Online Artifact: Murals in N. Ireland

A great site on murals in Northern Ireland is: CAIN WEB SERVICE

My Online Artifacts are these videos, links and article. The article can be accessed HERE




Murals have become a dominant and dynamic form of symbolic expression throughout Northern Ireland. Nearly 2,000 murals have been documented since the 1970's. These murals often reflect the division between and expressions of two political groups: Republicans and Loyalists. To fully understand the conflict and tension in Northern Ireland, one must journey down what would seem to be a an enormously long timeline. A good starting point for considering the history and motivation for these murals would be shortly after WWII ended. After WWII, Northern Ireland remained apart of the United Kingdom and did not follow The Republic of Ireland in independence. This is primarily due to the large population of Anglo-Irish that still feel ties to Great Britain. Aside from the long turbulent history of Ireland and the United Kingdom, this creation of a separate N. Ireland only fueled ancient wounds (as well as creating new problems) and made tensions escalate (Troubles p.1).

Like previously stated, Northern Ireland is essentially made up of two communities. The nationalist community consists of people who are more loyal to Ireland, desire a "United Ireland" (where N. Ireland secedes from the United Kingdom), and are predominately Roman Catholic and Republicans. The unionist community consists of people who feel a certain loyalty or connection to the United Kingdom and therefore wish to remain a part of it. This group has many Anglo-Irish Protestants and Loyalists. The tensions between these two groups escalated in a period called The Troubles. The Troubles lasted primarily between the late 1960's and 1998. During this time, reoccurring acts of intense violence sparked between the loyalists and unionists. Over three decades, around 3,200 people were killed. Much of the violence was incurred by paramilitary group campaigns, such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) 1996-1997. The IRA intended to "rid" Ireland of British rule and unify Ireland into one state (Troubles 2).

The heated conflict lasted until 1998, when an uneasy treaty was signed: Belfast Agreement or "Good Friday Agreement". This agreement solidified N. Ireland as a part of the UK. Much happened constitutionally in both Irelands and England that helped to ease tension. One of the most important things is that people who are born in Northern Ireland automatically have dual citizenship with Ireland and the UK (or can choose one or the other). The clash between Catholics and Protestants is not merely a battle over religion but rather one of identity. Identity is an issue that still prominent in Northern Ireland today. Despite the cease fires and the disbanding of the IRA (in 2005), political and ethnic tensions still can run high. An example of this is the youth riots in Ardoyne in 2009.



Murals can be seen all over Ardoyne as well.

For a further exploration of Key Issues in N. Ireland click HERE

Neil Jarman discusses, in his article "Painting Landscapes: The Place of Murals in the Symbolic Construction of Urban Space", the murals that can be found throughout the working class estates in Belfast. He talks about the symbolic content of images, "they are always open to multiple interpretations, but as artifacts in a public space they are also open to multiple forms of use, re-use and abuse. As images they always have had a functionality: as propaganda, as rhetoric, as ideological and symbolic markers etc...While on one level it is primarily the image that is being used and transformed, on another level it is the physical artifact, fixed in space, which is the subject of activity; taken still further it is the public space in which the artifact is sited that is changed" (Jarman p.2). These murals are more that just visual displays of art, but they also act as artifacts. When viewing these murals as artifacts, they seem to be created to be seen at specific locations. Jarman also says, "...an extension of their significance is generated by a semiotic dynamic which involves the images taking meaning from their location and the location in turn having a differing significance because of the paintings" (Jarman p.2). Murals in Northern Ireland (in this case, Belfast) can be simultaneously used for multiple purposes.

Murals can be used or seen as territorial indicators and boundary markers. For example, the symbolism and content of these murals can indicate wether or not a community is predominately Catholic or Protestant. Subsequently, this could also indicate a communal political ideology (Republicans, Loyalists). Sometimes the murals will indicate political propaganda while at the same time acting as a warning sign and create fear for the opposition. Not only do the murals function as such, but as act as reminder of past events (for example, Bloody Sunday). They also cater to what happened in each specific location. They act as memorials to fallen soldiers and civilians (many being of fallen IRA members). The murals help to define political and cultural parameters throughout the country. They reinforce the cultural boundaries and differences between the two opposing struggles for identity. Starting in the early 1900s, it was mostly nationalists who painted these murals. In the 1960's, however, civil right inequalities began to be challenged and unionists began painting them as well. As Jarman describes, "As ideological and political arguments turned into sectarian violence and outright warfare, Catholic areas in Derry and Belfast were enclosed behind barricades. As the forces of the state were excluded, people began to exert control over their own areas" (Jarman p.4)

Here is a link to a site explain some of the symbolism that can be found in the murals:

Unionist and Loyalist

Nationalist and Republican

Jarman also talks about how these murals function even on an international scale. Not only do they serve multiple purposes for local communities and for the nation as a whole, but also project messages at the rest of the world. "The power of murals have meant that they have become a more self-conscious means by which to propagandise to a much wider public, while still primarily aimed at a local audience. For the global media, these remain little more than relatively simple symbols of the Troubles and of paramilitary violence" (Jarman p.7). The murals also are a component of the economy in terms of tourism. Although Northern Ireland markets itself with little to no emphasis on conflict, the murals act as a seductive romanticized depiction of it...thus attracting tourists to the region. Jarman states it as an attraction to a culture of war. The murals are situated on parade routes and are often placed throughout the city as a means of guiding tourists to explore and see it in a new light. Here is an example of a commercial for tourism...promoting recreation.



When these murals are seen as both images (art) or as artifacts, their meaning becomes very versatile and they simultaneously serve multiple purposes. When the paintings location is taken into consideration, it can clearly be seen that the murals are site specific. They can be used in memorializing the past of fallen soldiers or civilians. They also work as an active history lesson in keeping the memory of past events alive; teaching many lessons. They also serve as boundary markers and an expression of communal politics. They can even be seen as a way to attract tourists to a country that has been previously engulfed in a culture of war. These murals' power of signifying and versatility resonates from the local communities out to the rest of the world.

Works Cited:

The Troubles. Available Online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/flash/0,6189,344683,00.html

Jarman, Neil. Painting Landscapes: The Place of Murals in the Symbolic Construction of Urban Space

Available Online: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/bibdbs/murals/jarman.htm

FINAL PROJECT:

For my final project I was thinking of exploring traditional and modern Irish music. I was thinking of learning an Irish reel and also exploring how some lyrics of modern Irish songs reflect the history and conflict of the current times. I would also incorporate some of the novels we've read and maybe write songs or lyrics to songs about them...and how they relate together.

My second idea is to adapt Carmilla into a film or play script. I would be very careful what dialogue, themes and elements of the story I would incorporate. I would primarily focus on certain psychological elements like we read in the Enigmatic Signifier.

Consequence and Responsibility: New Hedonism in The Picture of Dorian Gray

Article: http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/Gillespie.pdf

Nathan Hendricks

Eng 263

Literary Criticism

March 16, 2010

Consequence and Responsibility: New Hedonism in The Picture of Dorian Gray

In Michael Patrick Gillespie's article Ethics and Aesthetics in The Picture of Dorian Gray, he offers an analysis of various philosophies and ideologies which encompass the issue of art in its relation to morality. He applies these in regards to Wilde's novel; discussing the character's motivations and actions. He starts by mentioning Socrates and the long associations that mankind has made between morals and happiness. “The dialects of Socrates underscore the fact that our society has long affirmed the ideal of right conduct. They further show how we have sought to discover and articulate the moral tenets configuring our conduct in a fashion appropriate to our beliefs. Plato extended these considerations beyond Socratic concern for immediate material gain to the exemption of a system—designated as ethics—that functions as a means to goodness and that sees goodness as a means to happiness (p. 140)”.

From a humanistic point of view, goodness is only a construction of society and is irrelevant to the pursuit of happiness (happiness in terms of being considered that it is not impossible to achieve). It could then be argued that art , as a philosophy, serves no purpose but to encompass aesthetics. During the Victorian period, it was commonly thought that art could be used as a tool (or weapon in some cases) in order to enhance social education or improve moral instruction or enlightenment. It is clear that Wilde set out to spread an ideal that art should not have to be chained to such an imposed purpose (in a Victorian society that is starch and concerned with spreading a unified understanding of propriety and “correct” morals).

Gillespie explains that “the view of art as aesthetically and ethically self-contained, summed up in a single phrase—art for art's sake—that impelled the Aesthetic Movement.” (Gillespie p. 142). Gillespie says about those involved in the Aesthetic Movement (such as Theophile Gautier, Stephane Mallarme, Gustave Flaubert...),

“...subscribed to the doctrine that art represents the supreme value because it stands as self-sufficient and has no aim beyond its own perfection. To this end, they asserted that the function of the work of art lies simplicity in its existence and its ability to exude beauty, indifferent to current social issues” (p. 142). The Aesthetic movement clearly is an influence in The Picture of Dorian Gray, however, Gillespie goes further to pinpoint the motivations for Dorian: New Hedonism (as reinforced with the yellow book that Dorian lives by).

“The novel does prescribe a single mode of answering the questions implicit in its discourse, but it does foreground an internal ethic programme- New Hedonism. This system makes a direct claim for the shaping effect of art upon one's character, and it asserts the primacy of a doctrine of pleasure that absolves individuals from the ordinary responsibilities for their actions. Readers measure its effect by contrasting it with the conventional Victorian morality in the work and with whatever ethical systems, conventional or otherwise that they bring to the text. (p. 145)

Dorian is first introduced to this ideal by Lord Henry,“To realize one's nature perfectly—that is to what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves now a days. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, that one owes to one's self...Perhaps we never really had it. The terror of society, which is the basis for morals, the terror of God, which is the secret of religion—these are the two things that govern us. And yet...I believe that if one man were to live his life fully and completely, were to give form to every feeling, expression of every thought, reality to every dream—I believe that the world would gain such a fresh impulse of joy that we would forget all the miladies of medieavalism and return to the Hellenic ideal...But the bravest man amongst us is afraid of himself...Nothing remains but the recollection of pleasure or the luxury of regret. The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it. Resist it and your sould grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden itself, with desire for what is monstrous laws have made monstrous and unlawful" (Wilde p. 19).

It is ideal that sparks Dorian and makes him question his own life and ultimately leads him down the tragic path he chooses (leading to the contribution of Sybil's death, the murder of Basil and his own death). Gillespie goes on to raise the question of whether Hedonism is a paradox just as much as the status quo of whatever society's accepts morality is. Lord Henry (and the yellow book) gives Dorian a predetermined set of values to live by.

“In this stark articulation of the aims of New Hedonism one sees a far different moral view than anything expressed in conventional approaches. Nonetheless, it stands as a viable alternative to traditional ethnical programmes. As one would expect in the outline of any moral system, Lord Henry delineates New Hedonism by laying out its goals, providing guidance on how to achieve those goals, and establishing a means for judging behavior in relation to those goals. This detailed description of New Hedonism, however, does not legitimize it, and so its function stands open to debate" (Gillespie p. 150).

Both Dorian Gray and Lord Henry do not really fully encompass the philosophy of New Hedonism.From a psychoanalytical method of thinking, this philosophy caters to the Ego. It appeals to conscious desires but ignore's the ID's attempt to regulate desires. It is Dorian's denial of this idea that leads him to become overwhelmed with guilt and concern for his soul...ultimately resulting in his own death. If he was really only concerned with appeasing temptations in order to achieve happiness, wouldn't other people's well-fare become irrelevant (when not related to his own desires)? Lord Henry more closely represents the philosophy because he is passive and indifferent to moral consequence of behavior (placing more emphasis on metaphysical implications). He also dismisses Dorian's trouble and guilt as an embracement of conventional morality. Lord Henry is not as radical in enacting the ideal as Dorian, but shows his desire to influence/corrupt beauty and youth (he, however shows restraint in realizing the consequences of fully applying New Hedonism like Dorian) .

Gillespie argues that, in a sense, Wilde is successful in presenting an idea that art is not meant to teach or reinforce morality, but regardless, reflects the creator of it (therefore capturing humanity and unable to be labeled meaningless). Therefore the current Victorian ideals and Hedonism are both paradoxes. “The propositions of the novel, however, go beyond a simple philosophical exercise, for they enable us to indulge a range of alternative ethical responses without incurring the consequences that such behavior would provoke” (p. 153). This is interesting because Wilde appears to be doing the same thing as Le Fanu: allowing the reader to ponder its content safely (especially in regards to the time period both novels are from). Wilde, however in doing this, takes away from the implication that art is apart from political or humanistic agendas.

As Gillespie concludes, “In consequence, The Picture of Dorian Gray, does not and should not bring us closer to a new ethical position or reinforce our old one. Rather, through the actions of its characters its discourse establishes within us a sense of the wide-ranging aesthetic force that ethics exerts upon a work of art. Furthermore Wilde's novel gives us the opportunity to enhance the mix of our aesthetic and ethical views by extending our sense of possibilities for interpretation beyond those delineated by our immediate hermeneutic system" (p. 154).

For the most part Gillespie's interpretation and analysis is agreeable. I also had some unresolved questions:

How much and to what extent is Wilde's life is reflected in this novel?

Is Wilde really making a statement about "art just being art" or is he saying it is impossible not to attach human meaning (because it is created by an artist)?

In denouncing the restrictive status quo of the Victorian period, does Wilde write to help liberate a repressed society? or is he merely spreading his own set of beliefs that could be viewed as equally restrictive?

Works Cited

Gillespie, Michael Patrick. Ethics and Aesthetics in The Picture of Dorian Gray. Available Online: http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/Gillespie.pdf

Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. Oxford University Press. Oxford UK, 2008. Print

Gothic's Enigmatic Signifier

It seems that Davis would argue that, as a whole, the effective component of the Gothic novel, or the Gothic text as horror, is the fear of death itself...and which also is the end/death of what it means to conceptualize oneself with meaning (being human). We as readers and interpreters become caught in the same component of these texts which provokes a feeling of fear or horror; this the element that makes the Gothic so effective, entertaining and interesting. As Davis puts it so well,

“That 'unspeakable horror', indeed that traumatising, unnamable horror which is deposited by the other and forced into us by the Gothic text is, ultimately, the 'very attack of the death drive'; that impulsion towards the death of meaning itself...Finally, if we, as readers of the Gothic, are in fact caught in the same 'vortex of summons and repulsion' as Laura, then our constant attempts to decipher the Gothic text, 'to master, to translate, those enigmatic, traumatising messages', leave us all trapped in our own repetition compulsion, inexorably (but perhaps pleasurably) drawn to 'the place where meaning collapses'; a place 'very nearly dark'” (Davis p. 234)

Rather than analyze Carmilla from a literal Freudian interpretation, Davis chooses to incorporate the work of psychoanalyst Jean Laplanche to explore the novel as a Gothic allegory. Davis says that the element of fear or horror in the story comes from the effects that Carmilla has on Laura; specifically her inability to make sense of or find meaning in Carmilla's desires. “Carmilla represents a failure of 'translation'; a traumatising failure to decode the enigmatic received from and indeed implanted by the other, namely Carmilla...repression and its potentially traumatising effects are the result of a failure to decipher and metabolise the other's messages or 'the enigma of the other's desires'” (p.224).

My first interpretation of Laura's confusion and paradox in trying to decode Carmilla's very sexually charged seduction was possibly that Le Fanu was hinting at repressed homosexual desire. Although Freud would possibly do the same, especially with Laura's dreams, Davis uses Laplanche to make another credible analysis to ponder. When referring to the inability of someone to decipher the “enigma of the other's desires”, Davis says that for Laplanche they are always “'saturated with unconscious sexual signifiers' as he insists 'sexuality reaches the subject from the other' and 'it is in the very nature of sexuality to have a traumatic effect' (p. 224). Davis is saying that the “the enigma of the other's desires” involves the “'seductive intrusion of the other...the inauguration of human sexuality shifts the location of its source 'from a biological stimulus to an exciting internal foreign body that attacks the ego from within' And the source of this assault is 'the intrusive intimacies of the other.' At the heart of this intrusion lies a situation of primal seduction” (p.224).

Indeed, Carmilla pursues and stalks Laura in a very primal animalistic sense. This made me think again of one of Laura's dreams. “But I soon saw that it was a sooty-black animal that resembled a monstrous cat. It appeared to me about four or five feet long for it measured fully the length of the hearthrug as it passed over it; and it continued to-ing and fro-ing with the lithe, sinister restlessness of a beast in a cage” (Carmilla Ch. 4). Through Carmilla's desire and advances (intrusion), Davis would say that, she implants a signifier (or deposit) into Laura's subconscious. Laura in turn tries to comprehend that signifier and is unable to do so (resulting in psychological trauma). Laura clearly is effected by this for years afterward. I will stop here in exploring the various reasons as to why Davis and Laplanche give in order to explain exactly why Carmilla is able to implant this signifier and why Laura is incapable of making sense of the enigma. In regards to saving space in this post, I would like to explore the central concept of this as a whole and why it is so important and effective in the Gothic and horror genre in general.

The idea of the vampire has a component that can be found in numerous attempts in the horror genre. This is the concept of something foreign or alien penetrating the human body or mind that threatens life or sanity (in other words erase or bring meaningless to existence). While reading Davis' article, I automatically thought of William Peter Blatty's novel, The Exorcist and Ridley Scott's film, Alien. Indeed the concept of alien or foreign penetration is highly sexual in and of itself. Like in Alien, the alien has no way of reproducing solely through its own species. It is a parasite and will latch on to a human face ramming its phallic like appendage down the throat. It then implants an egg into the stomach until the embryo becomes mature. It then, when ready, burst through the stomach and skin killing the human carrier. This is obviously a very violent and harsh way to play on the human fear of a parasite sexually penetrating the body (in this case killing it) in order to create life. What I find more interesting though is the concept of the human fear of something penetrating the mind. It is this fear that seems more complex and threatens the very meaning of what it is to be human. This is a component that works so well in The Exorcist and Carmilla.

Like Davis says, “In turn this deposit becomes unconscious fantasy, or an 'internal other'...thus the deposited untranslated residues of the other's enigmatic messages become 'an internal foreign body' or as Laplanche puts it, 'an alien inside me, and even one put inside me by an alien'...This process by and of the alien other becomes the key element of Laura's experience in Le Fanu's tale” (Davis p. 226). This implantation of a signifier by an alien person (or creature) becomes embedded in the subconscious. By not being able to decipher the message (in this case a sexual one) it becomes an object that the conscious self is unable to assign meaning to. This attacks the ego and evokes the death drive, creating trauma. This implantation of a foreign message reflects another component of human fear: the threat of something attacking the ability to assign meaning to existence. If we as humans are unable to to provide meaning to our lives or an explanation for existence then we have no purpose in being alive. If there is no meaning attached to life, what would be the purpose of reproducing in order to create more life that will inevitably die? This reveals an element of human fear that is just as dangerous as being physically threatened: we are in danger of becoming dead inside (or losing our concept of humanness) because we can be equally attacked mentally. Although Laura is not in danger of losing her motivation for existing, she still suffers mental trauma from Carmilla implanting such an undecipherable signifier into her subconscious.

As Davis says, “By the end of Le Fanu's tale, we know that this element that can not be metabolized, assigned meaning and assimilated remains actively at work in Laura's psyche, attacking the ego from within', long after the events she narrates. Like the alien (source-object) inside the object and like the Gothic itself, the internal alien object is 'exciting rather than informing' And as Laplanche points out, what is not translatable becomes 'the measure of the quantity of trauma' (Davis 227).

Although Davis' (or Laplanche's) interpretation can not be considered as an absolute truth in being correct, it does present very intriguing ideas and explanations. Even more so than its analysis of Carmilla, the article raises some very interesting questions about human fear. More importantly, Davis makes a credible statement about what exactly the Gothic does to its audience and why it is so attractive. This threat of penetration from not just a physical alien or object but a psychological one reveals a major component of human fear. It is a key component not just to the Gothic, but can be seen in the horror genre in numerous mediums and continues to scare us to this day.

Sexuality in Carmilla

I am not sure as to what extend and purpose that Le Fanu presents sexuality in Carmilla. Clearly on the surface, the novel is very provocative (in regards to the time it was written). La Fanu presents a very sexual vampire story with vivid descriptions of the female form. After doing some research, it seems that during the Victorian period, female sexuality and eroticism were only presented in literature in very subtle ways (if rarely). Le Fanu definitely pushed the envelope in being taboo with Carmilla. Probably the only way he got away with it (from critics) is structuring it as a vampire tale. One topic that comes to light is an undertone of lesbianism and female sexuality. This can been seen through the seductive actions of Carmilla (or as we find out really is Mircalla the Countess Karnstein) and the responses and reactions of Laura.

“She used to place her pretty arms about my neck, draw me to her, and laying her cheek to mine, murmur with her lips near my ear, “Dearest, your little heart is wounded; think me not cruel because I obey the irresistible law of my strength and weakness; if your dear heart is wounded, my wild heart bleeds with yours. In the rapture of my enormous humiliation I live in your warm life, and you shall die—die, sweetly die—into mine. I cannot help it; as I draw near to you, you, in your turn, will draw near to others, and learn the rapture of that cruelty, which yet is love; so, for a while, seek to know no more of me and mine, but trust me with all your loving spirit...in these mysterious moods I did not like her. I experienced a strange tumultuous excitement that was pleasurable, ever and anon, mingled with a vague sense of fear and disgust. I had no distinct thoughts about her while such scenes lasted, but I was conscious of a love growing into adoration, and also of abhorrence. This I know is paradox, but I can make no other attempt to explain the feeling” (Carmilla ch. 4).

Especially through Laura's reaction she shows that her sexual identity is “troubled”. Another example comes from the same chapter:

“Sometimes after an hour of apathy, my strange and beautiful companion would take my hand and hold it with a fond pressure, renewed again and again; blushing softly, gazing in my face with languid and burning eyes, and breathing so fast that her dress rose and fell with the tumultuous respiration. It was like the ardour of a lover; it embarrassed me; it was hateful and yet over-powering; and with gloating eyes she drew me to her, and her hot lips travelled along my cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, “You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one for ever.” Then she has thrown herself back in her chair, with her small hands over her eyes, leaving me trembling” (Carmilla ch. 4).

Although Carmilla has these homoerotic undertones, I don't think that Le Fanu is being provocative in presenting them to merely draw attention to the topic but free the current society from sexual repression. I think more so he uses this as a way to comment and play with imposed gender roles. I will try to address modes of sexuality, and why identity is presented by Le Fanu to be “queered” or “troubled”.

Clearly, the most dominant and strongest character in the story is Carmilla. She seems to encompass many masculine and independent traits of strength that reflect the idea that women are not always subject and submissive to a patriarchy of male dominance. Also, there is a theme in the story that men are submissive and subject to the desirers of the female characters. Both Laura's father and the General find that they can not refuse the wishes of their daughter or niece and the request to house Carmilla. It is because of this that they make their family and girls vulnerable to the vampire. Another example of female dominance is what Laura says before first describing her dream, “My gouvernantes had just so much control over me as you might conjecture such sage persons would have in the case of a rather spoiled girl, whose only parent allowed her pretty nearly her own way in everything” (Carmilla ch.1 ) By having a female vampire, Le Fanu could be portraying his society's idea (or portrayal) of the negative consequences that would come if women were allowed to be more independent and more educated.

I haven't determined whether Le Fanu is portraying the idea of feminism in a positive or negative way. On one hand, by having the vampire as a female, he could be mocking his society's ideas of the harm that more independent and liberated women would bring. On the other, Carmilla is a villain and her (as well as Laura and the General's niece) power in imposing will over men can be seen as a negative portrayal of women's rights as well. Carmilla is also deceptive and manipulative in her independence. However, by making Carmilla a vampire, Le Fanu takes away her humanness. By doing this, he could also also be commenting that female empowerment and sexuality should not be seen as a threat or danger in real society. I could not come to a conclusion about Le Fanu's intentions.

I realize that explanations may unfold when further questioning what Carmilla might represent in a social, political, and economic sense in Ireland. The vampire being used as a metaphor in an Irish context also presents some interesting ideas. I would have liked to go on and expand this post but hopefully others will consider how Carmilla reflects The Irish Famine of 1845, Young Ireland and Irish Confederacy, and also the terrible civil rights that Roman Catholics had leading to the Catholic Emancipation and aftermath. I have a feeling Carmilla has something to do with the British sucking the life out of the Irish during the famine with its uncaring poor response to the crisis.

Some informative sites I found about these topics are:

www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/youngire.htm

www.victorianweb.org/history/emancipation2.html

www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/Irish/Irish_pf.html

Egenolf Article

After reading Egenolf's Maria Edgeworth in Blackface: Castle Rackrent and the Irish Rebellion of 1798, my understanding of Castle Rackrent and Edgeworth have dramatically increased. Part of me wishes I would have read this article before hand, but after considering for awhile it makes sense to read it after a first take reaction. Egenolf makes a very interesting and informative analysis of the themes and reasons for which Edgewrth wrote in relation to the time period and events that surrounded her. “and reading of the novel is incomplete without considering these surrounding events” (Egenolf p.851). I'm not sure if I agree with all Egenolf has to say, but I will admit that she provided very legitimate and intriguing representations of Edgeworth and the Anglo-Irish aristocracy of the time.

I think I was way off in much of my original interpretation of Castle Rackrent. At first I got the impression that Edgeworth was hinting at an opinion that the distribution of wealth should be radically changed and that she was completely opposed to the structuring of social classes in Ireland at the time.

I did not, however, know beforehand that Edgeworth herself was Anglo-Irish and that she was apart of the upper class. As Egenolf says,

“...presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland. The form of Castle Rackrent thus imitates the type of government the Edgeworths were advocating for the Irish—rational and fair Anglo-Irish land ownership which would benevolently guide the native peasants and commercially manage the land. Although the Edgeworths consistently supported education for all classes, Maria believed the lower classes should not partake in governing...” (Egenolf p. 851).

It seems that although Edgeworth is in favor of celebrating Irish identity, she does not want to be in danger of losing her position in society for various reasons. For one, she had good reason to be scared of an unorganized uprising of native Irish insurgents that could possibly become violent towards Anglo-Irish landowners (seeing them as being connected to Great Britain and thus need to be removed.) Egenolf gives examples of how her family (especially her father) was threatened in the article. Also, philosophically, thinking the lower class (mostly uneducated) should not govern is nothing new. Even in the United States, the Electoral College was created so “educated” people could be elected to vote for the common “uneducated” man. However, in Edgworth's case, it seems that she is concerned with redistribution for two reasons.

The first of these has to do with the paradox of who actually has claim to or the right to own the land in Ireland. As Egenolf says, “A central question of the novel becomes , Whose land is it and what right do they have to it? One glossary note warns of the cunning rhetorical maneuvers the Irish employ to obtain their landlords' property and the caution which must be exercised in yielding to even the smallest claim: 'Thady calls it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it often has been given to them' (Egenolf p.854). Because Irland is one of the English's oldest colonies it is impossible to actually say who has the original right or who has ties to the land there.

Edgeworth seems to be saying that the Anglo-Irish should stay in power and manage the land because no one can really say who has the right to the land. She also backs this up by saying that they are educated enough and are more capable of managing the wealth and power than the lower class. Her opinion of this is probably due to what she saw during the rebellion and reflects her fear of an angry, violent, and disorganized uprising of the Irish lower class could put Ireland in danger of a collapse of its infrastructure (or possible invasion of the French if they won independence).

The second concern with redistribution of wealth and class structure seems to come from a possibly selfish point of view. It seems that Edgeworth just didn't want to give up her power and place in the upper class. Even though her family inherited its land, (it being given to them because of British domination) she feels that she still has the right to continue passing it down to her family's children...because her class will always be more qualified (than the native, inferior lower class) to govern and manage land and wealth. Egenolf says,

“Edgeworth here pointedly summarizes the condition of Anglo-Irish landholders at the end of the eighteenth century. The land was theirs only by law, but they had been conditioned to believe that their claim was inherently just and that any move to redress this situation could dangerously upset the balance of power” (Egenolf p. 859).

This, however, is puzzling in to what extend Edgeworth's desire for the Anglo-Irish to keep there power in governing solely based on the argument that they are more educated and more just to govern. I can not tell wether Edgworth realizes that the class structure and law are based on British colonial discourse. Even if she did realize this, does she want to stay in power for selfish reasons? I will end with another quote from Egenolf that has to do with Edgeworths “blackface” use of the lower class Irish in the novel...and possibly promotes her desire for the Anglo-Irish to maintain possesion of land and government:

“Just as the political turmoil in Ireland arose of the native Irish, the most ominous signs of the turmoil in Castle Rackrent appear at those points where the narratives (Thady's and the Editor's) discuss property rights. Edgeworth recasts the physical threat of the native Irish in a linguistic light, for in reality, all that separates Anglo-Irish landlords from their tenants are special groups of words which form such documents as the Penal Laws...in a court of law emphasize the pervasiveness of language in controlling the possession of land” (Egenolf p.853).

What is interesting to consider is that even though the Edgeworth's promoted education for all classes, it seems they did not want the lower class to ever have an opportunity to govern themselves because of the violence that could be involved (directly threatening their family at the time) in a redistribution of wealth, power...and gaining full independence from Britain. It seems that the Edgeworths (especially Maria) wanted more equal representation with England and thought Ireland was too uncivilized to be independent ( largely wanting the status quo of heretical hierarchy not to change because their family was already in a position of power).

Is Edgeworth flexing her muscles with Castle Rackrent in order to reinforce the idea that the Anglo-Irish should keep their power and governing authority? And if so, is she doing it for selfish reasons knowing that the law and her “claim” to the land is a product of colonial dscourse?

Progressive Philosophy: Castle Rackrent

After refreshing my knowledge of the 1798 Irish rebellion and the 1801 Act of Union, Edgeworth's Castle Rackrent presented itself in a new light for myself.

Clearly, inspired by the French Revolution (and almost receiving military aid from France), the newly formed United States, and drastically new concepts and philosophies of economics (capitalism and a free market), the Irish (specifically the United Irishmen) led a rebellion against the English in oder to achieve separation from the British Empire. The rebellion was crushed by the English military and as a result of the aftermath, the British chose to lead Ireland into a false sense of better representation to subdue Irish separatists.

In 1801, as a result of the failed military effort to gain independence, The Irish parliament and British parliament passed the Act of Union. Much like Scotland had been included in the Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland had previously been excluded. Ireland, as a result of the Act of Union, became apart the United Kingdom. This did not grant the Irish independence or more favor with the British, in turn actually pushed Ireland even further under the hammer of being a British colony. Also on a side note, the Union Flag (the flag England uses to this day) was created.

Anyways, I read Castle Rackrent (1800) as a social commentary on many issues reflecting the time it was written. I think Edgeworth was commenting on numerous themes ranging from the idea of national identity, social class, economic structure, culture, gender, race...and many other topics. As Marilyn Bultler says in the introduction, Edgeworth's contribution to literature is “a remarkably intuitive, perceptive and far-reaching portrait of an unequal society” (p. 4) I think that even though Thady, and the editor reveal much through their perspective, Edgeworth's tone is predominately shown through her own voice:

“It is a problem of difficult solution to determine, whether an Union will hasten or retard the melioration of this country. The few gentlemen of education, who now reside in this country, will resort to England: but they are nothing inferior to men of the same rank in Great Britain. The best that can happen will be the introduction of British manufactures in their places. Did the Warwickshire militia, who were chiefly artisans, teach the Irish to drink beer? Or did they learn from the Irish to drink whiskey?” (p.122).

Although, this quote could be interpreted various ways in what she is saying, I got at least one centralized message from it. I feel that Edgeworth is commenting about the state of Ireland in general (it's conflict of identity, it being controlled through British colonial discourse, it's notion of class structure and heirarchies....ect.). She is commenting on the numerous external and internal problems the country is facing in its struggle to form a a national identity as well as its methods in dealing with the British in it's desire for independence. It also at the same time makes a statement that even though Ireland is under British rule (acting as a colony) it still has its own deserve set of discourses and culture that can never be considered controlled by or inferior to the British.

Edgeworth shows his through her writing through numerous ways. Although she uses English to write Castle Rackrent, she also incorporates Irish words (such as kilt, gasoon...ect.) and phrases as a form of empowerment over traditional ”correct” English and literary structures. Her use of dual linguistics as well as narrative structure sets her novel apart from other contemporary pieces at the time. She is not only making a giant step in showing that female written literature is just as legitimate, but that her writings being “Irish” (as a unique identity) are just as legitimate (if not original and more progressive than) are just as qualified (especially in writing about social realism) as any other literature of the time (or future). As Butler says,

“Indeed for modern readers, Edgeworth's worth handling of these these themes often has the advantage because it it fresh, odd, complex and skeptical. Ireland was more a colony than Scotland, and Edgeworth wrestles with the practical, political and ethnical consequences of her country's colonial status” (p. 3)

I would also like to address the question of whether Jason should be considered a villain or not. First off, I recognize that most of the story is told through Thady. \Thady's wisdom and philosophy are based on a preconceived “proper” construction of class, entitlement, duty and economics. He chooses to be loyal to whatever heir inhabits the Castle Rackernt estate (no matter how horribly they manage money or make very poor life decisions). His loyalty and fatherly compassion are admirable but also show that he considers himself to be born into a certain class and his role in society is to stay in that class and be the servant of a hierarchy based on heredity.

Ireland seems to be set up much like a traditional feudal system based from Britain. Wealth and land are only obtained through heredity and marriage. This hierarchical system could also be viewed as British colonial discourse in having Ireland mimic its own structure. Or even keep the Irish subjects through bribery and intermarriage promising land and wealth. This is reinforcing British dominance and keeping the Irish as a colony through forming and reinforcing their philosophy of class and economics.

Jason (other than all the heirs of the estate) acts responsibly and takes advantage of opportunities presented to him. Over time, his hard work and power accumulation allows him to buy the estate and literally move into an upper class. His father shuns him and thinks he is horrible for not staying loyal to his birth class and master (even though the heirs have squandered what they've had). Again, Thady is a product of an imposed class structure and feels obligated to stay a servant and loyal to the hierarchy(based on heredity). Jason could be viewed as a symbol of capitalism. The economic philosophy of a free market and the philosophy of a democratic government were radically new and different at the time. Like stated before, the Irish were inspired by the French Revolution and creation of the United States to rebel in 1798. Could Edgewod have been playing with a suggestion that Ireland's class structure, government, and economic philosophy (distribution of wealth) needed to dramatically change in order to more constructively fix its infrastructure and in order to gain or create an independent identity and nation? If so, she is contemplating an idea that is extremely different and certainly dramatically progressive. If Jason is meant to be viewed as breaking the that heretical wealth and power through hard work and opportunity, then I don't think he is to be seen as a villain.

Violence and the Constitution of the Novel

According to Lloyd, “For nationalist historiography, the violence of Irish history is symptomatic of the unrelenting struggle of an Irish people forming itself in sporadic but connected rising against British domination” (p.125) This statement made me think of not just the Irish resistance, but the resistance to colonial discourse throughout the entire British empire. Irish violence is only one example of how a racial stereotypes are constructed in order to discredit and suppress an indigenous people. British colonial discourse involves a relationship between power and knowledge. The ways people are conceived (knowledge) tend to fall within certain hierarchical formations (power). The British empire used the military force, education, language, culture (social practices) , and phenotypical grouping in order to make indigenous people (the colonized) fall into a colonial relationship.

The British used rules of inclusion and exclusion within the discourse of truth and morality based on the prior assumption that their culture was superior. This also shows a dualistic method of thinking (good/evil, civilized/primitive, teacher/pupil) which in other words is a system of positives and negatives. Often times when a colonizer invades and occupies a geographical region it forces a diverse number of peoples with many discourses to somehow merge to create a single identity. This the problem with this dualistic way of thinking is that it leaves no room for gray areas and diverse peoples.

During colonialism in Ireland, the British used not only military force and violence to suppress the indigenous people but also used education and religion (through missionaries) to impose the correct language (English) and enforce the idea that British culture (especially literature) was the superior example that must be practiced in order to be considered legitimate. This could explain why the Irish (the subaltern in the British empire) are stereotyped as violent. As Lloyd writes, “...from the perspective of dominate history, the subaltern must be represented as violence.” (p127) The Irish literary traditions (including oral tradition) were objectified by the British rule and associated with violent resistance in order to group the entire island of people as violent (and therefore must be ruled and taught the correct discourse). This marketed (to British citizens) the necessity to maintain authoritarian rule over the Irish and further increase racism and hatred towards them.

So this brings a question: If Irish literature is based on oral structure and other languages, such as Gaelic, are they assimilating into the British idea of what is correct in the use of English to create literature or create a unified history and identity when there previously was none (that is black and white)? First let's consider the previous idea that says through stereotyping the Irish and their literary structures as being violent and inferior supports and benefits the colonizer (British).

As Llyod says, ...that which can not be assimilated to the state can only be understood only as outside the law, disruptive and discontinuous, unavailable for narration; ...the history of the state requires a substrate which is counter to its laws of civility in which it represents as outrageous and violent, in order that the history of domination and criminalization appear as a legitimate process of civilization and the triumph of law.” (p.127)

Llyod is saying that subaltern or (colonized) have a dual history. One that is their own filled with authentic or original culture (although ranging in diversity throughout the occupied area) and one that is imposed or forced by the dominant occupier (colonizer). Llyod explains it, “on the one hand they play out own discrete and complex formations and traditions; on the other, occluded by their difference from dominant narratives and forms and by those forms themselves they are nonetheless 'intertwined with [the history] of civil society and thereby with the history of States and groups of Sates'” (p127)

This would seem to say that the group of people in Ireland have not assimilated into British culture through using the English language. They more so have maintained their own diverse culture and identity through the use of an imposed and enforced language. In doing this the binary oppositions created by Britain become deconstructed. The occupied (or colonized) people insist upon taking up the position of having a unique identity apart from what is being imposed upon them. They become the creator of their own knowledge about their own culture (no matter how diverse) rather than act as a subject to authoritarian imposed culture (that considers itself superior). Even though this happens, the colonizer (Britain) will see this alteration of “correct” English and market or define it as inferior...thus connecting it violence. In doing this is stereotypes the Irish people as naturally being violent and justifies the occupation and rule. As if to say that those people need superior British rule and culture to function as a society.