song, the house farthest past the long dock on the left. I book it quickly, excitedly.  I gaze and glance around the room; the orange sponge strangely signaling to me that I need to clean up the kitchen before she arrives. I look at the clock.  She will be here in an hour.  The sponge moves almost on its own from that point on, channeling my energy.

            While washing and drying the remaining dishes, I become lost in reverie about our last meeting at the university library.  The electrical shock between us was palpable and shocking, jolting us out of our mundane academic life. I have a “pull” at the library, so once I had felt that first jolt, I pulled her into the archive room.  Temperature and humidity controlled, white gloves waiting at the door, we swiftly peeled our clothes off like “just ripe” bananas and lay down on the floor.  Our lust matured, growing more forceful. I spotted a copy of Keat’s poetry on a shelf a mere 3 feet away from where we stood. “Could it be a first edition?” I pondered then quickly erased that strange intrusive thought from my head.  I try my best not to laugh as I position my angel, to admire her curvy white splendor, as she lay spread across the carpet like a corpse: blonde hair spilled onto avocado, with lips parted in painful, ecstatic stillness.

            Her signature quiet contemplation quickly transforms into a rapturous rhythm of sound, and I fear for a moment someone will hear.  I cover her mouth with my hand, impulsively grabbing one of the spare white gloves for her to bite on.  Gasps and cries muffled, we proceed to end our moment of spiritual elevation on a high note:  no biological traces to be found, all neatly collected in a latex container.  I breathe a sigh of relief for the salvage of my beloved open access to the library and for the continuation of my masculine freedom.  I watch as she dresses-replacing her rosy pink undergarments, buttoning her jeans as I zip mine quickly.  I lay the glove carefully back in place and caress the Keats book as I pass: “No damage done”.  I drive her home and observe her as she walks to the door, hair flowing down her back, slightly disheveled; her boots percussive on the concrete.  A car pulls up. Two people get out: an older woman and a man who appears to be a priest. They enter the same door as she has, priest following behind, close at her heels.  She must live with her mother, I suppose.

            When the time comes and she finally arrives, I tell her about the cottage. We make plans. She is more beautiful than I remember, away from the fluorescent lights of the university.  She had mindfully thought to bring her toothbrush, and I spot it in the holder on the bathroom sink.  “Huh.” I feel a sharp jab sear through my chest. A small red object with significance miles beyond its ordinary utilitarianism.

I proceed to count the days until June 4th, slashing them with a line on my calendar anxiously, like a kid waiting for Christmas.  I am finding that I am falling in love.  I almost forget to breathe now, and my stomach feels like an empty cavern come to life with flowers.

 June 4th arrives.  We unpack our things at Siren’s Song. Someone had left a green rake by the back door.  It had fallen and jammed into the screening.  I carefully remove it and place it on its side on the front porch. The bugs will come later, but let them come.  I won’t notice.

            She comes up behind me, her hair tied back loosely with a scarf, bright red perfectly painted toes peeking out innocently from the front of her black leather sandals.  She grabs my hand, leads me to the lake, immodestly removes her clothes, and dives through the surface of the glassy lake.  I think to hesitate, looking around at the other cottages the surround its perimeter.  As I spy her figure drifting smoothly through the water, I say “What the hell,” remove my clothes, and enter.  The chill of the water hits me pretty hard, but it is a pleasant shock.  She swims to me, red lips beaded with water, her hair smoothed back to a fawn-colored sheen.  Her skin has just begun to tan.  Around her neck rests a small plain gold cross.  I begin to caress and kiss her neck, moving down to take the cross into my mouth.  I taste the harsh metallic coldness as our bodies begin the melding process.  We create an amalgam of our own and the chemical reaction is synchronic and smooth.

            The water will hide the evidence this time, but I never once consider this.  It is simply this woman and me.  It could be any day, any hour, any lake, and any two people experiencing wholeness and escape, feet off of the ground, for the first time.  And I live for that.  I know we all do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, March 14, 2022

Let There Be Light!

The Enlightenment, or “L’Age des Lumieres”:  Spectacle, Theatre, and the Imagination

Introduction: Theatre of Performance and the Theatre of Place

“And then we find ourselves asking whether modernity constitutes the sequel to the Enlightenment and its development, or whether we are to see it as a rupture or a deviation with respect to the basic principles of the eighteenth century.” (Foucault 39)

Kant has written that a separation exists between the private and the public use of reason; the private use being that which is bound by the rules of our station or role in life. Publicly, we have a right to reason freely as individuals, whereas within our role, we need to suppress this reason to comply with the standards set down by how a person of our position is supposed to act. Aphra Behn’s “Emperor of the Moon” and Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey subvert this idea, showing that not only can the private use of reason be dangerous especially when bound by the requirements of role, but the private use of imagination and emotion (not bound by a public display) can actually supersede Reason and lead to a better, more objective use of Reason. This is albeit a complex dynamic with many caveats to pull apart, but, as seen in both these examples, we see a rupture in the standard Kantian Enlightenment narrative that had been gaining ground throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.   From the beginning of the period in 1687 when “Emperor of the Moon” was first performed to the end in 1798 when Northanger Abbey was first published, we see alternatives to the typical Enlightenment narrative.

              It is not only dangerous for a person to be left to themselves with tools which are limiting to the particular application, it is also dangerous to rely on public use of reason to always be reliable or immune from manipulation. “The Emperor of the Moon” was performed a century before Kant wrote his essay “What is Enlightenment?”, so clearly, it is not so much going against Kant as much as hitting on an alternative early on. Was Behn also veering off from science and acting/writing as a scientist? Her work shows us that she had understood science well and could not only write about current scientific discoveries, but also could apply these discoveries in a way that expressed her competency. In the play, the virtuoso Baliardo was certainly claiming to be using reason in accordance with his role. Could we then be seeing of glimpse of Foucault’s idea of modernity in Behn’s work? Through Behn, the spectator is asked to see glimpses or vignettes of the ability of individuals (either as a group or singular but in the case of theatre spectatorship, this would constitute both) to use a form of reason distanced from role and the public. The outward passions and political displays of spectacle can be used with intent and being unaware due to the necessity of one’s role can lead to not only ridicule and blindsiding, but inevitably, farce. Behn, in essence, is criticizing empty spectacle and spectacle which serves to manipulate without individual use of Reason.

In “Emperor of the Moon”, Behn makes use of performative space to accomplish her objectives. She makes use of the spectators to serve as a “captive audience” enlisted voluntarily to forward these objectives (as one would do in a blind experiment, or a focus group). She is using her power and role as playwright to show how the private “role” of Baliardo can lead him astray. Interestingly enough, Behn’s role is public and involves consumption by the public. Behn is satirizing the very theatre she is creating using a form of metatextuality (the play is a parody of Dryden’s “Albion and Abanius”). Is she following the standards of her role? While this is debatable, what should be emphasized is that the play itself (her creation) speaks indirectly on the problem of public display of spectacle, and it is her use of reason and the imagination required to create a literary work that enables this to happen. Could we also be seeing the playwright becoming a novelist? Is her private use of reason and its ability to speak metaphorically about her work in essence a novelistic technique at a time when the concept of the novel is still in the works? If we look at Behn’s timeline, this play was written right at the time when she was starting to immerse herself into fiction, and Oroonoko was published the following year. Mannheimer has argued:

“Behn explores these contrasts ultimately implies that the most internal, subjective forms of mental imaging -the kinds of enraptured fantasizing usually associated with acts of reading-can give rise to the most externally demonstrative forms of spectacle. Moreover by thus obscuring the boundaries between public and empirical on the one hand and the empathic and private on the other, The Emperor of the Moon begins to “regender” these modes of experience.”(Mannheimer 39)

 It is a very early modern example of the individual coming to the forefront of thought. It is interesting to note that the empirical is paired with the public; something that Kant emphasizes in his description of the Enlightenment. Could Behn be saying that the Enlightenment is causing us to forget about the private?

              If we compare “The Emperor of the Moon” to Austen’s Northanger Abbey, in Austen’s work we see a privately owned ancient architectural space being used to also show an alternative to the prevailing Enlightenment narrative. The role of the space has been changed, and it is no longer used as an abbey by the clergy. Catherine’s imagination and her familiarity with Gothic tropes through novel reading aids her in her ability to indirectly reason through the very realistic trap she was ensnared into: John Thorpe’s lies and General Tilney’s greed were recognized by Catherine (of course, contrasted with Miss Thorpe’s inability to recognize Captain Tilney’s seductive manipulations). General Tilney used Catherine opportunistically and gave her preference over all others due to Thorpe’s lies from the outset. The general wished to obtain her hand in marriage for his son so that the money (her supposed wealth) could go towards maintaining their non-ancestral estate property. Behn and Austen using their writing to subvert the Enlightenment narrative is not pure chance. Both works had one foot into the Baroque and Gothic/Romantic, respectively, so it makes sense that for both emotion and its imaginative potential or trappings would be a source of inquiry to be both questioned and pieced apart. As Ros Ballister points out:

“The importance of a myth of female readership for prose narrative -especially love narrative or stories of amorous intrigue- had already been established in prose fiction before the late 1680’s.” (Mannheimer 42)

Catherine is in essence scolded by Henry Tilney for not adhering to Enlightenment standards, just like everyone else. To Henry, conformity to the principles of Reason and trust in their fellow countrymen was enough that the logic of her musings was held into question. Was Catherine exhibiting the use of reason through her role? No, she wasn’t, but she was using her reason through a medium that was typically the realm of women i.e. novel reading. Was this in fact her role? To read novels because she was expected to be entertained by them? Another debate without an answer. Women and novels were criticized during this period, so to say that this would be her “expected” role would not give any clarity. For Catherine, her role within a marginalized group i.e. women allowed and even may have required this subversion of the Kantian Enlightenment structuring. What cannot be denied is that women were digesting the Gothic novel at a frenetic pace, Catherine being no exception, and the popularity of the novel gives it the agency to be read. These novels became a common language not only for women, but for some men such as Henry, at the very least to be ridiculed and sensationalized.

              Kant’s exit strategy or “way out” (Foucault 34) through the Enlightenment simply doesn’t work when the individual is marginalized and forced outside of the system of control (or role) for whatever reason, be it the feminine realm, servitude, class, or race. Outsiders to the system would subvert the system.  Outsiders in many cases have the upper hand as seen in the lives of servants, such as described within Gillian Russell’s essay “Keeping Place:  Servants, Theater, and Sociability in Mid-Eighteenth century Britain.”:

“The servants thus occupied a position on the boundaries of all kinds of social formations-between the family and the public world beyond , between intimacy and impersonality, between mastery and subordination, between the rulers and the ruled (often this is complicated by the reversal of conventional gender roles in the case of mistress and male servant)-a position that combined both power and abjection.” (Russell 23)

Outsiders serve as liminal placeholders and observers of multi-perspective viewpoints. They have the ability to use covert techniques and make use of their hidden advantages to succeed at their objectives.

Artists and writers were also liminal figures, as were women of all classes. Their abjection and both mental and bodily separation from the norm became their ability to evade a prescribed standard.

“Men are at once elements and agents of a single process. They may be actors in the process to the extent that they participate in it; and the process occurs to the extent that men decide to be its voluntary actors.” (Foucault 35)

Behn, a Royalist female playwright who constructs temporary worlds and vignettes, like curiosity cabinets that require Behn’s individual framing, speaks on the manner of “improper peeping” and places Baliardo into a space where he is in fact voluntarily acting. She is calling forth a plea towards propriety and manners in the midst of the virtuoso’s enthrallment with science and the tools of science. Contrast what Behn does with Austen and the character of Catherine: a young female character is plunged into a Gothic romance by virtue of an old abbey and her imagination, then called out for “improper peeping” when she enters the mother’s room (after being informed by Miss Tilney that the room is off limits). So, what is the common denominator between these two examples? The tool that is used.

              -In Behn, a telescope is used to spy into the emperor’s closet as a form of political intelligence.

-In Austen, a Gothic novel is used and its various lenses as a form of personal protection in the face of opportunism and abuse.

In Behn, the telescope is called out and proved to be a limiting, invasive, dangerous tool, and in Austen, the Gothic novel ends up unveiling the truth; the first being a tool of science, whereas the second is the tool of the imagination. Therefore, the imagination becomes a more reliable tool in the ability to reason.

              Neither example shows that reason has been relinquished. Rather, they both show that proper and skilled use of individual reason is the answer, away from the ambiguous and troubling concept of role.

“The Emperor of the Moon”:  Manners, Bodies, and the Ownership of Space

Aphra Behn problematizes Kant 100 years before he even wrote his essay on the Enlightenment. Behn creates for herself a liminal role-neither woman, nor writer, neither actor, nor spectator. She mixed the public with the private in her play to show not only that they are interdependent, but that so much depends on the connections between people and their perceptions.  By using “anti-spectacular epistemologies”, Behn “restages debased spectacle in order to contain and defuse it.” (Coppola 1).

              At a time when the political landscape in England is at a crisis point, Behn’s configures her play in order to call a halt to the trajectory away from rational mindfulness and towards the credulity of an entire population of people. What she recognized was that the science of curiosity that was so much in fashion was at fault and the spectacles that were being performed in the streets were being taken in without skepticism, thus affecting the political balance and the strength of the monarchy.

“As a committed Tory and a canny professional author, Behn is attempting to identify, stimulate, and ultimately retrain a troubling appetite for uncritical wonder in her audience, one which traverses all domains of culture, aesthetic, scientific, and especially political.” (Coppola 2)

 The play was composed during the Tory Reaction, but then wasn’t performed until the end of the reign of James II. So, while it is speaking about events from the past, the play itself reflects what had happened to public discourse and display in those intervening years since. In essence, Behn wants critical thinking and agency brought back to each individual, so that the collective can tell the difference between empty spectacle vs. spectacle meant to sway the people towards a political stance.

              The character Baliardo has lost this ability to discern spectacle. He is ironically blinded by his spy glass, both to the meaning of what he is seeing and to the consequences of the act of spying. Behn is turning the light on to the social abuses that were occurring, invasion of privacy being one of those abuses, thus calling into question what is the meaning of ownership, both in space and body. Baliardo doesn’t have access to the big picture, yet insists upon reading the signs anyway.  His family calls attention to these signs and to their absurdity in the larger scope of things

Behn’s life story was one of ambiguity and apparent struggle to keep the facts of her life unclear. Behn may have been married, yet we are not sure. She was a spy herself, so of course the facts around this profession would be inherently muddled. Behn seemed to be hyperaware of celebrity and the dangers of having her privacy breached. So, anything that Behn put out to the public was in a sense “on display” and scrutinized and could affect how she was perceived and her works accepted by the public, making it of vital importance that her works stood alone. We cannot say very much about her life that has been proven conclusively, but it appears that this idea of privacy was something important to Behn, and since so much of her biography is obscured, we could conclude that she was highly protective of her privacy. “The Emperor of the Moon” was in essence designed to show that the tools of science should not be used for nefarious ends; the right to privacy being the one thing that individuals need to be able to keep. This is coming from a woman who is writing about historically gender specific fields such as astronomy and physics. Appler has argued that

“Behn’s playful treatment of science concepts for mixed gender audiences aligns her work with scientific material by early female practitioners of science, such as Margaret Cavendish and Gabrielle Emilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil.” (Appler 28)

Behn combining science and ethics in this play shows that Reason shouldn’t be performed in a vacuum without an ethical component.  Behn seems to want to express that science cannot be explored, studied, and utilized without being mindful of the consequences. To Behn, there is a difference between using the mind and encroaching on the rights of the body and space. The character Baliardo brings to mind court gossip and intrigue, of course since only wise politicians use their telescope as a “statesman’s peeping hole”. Behn is calling into question those boundaries; keeping these boundaries up and established can only allow science to flourish and individuals to keep their sovereignty through the changes that are being undertaken in society. Or, as Mannheimer writes,

“When it came to seem that the movements of the individual mind might contain more “truth” than outward passions or political displays, the newer medium came to seem more relevant, more revealing.” (Mannheimer 40).

Thus, allowing new societal paradigms to form and become established. Concealment would preserve and keep reputation and decrease chances of people being “misread” and so discarded as being unsuitable for polite society.

In Behn’s play we also see a public display of the privacy of Baliardo. This display is only seen as right because they are attempting to expose his nefarious habits. But, Behn does this in a clever way to not only expose publicly the farce of his fascination with the telescope, she also sexualizes Baliardo into becoming a voyeur. Something quite similar to a movement that will occur in the future: the wide- ranging popularity of the novel and, in particular, the Gothic novel. The novel is a safe way to peer because these are fictional narratives. We aren’t peering into others’ lives so much as spectating some hypothetical scenarios. Baliardo is in his own head thinking he is peering into the Emperor of the Moon’s closet, while in actuality he is looking into a real person’s closet. Baliardo as voyeur subverts the power dynamic and, in turn, opens it up indiscriminately to the gaze of many. Baliardo of course gets pleasure out of doing so, and the fascination and awe that it produces encourages his continual breaching of boundaries. This idea of disrupted spaces was a new one once the telescope had been introduced and the attitude toward empiricism needed adjustment so that it wasn’t used in a way to hurt others. During the late seventeenth century, there was a shift from a culture where everything is public (court) to one where the private is valued. Although during the early modern period, women participated in the public realms such as politics, law, religion, and economics, space was still gendered, and Behn seems to be saying that if privacy is breached for those who have their agency and reputation at stake the most, then empiricism cannot end well on this path.

Behn makes clever use of her drama, so that we see the interplay between the breach of the private and the exposure to the public, all through the character of Baliardo. In the end, she does show that all of this hiding and revealing that is taking place is in essence meaningless, for Baliardo believes he is only seeing people on the moon and the constellations. Behn turns the entire play into an empty farce by the end, a resplendent pageantry, yet still a farce.

Northanger Abbey: The Secret Chamber and the Darkness

Moving more than one hundred years into the future, we see a different sort of voyeurism within Austen’s novel. The private is emphasized even more within Austen’s narrative to the point where a sort of tyrannical disavowal of agency occurs concerning Catherine. From Behn to Austen, we go from a comic drama of exposure to a Gothic parody of the evil that lurks within ancient architectural space. In this case, a young woman is seen as a voyeur. She is also using story and narrative fantasy to encourage her irrational thinking by needing desperately to enter the dead Mrs. Tilney’s bedchamber. One could say it was merely her curiosity that encouraged this, but we could look further to see that it was the sublime. Catherine is attracted to the horror. It brings her pleasure. Again, a character is disrupting space to breach privacy. This time the privacy of a dead woman is at stake and the family’s attempts to protect her are seen attempts to cover up something by Catherine.

If we focus on the accusations of Henry Tilney towards Catherine, we can see that he is following the Kantian principles of Enlightenment thinking:

“What have you been judging from? Remember the country and the age in which we live in. Remember that we are English, that we are Christians. Consult your own understanding your own sense of probable, your own observation of what is passing around you.” (Austen 204)

What is most ironic here is that it is Henry who isn’t observing what is happening around him, not Catherine. It is Catherine who spends all her time observing her surroundings. It could be that this is what she is best a and her curiosity leads her to explore and investigate what she needed to explore in order to come to the “right” conclusions. Although, in the end, what mattered was that Catherine disobeyed the General, Miss Tilney, and Henry when she was told not to explore that part of the abbey. Catherine did not obey the authority, so she is the one to blame for her inability to reason, which of course is problematized by the end of the novel. Like Behn’s play, Austen’s novel is meant to educate the reader, as Henry Tilney educates Catherine in the use of irony. Doesn’t matter that Tilney is actually fooled by irony in the end, he still teaches her how not to see the world in such a literal, straightforward manner throughout the novel. As Terry Castle has written: Austen is using Northanger Abbey as “an instrument of the Enlightenment” (Schaub 1), the question in the end is: Why does Austen use the Gothic genre the way she does in her own narrative? Yes, it is a parody, but it is also instructional and without the information coming from the Gothic elements we would not be instructed at all. Both Henry and Catherine need to learn from each other, and it is the blaming of Catherine and her immediate removal from the abbey that shows that her transgressions have not been allowed due to her marginalization and General Tilney’s inability to get past this blame. Henry learns through Catherine’s suffering and being cast aside, just like what would happen in a Gothic novel. The reader would learn second hand through the characters.

              Is Austen saying that obeying authority is problematic when it comes to reason? Austen seems to be saying that authority isn’t always right, so it is better to trust your own judgment and in essence your own intuition. Even figures of authority who you do trust could be deceived themselves.  She could also be saying that women especially need not be afraid to trust themselves and what they are feeling or seeing. That is the subtext that is running through the entire novel. When she was asked to go driving with Mr. Thorpe, she should have trusted herself. When she tells Miss Thorpe that they should be more careful, she should have trusted herself that Miss Thorpe’s naivete may get them into trouble. When she questioned Henry about whether he should be courting a girl without money, she should have trusted herself. In the end though, it all worked out for the couple, as Austen novels tend to do, but we cannot deny that Austen had been schooling us all along through Gothic conventions. It is the Gothic convention and fear or terror that signal our bodies and minds that we are in danger, even when that danger is fictional at source. It is not always within the light do we find the truth. Sometimes we need to brave the darkness in order to find our way through in our imagination.

              Paul Morrison has argued convincingly that it is the ideology of the Heimlich that Henry is calling forth in his speech, and it is apparent that what is at stake here in this novel is not the comfort of Enlightenment thought, but a combination of both the light of the contemporary English combined with the carceral economies and dark spaces of the Gothic.  Morrison writes,

“I shall argue for the presence of an “unheimlich” movement, both within Northanger Abbey and between Northanger Abbey and The Mysteries of Udolpho, subversive of the oppositions here/there, now/then, light/dark, open/closed, the various binarisms that structure his celebration of a “country like this.” (Morrison 2)

If we examine what is present within the text and what is not present and missing, we could get closer to why Tilney’s authority within his speech is both flawed and incomplete. The abbey itself is a product of the past. The abbey is a symbol of past authority. The abbey itself has combined what he speaks of as “English” but it is covered by darkness and illusion. What is problematized in this novel is that idea that not everything should be or can be en-light-ened. In order to see the light, you need the darkness. Modernism disrupts this line of thought by showing us that there is chaos and by attempting a containment of this dark unpredictability, you have already lost the battle.

“What grows in the garden is always a small, consciously selected sample on what might be grown there…An Enlightenment in the social improvement of man became, by degrees, a belief in the perfectibility of social order.” (Scott 92-93)

James Scott argues that social engineering seems at odds with our experience of modernity. The world being in flux and at the point of potential profound, vast change is not conducive to the solid structure called for in Enlightenment principles. Henry wishes for a world that is easy to quantify and delineate because it gives him a sense of stability and that we can rely on this social order to not contain corruption. Catherine knows better, and to her and to James Scott, managing society and expecting to act by this construct “seems rather like trying to manage a whirlwind.” (Scott 93) Catherine embraces the chaos and uncertainty, welcoming sublime terror with open arms and even searches it out.

              In the end though, she is blamed for transgressing the boundaries of the abbey: its dark halls, its hidden secrets, its ability to cover up fault and tyranny. Catherine knows and understands this potential. The question is: why does no one else spot it? It may have something to do with her being an outsider and borderline unremarkable: Catherine was not a heroine, not neglected, not poor, nor handsome, does not have a rich, neglected father, her father never locked up his daughters, her mother did not have a poor constitution, not beautiful or gifted in a physical sense, she didn’t play with girl’s things, did not gather flowers, played with boys chiefly for pleasure and mischief, and she was occasionally stupid. She wasn’t formed to be a Gothic heroine. So, putting her into a Gothic abbey shouldn’t put her in danger, or should it? This is where it gets muddled and tricky. The danger lies not within the history of the abbey, but it’s present. They are all “still” within the abbey, living and dying, working, socializing, eating, and drinking. What makes a difference is this Enlightenment thought that pervades its corridors, which does not allow for the darkness to escape.

Miranda Fricker: Blame and Hermeneutical Injustice and Why an Abbey, or an Empty Spectacle.

The Kantian Enlightenment narrative attempted a hollowing out of the bits and pieces of cloudy thought. It asked for clarity and light to be brought to those things that still were shrouded by uncertainty. It wanted to brush under anything that didn’t agree with its concept of Reason and why things must be organized and structured into these ways of thought. Catherine is blamed by more than one person for violated the privacy of the abbey. She crossed boundaries to find out the truth. Was it correct that she was blamed? The abbey did and does contain secrets, for that is what an abbey represents. Miranda Fricker has pieced apart six requirements for justified blame:

First, the blamed party must be blameworthy.

Second, blame must be proportionate to the wrongdoing.

Third, Blame should be appropriately contained in its proper remit, both in terms of time and relationships.

Fourth, blame must be expressed using proper ethical levels and intent must be considered.

Fifth, blame must be fitted to the amount of offender’s entitlement

Sixth, it cannot be considered as an aspect of no-fault moral responsibility. (Fricker 168-170)

 

In Catherine’s case when she was scolded for transgressing the mother’s bedchamber, she was to blame in some cases, but not others. In one sense, she was not given all the information and curiosity was peaked. She was also left alone there without a chaperone. She did not, as Henry seems to think, have malicious intent in entering the room. Henry had accused her of thinking unmentionable evils about his father, which goes beyond her actual intent of being curious about his mother. Even if she considered these as possibilities doesn’t mean she actually thought these things were true. Which of course comes into the rules of Enlightenment and what is acceptable. Catherine should not have been blamed for this event, just as much as she should not have been thrown out of the abbey at night time to make her way home alone. These examples both show misplaced blame towards someone who is not blameworthy. Fricker writes,

“Perhaps this is simply because there are indeed socially prominent styles of blame that are bad. Those, for instance, that spring from a censorious habit of finding fault, or from projected guilt or shame, form moralistic high mindedness, naked vengeful drive, or the simple cruelty of seeking satisfaction from making someone feel bad.” (Fricker 168)

In Catherine’s case, I do believe it was misplaced guilt and shame: two feelings that were “brushed under the carpet” and seen as not acceptable. They are dark feelings filled with the grief that has not passed, and all three family members were exhibiting within the narrative repression of guilt and shame; General Tilney of course being the worst of the three.

              Why does Catherine not speak up? Why does she allow it all to happen? Is she feeling guilt?

Catherine feels at one with the house. She understands that she is partially to blame for falling prey to the sublime, so she accepts the blame given to her, being trained to do so by Gothic novels: she shouldn’t have passed into that side of the abbey. It was in essence her fault. Catherine speaks the language of the Gothic novel. Catherine does not possess the language needed to defend herself in the language used by the Tilneys.  Catherine does not speak in the language of the prevailing patriarchal Enlightenment narrative, so she attempts to express herself on her own terms in a way she knows best. Catherine isn’t “stupid”. She just speaks a language that some do not know how to speak or have even tried to speak (an example is John Thorpe giving up on reading Camilla and she absolutely cannot speak or communicate her boundaries to him). This is an example of hermeneutical injustice, or

“when there is unequal hermeneutical participation with respect to some significant area(s) of social experience, members of the disadvantaged group are hermeneutically marginalized. The notion of marginalization is a moral-political one indicating subordination and exclusion from some practice that would have value for the participant.” (Fricker 99)

Catherine has been excluded from being able to express not only her feelings, but express what she is understanding by observing the environment and social situation she is placed within. She uses the language of the Gothic to express herself, which is understood only in terms of its silliness and non-reality, when really, she is using the techniques of a writer and novelist to bring the truth to the surface of things (novels being the realm of woman at that time). She places her narrative within the abbey, which is the key point. Henry places her in the position of voyeur and chastises her as Behn had done to Baliardo, without understanding the distance in communication between them until later. Catherine is made a spectacle of, but is being placed into a marginalized position without clear voice (or clear as in enlightened). Catherine has not been given an equal footing within the abbey.

Conclusion: The Legacy of Behn and Austen

Can conscious, deliberate spectacle ever be used in accordance with rightful blame and hermeneutical justice? What have the efforts of Behn and Austen brought to modern discourse? Anyone examining the use of pageantry and spectacle in the 1913 Women’s Suffrage Procession would recognize the efforts to redeem the use of spectacle in performance in a marginalized voiceless group who could potentially be shut down. The women marched calmly (estimated to be between 5,000 to 10,000) keeping a military formation even while being “spit upon, slapped in the face, and insulted by jeers and obscene language too vile to print or repeat.” (https://www.history.com/news/this-huge-womens-march-drowned-out-a-presidential-inauguration-in-1913). Two hundred people were trampled that day and 169 women were arrested for obstructing traffic. Inez Milholland rode a dazzling white horse at the front of the parade, carrying a banner which read “Forward into the light”. It appears that over 100 years after Austen that women were actually given a voice, and they used the art of spectacle to manage that. Finally, a marginalized group was allowed to speak using a language that the populace could understand. 

There is a clear distinction between the characters of Baliardo and Catherine in these two works. Baliardo uses Enlightenment principles/tools in the wrong way and crosses the lines of privacy in the process. In his case (and in Behn’s), what is highlighted is the misuse of enlightened thought; how the enlightenment principles can and should be regulated. Catherine is chastised for not using Enlightenment thought whatsoever, yet still she comes up with the right answers. There is a distinction though out that isn’t widely recognized: the issue of mind vs. body. Ownership over one’s body in space is given a prime role in both of these works. The complicating factor lies in that, in the case of Baliardo, he is transgressing bodily, private space whereas with Catherine she is prevented from entering an empty space with her body, and so her person and body are ejected from that space in the end. Baliardo is exposed, and Catherine isn’t given ownership even over her own body. Behn locates the light of spectacle, exposes Baliardo and the audience for foolishness in believing propaganda through spectacle, whereas when the same thing is accused of Catherine, she is in the end redeemed for uncovering the truth.

              Both Behn and Austen redeem truth through the concept of bodily ownership. They both expose hermeneutical injustice. In the case of Behn, if the person being peeped on cannot speak of the violation, then they are in a lower, powerless position. In the case of Catherine, if the person unchaperoned is thrown out into the wild landscape in the middle of the night in a public coach, then they have had their bodily ownership removed.  In the case of women’s suffrage, if women show up to get their voices heard through pageantry, then subsequently obtain physical and verbal abuse with attempts to bodily eject them, then it is clear that bodily ownership was something that long needed to be questioned and rightly fought for through writing and any other means available. It is only through spectacle in many cases, that truth will be found and known widely.

 

              Bibliography

Appler, Vivian. “‘Shuffled Together Under the Name of a Farce’: Finding Nature in Aphra Behn’s

The Emperor of the Moon.” Theatre History Studies, vol. 37, University of Alabama Press, Jan. 2018, pp. 27–357.

Austen, Jane. Northanger Abbey, San Diego: Canterbury Classics, 2017.

Behn, Aphra. The Rover and Other Plays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Coppola, Al. “Retraining the Virtuoso’s Gaze: Behn’s Emperor of the Moon, The Royal Society,

and the Spectacles of Science and Politics.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 41, no. 4, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008, pp. 481–506.

Fricker, Miranda. “Powerlessness and Social Interpretation.” Episteme, vol. 3, no. 1-2,

Edinburgh University Press, June 2006, pp. 96–108, doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.96.

Fricker, Miranda. “What’s the Point of Blame? A Paradigm Based Explanation.” Noûs, vol. 50,

no. 1, Mar. 2016, pp. 165–83.

Mannheimer, Katherine. “Celestial Bodies: Readerly Rapture as Theatrical Spectacle in

Aphra Behn’s ‘Emperor of the Moon.’” Restoration: Studies in English Literary Culture, 1660-1700, vol. 35, no. 1, University of Tennessee, 2011, pp. 39–60.

Morrison, Paul. “Enclosed in Openness: Northanger Abbey and the Domestic Carceral.”

Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 33, no. 1, University of Texas at Austin (University of Texas Press), Apr. 1991, p. 1.

Russell, Gillian. “Keeping Place”: Servants, Theater and Sociability in Mid-Eighteenth-

Century Britain (Critical Essay). no. 1, Texas Tech University Press, Mar. 2001, pp. 21–42.

Schaub, Melissa. “Irony and Political Education in Northanger Abbey.” Persuasions : The

Jane Austen Journal On-Line, vol. 21, no. 1, Jane Austen Society of North America, Jan. 2000.

Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State:  How certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition

 Have Failed, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020.

“The Foucault Reader.” Library Journal, vol. 109, Library Journals, LLC, 1 June 1984.

Serrano Zamora, Justo. “Overcoming Hermeneutical Injustice: Cultural Self-Appropriation and

the Epistemic Practices of the Oppressed.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 31, no. 2, Pennsylvania State University Press, Apr. 2017, pp. 299–310.

 

 

 

 

.