Reply to comment

There were a lot of very particular points and questions brought up in Tuesday’s class, but I will do my best to make some generalizations. The theme that I noticed both verbally and nonverbally was about connection and disconnection. What can we make a connection to, and what should we be allowed to make a connection to? For instance our discussion about cultural property. Should someone of another culture be able to engage in a different culture’s art or expression style. It was mentioned that if you create something you should maintain ownership. However, Someone else suggested that it might be counterproductive to keep cultures from blending, mixing, or overlapping. In fact, keeping them separate could just intensify the divide.

There was also a good deal of talk and silence regarding both Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the readings given by Baldwin and Tompkins. We really seemed to be having trouble making a connection to this book. Several explanations were thrown around. We’re not sure how to handle the paradox of the work. Stowe is so clearly against slavery, but engages in language a stereotypes that we recognize a racist. Is it her attempt at accuracy, humor, biogtry… are we being to hard on her? Is it possible that we are put off by her strong use of authoritative voice telling us how to feel? Can anyone black, white, green, orange, really understand slavery and it’s horrors from such a distance as time creates? Is this book useless without specific context? One of us said this book was like a horrible fairytale.

That made me think, and for a moment I’m going to hop out of summary mode, but I promise I’ll bring it back. My first encounter with Uncle Tom’s cabin came from The King and I. Tuptim, a concubine, puts on The Small House of Uncle Thomas for the King of Siam. Her version follows Eliza’s escape to freedom. In the simplification of the tale, we see two things. One a parallel is drawn between Eliza and Tuptim as women who wish to escape from male oppressors, and two, the piece becomes more apparently archetypical, and less apparently stereotypical…told you I’d bring it back.

Our discussion about stereotype and archetype seemed to allow many of us the ability to make a connection to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The idea was that stereotypes are reductive, making an entire group represented by one model, while an archetype enlarges a particular being to be included in a concept or idealized model. It was first suggested that these terms are both two sides of the same coin. However, the suggestion of Tom as a type of Christ seemed at least as equally compelling. Is it possible that we have been trained so diligently to watch for stereotype that we no longer can read archetypically? Is it because we link books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin so strongly with stereotype that we are in fact primed to see it? Can you read it archetypically? I think by looking at a fairytale version of at least part of the piece, where we are primed to think archetypically, it is shown that this book has the capacity to be interpreted as such. Are our varying reactions and connections (or lack of them) arising from questions of genre?