Week 5--Politics and Undecidability

First of all, I just wanted to say thank you to Gail for sharing your sculptures with us -- they're wonderful! I think it's interesting to see a visual representation of how ideas can change and grow over the course of just a month. I'm really glad you took the risk of showing us. :)

Now, in reference to Brooks' poem (and Johnson's article)... well, my post got kinda long again, so I went ahead and put it in my blog. You can click on that link to see it!

After going through all the posts thus far, one thing seems clear: we're resistant to the politicalization of Brooks' "The Mother." So why do we do it at all? Several people mentioned in class how they couldn't help but try to figure out if the poem was pro-life or pro-choice while simultaneously reading and enjoying the poem for its aesthetic value. Realizing that abortion is often immediately associated with its political connotations, I wonder if the politicalization of works of art is not what my one huge disconnect with feminism is. It seems to happen a lot. I wish we could talk about women in relation to the world simply because we're not men and have different viewpoints to offer. Instead it always turns into a fight against a history of oppression, or women's role in society, or something else political. It feels like falling into a trap every time that happens.

But, on a less frustrating note: I have to admit that I love what the alums are saying. It's incredibly refreshing to learn viewpoints from women who have been through Bryn Mawr and can give advice from beyond the classroom. Barbara '57 - thank you so much for saying that we're really not just the sum of everything we've learned. Also, Gail I thought your post was beautiful. I loved Cixous' essay and think you portrayed your thoughts on it very beautifully.

I want to start of by saying that I really enjoyed Johnson’s article. It was a departure from the homework I’ve been doing lately, to delve into the basis of an article, it’s language, in order to figure out some sort of meaning. However, I would’ve liked it if she expanded it to subjects besides poem, to straight forward political speech.

But moving on to Johnson’s quote “There is politics precisely because there is undecidability”. I’m having problems with this because I’m having trouble defining what “politics” is. Yes, I’m a political science minor and I read the newspaper and all that good stuff, so I guess I should know. The definition that’s coming to mind is the regulation of moral, social and economic issues. So with this is definition, I’m going to say that Johnson’s quote makes complete sense. Uncertainty, or “undecidability”, in masses creates a need for some hierarchal power to create certainty. The unfortunate reality is a lot of politics is based on what’s already been decided. Which is where I think Moharty’s argument would come in. I think Moharty reinforces a point that is brought is several times in Pratt’s essay; that things are not linear but constantly evolving and going back and forth between perspectives and dimensions. So, thought there is undecidability, politics is not a remedy for it.

Regarding the idea the politicizing the poem is to “misinterpret her[The Mother’s] goal” is to go back to one of the class’s first questions on how do we interpret literature; from our perspective or the author’s.

PS. Gail your sculpture is magnificent.

I want to add my agreement with the last two posts on the issue of politics/literature and the possible loss of pleasure experienced in their intersection.  I have a passionate love of literature and a strong distaste for politics.  I often wonder whether I really belong in this course...or at Bryn Mawr for that matter.  But hey, I'm a senior so it's a little late for that question.

I must say that I feel a little guilty about the way I expressed myself in class the other day.  I think my expression of "love" and wonder for the way Brooks titles her poem and the way in which she may be playing with ideas of life/death/being/loss in the piece comes from a purely literary place.  I get excited by beauty, ambiguity, sincerity and I don't always censor my immediate excitement over things.  Perhaps a better way to frame my statements would have been with literary language, ie: "I think the way Brooks titles her poem is a brilliant writing choice because it brings the ambiguity of the piece right to the forefront, opens up lots of interesting questions, etc."  I don't know.

The discourse in class about the use of certain kinds of language (my language even) to justify anti-choice stances is really something I never even considered.  I was pretty much floored by this idea.  And I'm glad that I was forced to consider it, forced to see that even though I might know how I feel about abortion issues and have no desire to hinder the pro-choice enterprise, language is really powerful and caution is very necessary. 

But seriously, I just think "The Mother" is a beautiful piece of art.  And in a political climate that is so divisive and, in my opinion, often disheartening because of that, I like the idea of the artistic world being a place where people can at least have something in common. A place to recognize our shared humanity.

Why do we have to think in such black and white terms? What about the grey area? Does she have to be pro-choice or “pro-life”? Could it just be simply a poem that expresses her emotions about abortion without the goal to make a political statement? I agree with Alex, it is sad that politics can take pleasure away from someone else’s writing.

 Barbara Johnson may have composed this poem with the intention to keep it vague and ambiguous so as to prevent the very way our class discussion headed toward politicizing “The Mother.”  

I read this poem empathetically. I want to understand the emotions of the individual writing aside from any beliefs I may have about abortion. What struck out to me is the array of emotions and the conflicting and racing thoughts that the woman expresses through the poem. Maybe the poem is a way for the mother to explore her confusions and come to terms with the abortions she has had if in fact she had an abortion. To enter the territory of exploring what the poet may have implied is reasonable, but as Lydia mentioned, assuming that the end is an apology without regard to other possibilities IS to put words into the poet’s mouth.

“The Mother” appreciates the limitless range of emotions that may occur after an abortion whether it is grief, sadness, nostalgia, relief or a mixture of any or all of them. The poem regardless of its possible political interpretations allows the reader to take a look into a very personal decision and in some ways may validate the realness of the feelings that can rise to the surface with such a decision. Regardless of an individual’s political perspective on abortion, no one can disagree or accuse another individual’s emotions as incorrect.

I feel the most interesting part of today's discussion began when we were faced with Johnson's claim that "There is politics precisely because there is undecidability."

Firstly, I found it strange that so many of my classmates seemed to believe that literary analysis and politics differed from each other. The idea that the interpretation of the law is any more or less subjective than the interpretation of a poem completely boggles my mind, especially since we seemed to be citing Roe v. Wade as an example. If Roe v. Wade isn't an example of creating interpretations of the law with little to no textual support, I'm sure I can't think of one.

Secondly, while I was not a big fan of the Johnson reading overall (though I feel it was for different reasons than the majority of my classmates), this was one statement I could actually agree with. Perhaps this is because it immediately reminded me of Judith Butler, who, in light of the responses to my web paper, I should admit has already been a heavy influence on the way I think and identify. The idea of politics as reliant on an undecidability seems to me to be easily compared to the politics of identity and the problem with the instability of identity categories, especially those based on notions of "sex", "gender", or "sexuality".

Thirdly, I would like to pose a question (or a string of questions) in response to the debate over this statement. Much of the debate seemed to center around the idea that law was clear and decided. However, law is the written word, and, like all words, it requires constant defining and redefining based on a number of different factors. Is there anything problematic about this perpetual redefinition? Do words, and, therefore, strings of words, or "phrases", need to have definitions which are "decided"? Why does a lack of stability in definition, and thus, in legal interpretation, make people so uncomfortable?

Risk and your generous feminism.

Good Morning. I cannot tell you how I appreciated your allowing alums to listen to your class. The most appropriate way I can thank you for your gift is taking public risk in response. I did not know how to post images, so this may be "last week". Regardless…

Here is an image so you can eyeball me.

Before our reading an listening to your class, here was my view of teacher/education. It is very positive- reaching for the future- but… definitely one sided. I love the form, but it is a traditional model of teacher/student.

During my readings provided, your current papers and especially listening to your class discussion, I needed to risk and share with you in my metal voice.

I created a much more complex idea of leadership, feminism and education- like we have been exploring

Who is the “teacher”? She can switch. She leads from among as Anne does in this course.

Some of you were discussing trepidation. The left woman is stumbling with head bowed in fear or sadness, but…

We cannot let go!. All women are joined ( hold hands) .

The sculpture ( and we ) are one piece.

The center woman is attending to our fears while the third strides off in her own direction

But…

We are all one. We cannot let go. It is physically impossible.

This started out to be a sculpture of this class with undergrads, teacher, and alums ( one woman has droopier boobs) but….

It became ….

My Cixous unconscious.

All the figures are nude. We start with our bodies.

All are vulnerable. I am in turn each woman.

I cannot let go.

Thank you, again, for your generous feminism which gave me the courage to risk.

Gail

www.chavenellestudio.com

A special thanks to Ann Dixon for her help in this posting.