Category: Power and Identity

The Meaning of Janina Duszejko

On By Liam LIn Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, Empathy, Power and IdentityLeave a comment 
“...he who suffers sees the back of God…Maybe it means that he who suffers has special access to God, by a side door, he is blessed, he embraces some sort of truth which without suffering would be hard to comprehend. So in a way, the only person who’s healthy is one who suffers, however strange it might sound. I think that would be in harmony with the rest.” - pg. 113, Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead

Religion is a highly difficult and complex topic to cover and has been for ages. This is true in Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, so I will do my best to be as objective and true to the text as possible. Even still, religion and faith are personal things, and your interpretation is your interpretation, and will probably differ from mine. Either way, we can begin. 

Janina is shown quite quickly to be an astrologer, and devoted to her practice. She is also shown to not adhere to any labels regarding her faith and doesn’t seem to associate with any organized religion. Her disdain for organized religion parallels William Blake’s views, and with him being a key figure in Janina’s philosophy, it makes sense. William Blake considered himself a Christian but never joined any organized sect, while Janina doesn’t seem to associate with Christianity. Blake was greatly influenced by the Swiss theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, who was also mentioned in the book. 

Janina has a few general principles, but primarily she values the near equality of animal and human life. At certain points in the text she even seems to regard animals as more pure or divine creatures than humans. This divinity she also applies to nature in general. I interpreted her views as being consistent within Christianity and with other religions, but she often conflicts with the primarily Catholic population of where she lives. 

She’s regarded as an outsider and interacts with very few people, most of whom are her friends. Most of those outside this close circle of trusted people regard her as just a crazy old woman, they reduce her to very little, which isolates her from the rest of the world, but it also lets her get away with more eccentric behavior, leading up to her actions which are revealed at the end of the book. Her friends see her as an equal and tend to have respect for her ideas, they also tend to be outsiders or wanderers themselves. She clearly opposes the majority of what general society represents, and general society rejects her in turn. It’s not exactly a healthy way to live, but she chooses to stick to her morals, which is certainly respectable.

Now this is all true of Janina the character, but what is the reader meant to take from this? Well, I believe the book is intended to make us empathize more with social outcasts, especially people regarded as just eccentric old ladies. The only thing preventing this from being a complete interpretation is the dramatic ending of the book. If you’d like to not have it spoiled, you can skip the rest of this section. I believe the ending, rather than taking away from this meaning actually contributes to it. It shows how those who are outcast and looked down upon are likely to revolt or push back against society in some meaningful way, it may be construed in their minds as the moral thing, as in Janina’s case, though this could also be her system of belief at play as well. Either way, Janina is a peculiar but sympathetic character, who has an ironclad set of beliefs and sticks to them, she has empathy for nature, animals, and people who are similarly distanced from society, and even though we would probably regard her actions as entirely immoral, from her standpoint, it may have seemed like the only option.

Power and Identity in King Lear

On By Jairo P.In King Lear, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

“King Lear” is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare that explores the themes of power, gender, identity, and performance. Through the characters and their actions, the play examines how these themes interrelate and affect the lives of the people around them.

Power is a central theme in “King Lear.” The play illustrates how power can corrupt even the most virtuous individuals. At the beginning of the play, King Lear is a powerful monarch with three daughters. He demands that they profess their love for him, and he plans to divide his kingdom among them based on their responses. However, he becomes increasingly irrational and paranoid as he loses his power. His daughters Goneril and Regan also become corrupted by power, mistreating their father and each other in their quest for control.

The theme of gender is also explored in “King Lear.” Women are portrayed as powerful and influential figures who can manipulate men to achieve their goals. Goneril and Regan use their sexuality to manipulate their husbands and gain power over their father. However, the play also highlights the limitations placed on women in society. Cordelia, Lear’s daughter who refuses to play along with her sisters’ games, is punished and ultimately killed.

Identity is another central theme in “King Lear.” The play explores the idea that identity can be fluid and changeable. Lear’s identity is tied up in his role as king, and he struggles to adjust to life without power. His journey throughout the play is a struggle to find his identity outside of his role as king. The Fool also represents an ambiguous identity, as he uses humor and wit to mask his true thoughts and feelings. The character of Edgar also embodies the idea of fluid identity. He disguises himself as Poor Tom to escape persecution and assumes different identities throughout the play.

The theme of performance is also explored in “King Lear.” The play features a number of instances where characters are performing or putting on a show. Lear’s demand for his daughters to profess their love for him is one example, as is the performance of Edgar as Poor Tom. These instances highlight the idea that people often play a role in society and may not reveal their true selves to others.

In conclusion, “King Lear” explores the complexities of power, gender, identity, and performance. The play illustrates how these themes interrelate and how they affect the lives of the characters in the play. The play provides insights into the human condition and how these themes are still relevant today. Shakespeare’s masterpiece challenges us to consider the relationship between power, gender, identity, and performance, and how we can use these concepts to understand ourselves and our place in society. The characters in the play are not simply figures from a bygone era but embody struggles and issues that continue to exist in our contemporary society. By engaging with these themes, “King Lear” encourages us to reflect on our own experiences and the complexities of the world we inhabit.

King Lear and King Richard

On By Liam LIn King Lear, Memory/Past/History, Power and Identity, Power of Stories/StorytellingLeave a comment

I’d like to preface that although I’m interested in medieval history, I’m not at all a medieval historian, so I’ll probably get at least a few things wrong.

Reading King Lear reminded me of the story of King Richard I of England, as it shares a couple parallels with the one told in Lear‘s. I’ll give a brief summary here.

Richard was the son of Henry II, and brother to Henry the Young King (his elder), and Geoffrey II. He grew up like a son of the king, in wealth and luxury, and received a good education. Though, being a younger son of King Henry II, he was not expected to take the throne.

When Henry II fell seriously ill in 1170, he began planning to divide his kingdom among his sons, but wanted to retain overall authority over his sons and their territories, as they were not yet old enough to rule by themselves (starting to see the similarities?). Richard’s brother, Young Henry, was crowned as the heir apparent in June.

A few years later, the three brothers, Richard, Geoffrey, and most of all the eldest Henry the Young, began to grow unsatisfied. Their father still controlled their territories officially, and his power over them was still intact. For this reason, Henry the Young instigated a revolt. It also should be mentioned that it was rumored their mother pushed them to take this action, though for what reason I’m not sure. The brothers all joined Henry the Young against their father, Henry II, and took refuge under the protection of the French King Louis VII while they mounted their forces. Jordan Fantosme, a poet of the time, described the rebellion as a “war without love.”

The French forces were very successful in their advances, but the English were biding their time. An army was growing in Brittany.
The brothers were getting more confident in their victory, and made promises to French barons for land and gold. This would soon turn on them, though, and the English began rapidly retaking territory with a massive force of 20,000 mercenaries. Eventually, Louis VII would seek peace with Henry II, and leave the brothers out of the treaty.

The brothers had no other option than to ask for mercy from their father, who gave it to them. Though the terms they were given from their father had taken away most of their lands, and they were not again able to challenge their father. Richard, though, seemingly got off easier than his brothers, and was left with enough land for him to amass his power again. He again scuffled with his father and brothers a while longer, until Henry the Young died suddenly, leaving Richard next in line to be heir to the throne. His father commanded him to cede his territory to his mother (who had formerly been imprisoned by Henry II, for some reason?), to which he refused. Henry II later died, and it was suspected that Richard had somehow caused his death, though this has never been proved either way. Richard then was crowned King of England.

I hope you enjoyed my summary of that very short period of King Richard “Cœur de Lion”‘s life, and I’m sure you can see how it has some similarities with the Tragedy of King Lear, especially relating to the father/child power relationships, though I wouldn’t call it either a tragedy or a comedy. It may seem more like a tragedy from Richard’s perspective, as he tried to get power over his over-controlling father with his two brothers, lost, and was removed from much of his power, though this still is an imperfect comparison. It is interesting how in this example (from which Shakespeare may have taken inspiration?), Henry II, the father, retains his power and authority over his sons, and manages to win a war against them, while in Lear, he loses all power. This may cause this story to be seen more as a moral lesson, saying “don’t rebel against your father,” while in Lear, it’s a tragedy from the father’s perspective. I can also see this as being compared to Edmund’s story, though here the son’s treachery didn’t succeed, and wasn’t quite as morally bankrupt. There can also be some comparisons between Richard’s mother and the women in power in Lear. It’s quite interesting how she was rumored to have done many things to influence the brothers, when none of it could have been proven.

Overall, I think this story and Lear’s are an interesting comparison to make, when it’s possible Shakespeare took inspiration from this story, or any number of other monarchical dramas.

Juggling Power and Chaos

On By Jhaden J.In Binaries, Drama/Theater, King Lear, Power and Identity2 Comments

King Lear is a story of authority and familial roles and dynamics. Lear is a king where is power and authority make up his identity, so when he gives away his kingdom to his daughters, who have nothing but evil intentions. By doing this, this sends himself and all his kingdom into chaos, we are able to see how seeking control is able to destroy a person as well as those around them. In the beginning Lear represents the hierarchy found within society, however, when Lear loses all of his authority it warps all the binaries known in the play. This allows disorder and madness to become leading themes of this play.

These themes come to a head when Lear is put out into the storm by his daughters, he is able to reflect and all his power yet how little he had done for others who did not have much. Being in the force of the storm Lear is humbled and now understands how insignificant himself and the power he had was. This is a revelation not only of his loss of social control but also the need to re-evaluate the things valued and found significant, this then allows for the character development of becoming more compassionate and sympathetic. Once Lear fully understands this he is able to understand himself, after confronting the chaos and letting go of the need for power he allows himself to find peace and sanity amidst what is continued to go on around him.

Servitude by Serve-a-tude

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, King Lear, Power and Identity1 Comment

While King Lear houses many characters and motifs to delve into conveying some serious themes around identity, power, and family, one of the most notable moments of the play exists early on in the play during the fight between Oswald and Kent within Act 2 Scene 2.

While the fight itself serves as a fun and intense moment in the play as Kent curses Goneril’s servant in Shakespearean tongue, what makes the moment profound is the distinction between Kent and Oswald as characters throughout the play, and the overall question of what makes a good servant?

Upon Kent choosing to attack Oswald initially, the surrounding characters along with the audience are under the misconception that he is in the wrong for doing so, when in reality his aggression towards Oswald can be dissected far further. Kent, as seen in Act I, is a loyal subject of Lear. His servitude extends beyond simply doing what the King asks, as we see him challenging Lear banishing Cordelia, and harboring his best interests in mind. Upon being banished, Kent still chooses to serve the Lear in disguise in order to carry out his duties but also to try and help support his status as his power remains in limbo between him and his daughters. Finally, we see the greatest extent of Kent’s loyalty at the end of the play when upon Lear’s death, Kent takes his own life in a noble fashion, exclaiming that his journey as a subject of Lear is far from over and that his master calls upon him in the afterlife.

Oswald on the other hand represents a different type of servitude which conjures a conflict between the two characters. While, similar to Kent, Oswald is the right hand man of the Kings eldest daughter Goneril his servitude revolves around the ideology that by obeying every command given, he will later be able to position himself in a higher power. This type of “servitude” so to speak is seen upon Oswald attempting to end Gloucesters life in Act IV in hopes of being recognized for his loyalty and valeince in doing so.

Understanding these two personas of a servant helps to better contextualize the reason for Kent and Oswald brawling it out during the second act. Oswald willingly chooses to deceive the king by carrying out Goneril’s will, attempting to deliver letters that would be used against the king in order to gain himself a promotion. Kent’s response to this is taking on Oswald in order to maintain his morality and loyalty to the king. In the end, despite his short-coming in Act I serving a ‘tude to the King, Kent can be understood as the definition of pure servitude, with no other motives or outside interests than to serve Lear throughout the story, while Oswald can be perceived as a yes-man to most of the characters in the play, while in reality he uses his servitude as a tool for subliminally gaining power.

A Father’s Daughters

On By NOA ADAMSIn King Lear, Power and Identity3 Comments

There are only three main female characters in King Lear, all of who are defined by their relationship to men. Each one has their own unique story and participates in their own play. Through Shakespeare’s lens powerful female characters are not seen this way. Instead, women with power are portrayed in Shakespeare’s tragedies as evil. If they are not evil their story is downplayed to fit in the male storylines.

Goneril and Regan are portrayed as distinctly evil and cutthroat throughout this play. They begin by immediately conning their father and pushing him out onto the street. They are constantly referred to as animals by Lear and other characters, dehumanizing them. They later both cheat on their husbands with the same man, becoming labeled as unpure, although Glouster has obviously also cheated on his wife due to the fact that he has a bastard son and is not labeled in that manner. I could personally appreciate their characters as villains if they had been fully fleshed out in that storyline. Although I can not do this because their villain stories simply exist to further the stories of male characters. Their outcasting and disrespect of Lear exist as a way to develop his madness and expedite his dissent. The audience never sees how they came to this decision, they are not complex characters but rather Shakespeare’s definition of two-dimensional evil women. We as readers or viewers very rarely see the behind-the-scenes of Goneril and Regan or their relationship with each other, making them seem even less like well-rounded characters.

Cordelia is the one main female character who starts off strong, with an immediate test of power against her father. This is empowering until she promptly disappears for almost four acts and it becomes obvious that her rebellion was simply a part of Lear’s dissent into madness. Lear’s first questionable act seen in the play happens after Cordelia goes against his wishes. Lear immediately responds with a crazy decision and his description as mad begins. Cordelia finally returns at the end of act four, immediately forgiving her father and coming to his aid. We see none of Cordelia’s healing process or reasoning behind forgiving her father. In the end, her death is off-stage and Lear continues to talk about her appearance and insult women as he mourns her. Her death furthers the power structure between parent and child that Lear struggles with. Lear’s madness comes from his struggle with power and when he is able to release that obsession with the power it allows him to begin understanding the world in a more sane way. Cordelia’s, as well as Goneril and Regans’s deaths exist not as their own but as a way for Lear to release part of his obsession with power.

Hot Take- We Need More Female Villains

On By Katie G.In Binaries, King Lear, Power and Identity2 Comments

Historically, books, especially children’s books, have been filled with female characters playing the damsel in distress. Think of all of the fairy tale stories that are traditionally read to children at bedtime- the Cinderellas and the Rapunzels, always the prey of an evil queen or wicked witch, and always saved by a handsome prince charming. As a result of these stories, little girls all around the world are taught that talking to birds and squirrels is normal, and that true love’s kiss is the ultimate salvation. Luckily, these traditional stories have largely been regarded as out-of-date, both because of the restrictive example they set for young girls and because of the villanization of powerful women as snarl-toothed, long-nosed wicked witches and evil queens.

Of course, I believe that the dreams of little girls around the world should not be limited to true love’s kiss and Prince Charming. I also believe that there are not merely two types of female in the world- the princesses and the wicked witches. However, while I am okay with decreasing the amount of books that revolve around princesses and princes, I have a hard time totally erasing evil queens and wicked witches from the narrative. My reasoning is as follows: Is it really always necessary for women to be altruistic in their endeavors? Why is it so taboo for a woman to be strong, independent, and powerful, if not a little cruel-hearted? It’s normal if men are, after all. If we are to totally eradicate female villains, then we are only reinforcing the gender norms of women to be selfless, and upholding the patriarchal mirroring of women focusing their existence on others, rather than themselves.

If we are to increase the amount of female villains in literature, there are a few caveats:

  1. We must begin to view female villains less as villains, and more as anti-heroes. Take Goneril and Regan from King Lear, for example: if we viewed these two sisters as villains, we’d be missing out on much of their characters’ substance. However, if we view them as anti-heroes, central characters who lack conventional heroic and altruistic attributes, we open doors to analyze them as developed and complex characters. Rather than merely viewing them as power-hungry and evil, we can see that they are extremely calculated and witty women who are able to unhinge (and rehinge) the social framework to flip the gender binary and gain power. They began the play with very limited power, but by understanding the weaknesses of those conforming to power binaries, they quickly became the puppet masters controlling those who had once been considered superior to them. If you can empathize with Cordelia, who is a much more conventional heroine than her sisters, you must also be open to empathizing with Goneril and Regan, who have just as complex of an arc.
  2. Furthermore, it is important to understand that when I call for more female villains, I do not necessarily mean that we need more of the traditional female villains, such as the wicked witch/evil queen stereotype, or the more recent addition to the list, the femme fatale. Female villains (anti-heroes) cannot be boxed into categories because of their appearances. Not all independent and powerful women are green with long noses and pointed caps. While some very possibly might be, most women with these characteristics are normal people. It isn’t a woman’s looks that make her who she is, it is her wits, confidence, drive, and values. In order to continue having a platform for non-altruistic women vying for power, we must separate the woman from her appearance.
  3. Finally, we need to have more female villains prevail! Why should so much potential go to waste, time and time again? Again drawing from Shakespeare’s King Lear, the play’s two primary female characters, Goneril and Regan, were killed off before they could even truly gain the power that they had won. Their fight to shatter the male dominance of society was wasted with their untimely deaths. While some might believe that Regan and Goneril would not have been any better in power than a man, due to their cruelty, and thus are better off dead, I find this argument hard to believe. Who is to say that the sisters wouldn’t have changed the system from the inside, once they acquired power? If they were smart enough to nearly overthrow the entire framework of a society, surely they could have been smart enough to merely use cruelty and savagery as a tool, knowing that it had worked in the hands of the men before them. Why root against women whose acquisition of power sets a new norm for girls and women everywhere, that it is possible for a woman to have power?

In my opinion, female villains are the best type of villains. This is because female villains are feminists working against the patriarchy, rather than with it. Beneath the seemingly cruel surface lies their motivation- a justified bitterness towards the patriarchal system which has time and time again oppressed independent and power-seeking women. While ultimately it is necessary to destroy the underpinnings of patriarchy, which lie in the core values of what it means to be a good leader, in the meantime it is vital for women to have leadership positions. It is impossible to put an end to male dominance, male centeredness, and male identification, the roots of patriarchy, if women are never in power. Therefore, it is important to celebrate and uplift the female villains who represent the driven and power-hungry women out there, unwilling to patiently wait their turn for the spotlight.

Using power in the right way

On By Sam B.In King Lear, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

It is known from the beginning of the play that Lear has the most power throughout the kingdom. When he makes decisions he goes through with them, not listening to the people who are there to tell him if he is right or wrong. In the first act, Lear makes a silly decision to ask his daughters how much they love him, and when he didn’t get the response he wanted from Cordelia he got angry and used his power to evict her from the kingdom. That was a bad way to use his power because his kingdom started to fall apart and he missed Cordiliea. Later on in the play, both Kent and the fool tell him to stop his madness and get his kingdom back in order. However, Lear does not listen, banished Kent from the castle, and starts to go crazy. If lear would have used his power to get the kingdom back to its glory then people wouldn’t have died but he used his power to do what he wanted. Finally, at the end of the play, Cordelia forgives Lear. She had every right to be angry but she used her power in the right way and forgive him. Lear started to understand his mistakes and his madness and in the end, he is deserving of his death. Power also contributes to one theme of the play which is that one small mistake can lead to chaos that cannot be stopped. If lear never asked the question of who loved him the most, none of this would have happened.

Colette’s Take on Female Sexuality vs Social Order

On By Katie G.In Power and Identity, Short Stories1 Comment

Initially published in 1924, Colette’s story The Secret Woman was a mechanism for exhibiting the complicated concept of female sexuality despite it being a taboo subject in society. The Secret Woman took place during an era when women were expected to be subservient, pure housewives who were dependent on their male counterparts. However, Colette challenged this view by exposing the true nature of woman- the woman in her natural habitat, liberated by her control over her own sexuality. Irene, the wife of a wealthy doctor, is portrayed as a flustered, subservient woman while at home in the beginning of the story. Though when Irene is hidden behind a disguise at the Opera Ball, she is portrayed as being confident and empowered, in control of her sexuality. Irene has seemed to master the societal expectations of women while still holding onto her “native state” of self- sufficiency and control over her sense of self.

Colette’s critique on the crippling gender norms in society, though expressed just under 100 years earlier, are still applicable to this day. Harmful stereotypes have developed at the expense of women who take control of their own identities, especially publicly. The “ball-buster” is an example of a stereotype labeling independent women, especially in the business field- a woman who climbs the executive ladder by being irritatingly assertive; a woman who is self-absorbed and ruthless, unafraid to bring down those around her to make it to the top of the ladder.

Furthermore, modern feminism is a mechanism for women to fight against the grain of gender binaries, by promoting women taking control of their sexuality. However, the “feminist agenda” is highly unpopular by many people in society. Politician Pat Robertson claimed that feminism “encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians”. While quotes like this may seem ridiculous to some, it truly does reflect the opinion of many people who view female control over sexuality as a threat to the social order.

Through her short story The Secret Woman, Colette does a fantastic job not only portraying a woman who is in control of her own sexuality and sense of self, but also the effect of the male gaze. While Irene seems fully in control of her own identity at the opera ball, she continues to live a double life as a subservient housewife. While it is admirable that she is able to feel liberated for even a night, the perspective of her husband and the male gaze connote the unyielding criticism that she will be met with for doing so. While freeing, removing oneself from the constraints of public opinion and socialized gender norms is extremely difficult. Colette understands this disappointing reality, conceding that as free as Irene is, she will return to her husband and cookie-cutter life of a housewife the next day.

The Shift of Power in “The Secret Woman”

On By Jhaden J.In Power and Identity1 Comment

Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette’s short story “The Secret Woman” tells the story of how dishonesty between a husband and wife can lead to a shift in power because of a shift in perception. In the opening of this story we see the husband lying to his wife explaining that he is unable to go to the green and purple ball because of a patient he has to take care of. In response the wife tells her lie, telling him that she is too shy to be able to go to the ball and put herself in front of a group of people. This promotes the idea that she lacks courage and depends on him, seeing this in the way she made her husband think that she was against the idea of the party.

“As for me.. Can you see me in a crowd, at the mercy of all those hands..” (Pg. 328).

Despite their lies they end up at the ball, just not together. When he first sees his wife he doesn’t think that it’s her, under the impression that she wouldn’t be there. Once he realizes that it is in fact his wife he follows her and notices the way she is projecting herself, surprised, rolling her hips and dragging her feet. Once following his wife, we see that he looks at her more of an object that her own person.

Once seeing his wife for who she truly was, flirtatious, secretive or promiscuous, the way he described her shifted.

“She laughed, and he admired her narrow face, pink, matt and long, like a delicate sugared almond…” (Pg. 327).

This quote shows the way the man viewed his wife in the beginning but once he saw that she was actively choosing this for herself the way he saw her shifted, shown by the stark contrast in how she was described in the end.

“[T]he monstrous pleasure of being alone, free, honest in her crude, native state, of being the unknown woman, eternally solitary and shameless, restored to her irremediable solitude and immodest innocence by a little mask and a concealing costume” (Pg. 331).

Her freedom was shocking to him because of who he thought he had known her to be, once he saw that she was in power of her own situation, her own person, he didn’t really know how to deal with it. In the end I think he may have felt unsure of himself in the end, now seeing her at this party he wasn’t sure of his role in their relationship anymore, because he realized his role was always fake and apart of her lies.

The White Gaze

On By RHEA R.In Power and Identity1 Comment

The white gaze is a concept describing the way the general white population views something. While it is not a concern for every person of color, it is not uncommon to worry about it. In world that gives white people power over others, many people are socialized to believe they need to appeal to them as a means of survival.

In “A Conversation About Bread”, the white gaze affects Brian and Eldwin very differently. Eldwin doesn’t put much thought into how white people perceive him but it is a constant thought for Brian. While in the library, Brian remains acutely aware of the white woman observing them, yet Eldwin pays her no mind.

Eldwin wants to illustrate the truth about a specific experience but Brian is worried about how it will be interpreted by his majority white audience. He is afraid that the story will negatively impact the white opinion.

Brian gives the white gaze power over him because he grew up in a world that gives white people power over him.

The Betrayal of Gender Roles in The Secret Woman

On By Grace H.In Power and Identity, Short Stories4 Comments

Throughout the story, gender roles are reversed. In this case, Irene is leading the way (literally and figuratively) while her husband cautiously follows behind. She is asserting herself into conversations, dancing with random men, kissing men besides her husband, and overall being independent. Normally, or at least in this assumed time period, men lead the way and women follow suit. Men are very independent while women are brought up to depend on men.

Furthermore, Irene is making fun of her husband, belittling him nonchalantly. Almost as if she is putting him in his place, just as he would to her. Silently, he observed her every behavior making silent comments and having opinions. However, he remained silent and hid his personality, just like a woman is expected.

In general, one would assume her husband would step in, intervene, and stop her from essentially cheating on him. However, instead, he stays quiet and walks away. In this case, they were at a masquerade ball, hidden by masks. Maybe this gave her the confidence to be independent and break away from her stereotypical role, or maybe it was an excuse to fill the role she has longed.

Manipulation of Power Dynamics in Good Country People

On By Liam LIn Binaries, Power and Identity, Short Stories2 Comments 
Mrs. Freeman's gaze drove forward and just touched him before he disappeared under the hill. The she returned her attention to the evil-smelling onion shoot she was lifting from the ground. 'Some can't be that simple,' she said. 'I know I never could.' (9)

We talk about power dynamics a lot in class, how they form, why they exist, and especially the effects they have on our society. But one thing we haven’t yet talked about is manipulation of these dynamics for personal gain. Manley Pointer in “Good Country People” fools both the simple, religious Ms. Hopewell, and the atheistic, educated Hulga through manipulation of power dynamics which the characters held, and both of their individual value systems.

Ms. Hopewell represents the stereotypical “good country people,” lacking higher education, being religious, hard-working, and disapproving of the modern, atheistic philosophy of Hulga. Pointer represents her idea of “good country people.” She says, “He was so simple…I guess the world would be better off if we were all that simple.” (9) Ms. Hopewell follows the Christian idea that simplicity and humility bring wisdom and holiness, and Pointer fully encapsulates the idea of simple, well-intentioned country people. It seems like she believes in a power dynamic of FAITHFUL/sinning (or something like that), with Pointer’s simple persona placing him on the faithful side along with Ms. Hopewell, and against the atheistic Hulga. This persona turns out to be completely fake, but it fooled Ms. Hopewell easily enough.

Hulga represents the well-educated, atheistic, modern person (generally). She acted very much superior towards Ms. Hopewell and her outlook on life. Hulga very much underestimated Pointer due to this haughty superiority over the “country people” around her. She believed her entire relationship with Pointer was governed by the SMART/dumb power dynamic, on which she was smart, while Pointer was simple. She thought she had all the control, even fantasizing about seducing him. But in the end, he flipped this dynamic on its head, she was the dumb one. He says towards the end “And I’ll tell you another thing, Hulga…you ain’t so smart. I been believing in nothing ever since I was born.” (9) By completely reversing the power dynamic, he completely surprises Hulga (and probably all of the readers, too) and takes away all the control Hulga thought she had.

There is of course more going on in this story than what I’ve pointed out, I didn’t mention Hulga’s leg, or Ms. Freeman, or the contents of Pointer’s bag, or Pointer’s motivations, but this interaction is what I found most striking about this story.

Benjamin’s Theory and Abortion Rights

On By Camila RIn Power and Identity, Uncategorized1 Comment

In Jessica Benjamin’s Bonds of Love, she describes domination as a “two-way process” which involves one person submitting to power and the other exercising the power. Establishing this kind of structure in relationships causes polarity and a struggle for authority. Whether it’s a personal relationship between a man and a woman or a father and son, Benjamin makes it clear that love will prevail in domination and submission.

Outside of personal relationships, the struggle for power and domination is also visible in public relations and politics. On June 24th the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade therefore allowing federal governments to regulate abortion laws within their state. Soon after states like Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma began enforcing abortion bans. Scrolling through the articles about abortion laws I read something about how in Georgia abortion is illegal after 6 weeks of pregnancy. I was curious why it had to be 6 weeks, and what difference did it make if the pregnancy might have been 10 weeks? Then I realized it really had nothing to do with pregnancy . This whole argument about being pro choice and pro life had no correlation to states banning abortions. It was derived by a desire for power. In reality lawmakers are not worried about the well being of the mother or the unborn child, it’s about having control over women’s bodies and reproductive rights. In a patriarchal society men can assert their dominance by oppressing the rights of women and that is exactly what happens when you take aways abortion rights. Behind it is a cycle of trauma and poverty that young mothers face continually and just like Jessica Benjamin states in her writing, if we don’t challenge the structure of dominance we may never break the cycle. I am hopeful that if we continue to protest gender polarity and valorize feminism we can reach the level of equality we desire, therefore protecting women’s power and rights over their bodies.

The ideas of Benjamin and her ways of Power

On By CADEN PIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

Jessica Benjamin argues that the key to freedom is through intersubjectivity and those who seek powerful figures early on. She believes that the people who submit power as well as exercise the usage of power are more dominant. The struggle for power in most cases is between the father and the son and it resonates from that into real life situations. There are steps to show the structure of how power forms and the domination of power as well. Jessica firmly believes that opposite sexs have different sorts of power but that one always has less than the other in certain situations. In order to understand the split between femininity and masculinity there must be critics of the masculine side but also the feminine side. But then to also to be focused on the power and dualistic structure between the two major factors. The Binary usage between many ideas that she has is very important to look at comparing two different types of people and seeing what they can and what they cant do to show which one of them has more power over the other. Because there will always be leaders and there will always be followers.

Benjamin’s Gender and Power Theory

On By ROAN E.In Jessica Benjamin, Power and Identity2 Comments

Jessica Benjamin argues that subjectivity and power come from individuality separated from the mother and father traits. Benjamin puts to light recent shifts in psychoanalytic theory and their relevance relating to individuality. As Freud’s theory on individuality suggests, boys growing up will recognize their anatomical differences from their mothers and identify with the father, while girls will never understand their own subjectivity in terms of difference from the mother.

As Jessica suggests, individuality is a balance of separation and connectedness rather than solely being decided by class, gender, etc. The primary focus of Benjamin’s writing is not about love but about power; she focuses on love to an extent as its perversion leads to domination and submission. She mainly argues that women seek ideal love more than men, in turn, making them more vulnerable to deception. The male is the subject, and the female is the object at the root of domination.

Abused or Acknowledged: A Benjamin Application

On By Elijah MIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Mutual Recognition, Power and Identity3 Comments

I love movies, and recently, someone very close to me recommended that I watch the movie Whiplash. The film had been lingering on my mind for quite some time as it is critically acclaimed and has been mentioned by many friends and family as of late.

Upon watching, I couldn’t help but draw the similarities of the relationships of characters in the movie to the theories of Jessica Benjamin regarding power dynamics that involve a person subjecting another.

The movie follows Andrew Neiman, played by Miles Teller, a student of the most prestigious music university in the country, who’s obsessed with reaching a level of greatness through becoming a outstanding figure in the Shaffer Conservatory Jazz Band. Throughout the movie, Neiman endures forms of psychological and physical abuse from maestro Terence Fletcher, played by J.K Simmons in his goals to find and create the next great Jazz Musician.

Fletcher is seen practically torturing Andrew by throwing objects at him whilst playing, slapping him for missing tempo, and verbally insulting him time and time again for mistakes whilst playing. But this harm only reinforces Andrews obedience to Fletcher and motivation towards achieving his goal of greatness. Conversely, it allows Fletcher more opportunity to enforce his cruelty in hopes of achieving the goal of his own.

This relationship between the two creates an compelling power dynamic or teacher/student or conducter/musician that’s followed throughout the movie, and ends up resulting in an unforeseen conclusion to the twos relationship that begs the question on whether or not either Fletcher or Neiman achieved a level of Mutual Recognition.

In the end, Andrew plays a final time for Fletcher, disobeying his conducting and reversing the roles of the power dynamic in order to play the set on his own terms. At first, Fletcher doesn’t take kindly to this, mouthing silent threats to him in order not to provoke the audience, however, he eventually submits, and relishes in Andrews talent shining through. The conclusion seems lighthearted and displays the power dynamic fizzling into mutual recognition through Fletcher accepting Andrews rebelling, but it poses the question of the power dynamic being reinforced through Fletcher having his goal achieved of finding solace in Andrew being the next “great” so to speak and Andrew feeling as if he has achieved that status through the approval of his disobedience through Fletchers supposed smile in the final frame of the movie.

Mutual Recognition and Healthcare

On By Taisei P.In Jessica Benjamin, Mutual Recognition, Power and Identity5 Comments

Over the summer, I worked in a skilled memory care facility as a caregiver. In my life so far, that is where I have felt most prominently the power struggles mentioned by Benjamin in Bonds of Love. However, the experience was confusing to me in that I, as a caretaker, had power over the residents as my job was to take care of them and was tasked with controlling many parts of their lives, while they also had power over me as I was their caregiver. I’m still not quite sure if I was the subject or object in this situation, but I am certain that achieving mutual recognition in any place related to medicine would be extremely difficult.

Having a clear hierarchy of power is something that can be found in almost every medical workplace, and often helps facilitate effective and efficient patient care, which should be the ultimate goal of any medical institution. However, I feel this system also has many drawbacks in that the patients are stripped of their personhood and viewed solely as patients, which is a dehumanizing experience to anyone.

Personally, I believe that mutual recognition in a hospital setting would require recognition of patients as humans and not just a chart or list of ailments. In turn, patients would need to recognize their doctors’ humanity, which arguably is more difficult than the former, as hospitals are scary places to begin with, and acknowledging doctors not as doctors but as humans (who can sometimes make mistakes) would only add to that fear. Is a binary balance of power a necessary evil in the field of medicine, or would mutual recognition help alleviate the fear so often associated with hospitals?

Benjamin’s Theory and Saviorism in America

On By Ma'ayan KIn Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and IdentityLeave a comment

In Bonds of Love, Benjamin elaborates on the mutual aspect of power dynamics that involve a dominant and submissive side, explaining that in order to fully access their productive potential, equality must be achieved. This can be observed in the typical American “savior” attitude. The United States and the majority of European countries are generally considered to be a part of of the “developed” world. Even in elementary school, I can recall presenters flipping through slideshows of malnutritioned children. “Believe it or not, this child in Africa is a kid – just like you!” From a young age, my peers – no matter our varied statuses in our own society – have been instilled with the suggestion that as a developed nation (superior, powerful), the rest of the developing world (inferior, helpless) needs our help. While this dynamic may seem one sided, as Benjamin explains, such power dynamics of superiority and inferiority are mutual, although not mutually beneficial. Current projects and foreign aid – while accepted – usually only serve to corrupt nations and provide them with what we think they need. Instead, according to Benjamin, these nations should be recognized as equals. Their decisions and policies should be acknowledged and aid should be considered in accordance with their that. The mindset of superiority and separation in many Americans must be broken down in order to identify equally with others. 

To what extent is domination enabled by both parties?

On By Khylie A.In Binaries, Jessica Benjamin, Power and Identity2 Comments

To understand this obscured question one must understand Jessica Benjamin’s theory on Mutal Respect & Domination. In Bonds of Love, Benjamin proposes a seemingly normal question: Why don’t we have gender equality when society wants it? Benjamin goes on to explain how gender stereotypes, binary norms, and expectations feed into this unnatural dynamic of Domination/Submission. Elaborating that when looking at identity most people look at negotiation and conflict which creates the unnatural power struggle. This idea leads to a controversial take on domination and submission. While it’s noted that this power dynamic is not only unnatural but unhealthy it’s also emphasized how in certain regards it is allowed. Benjamin notates how domination is a two-way street and in some capacity, the one being oppressed is allowing for the dynamic whether it be consciously or unconsciously. However, a possible solution is proposed and that solution is the concept of mutual recognition which essentially moves out of the binaries and deconstructs unnatural power dynamics through connection, understanding, and respect.

Where do I stand?

I feel that Benjamin has a very different and interesting perspective in regard to the power dynamics of society. While I agree to some extent that domination/submission bias is allowed by both parties, I also believe that there are instances where the dynamic is not allowed and happens forcefully. Of the aspects I agree with I have gained an understanding of how certain power dynamics are allowed like teacher/student and parent/child. The respect given to an extent is out of societal expectations, however, part of it is also genuine respect that is constantly changing through experiences. Benjamin’s ideas have led me to contemplate the idea of mutual respect and really work to get rid of those biases I carry whether it is something simple or complex.