Wilson's Heroism

Elizabeth Wilson’s The Invisible Flaneur struck me in a lot of ways, but I was most intrigued by the idea that the flaneur, and the “embodiment of the ‘male gaze,’” is an act not of possession or annihilation of the object, but an act that renders the subject invisible (I am on board with the idea that a woman can occupy the space of a flaneur, although I’m not yet prepared to articulate a clear argument for that one yet). Wilson writes that while a common interpretation of the flaneur is built around the idea that the flaneur’s gaze is masterful, rapacious, and possessing, “Voyeurism and commodification lead to the attenuation and deferral of satisfaction” (108). The labyrinth of the city and the city that never provides a complete narrative or interaction produces an experience similar to the experience represented by Edgar Allen Poe’s A Man of the Crowd (I also really enjoyed, and have enjoyed, how all of these readings have been interacting with one another. It almost feels like they themselves exist in an urban space…too much?). In A Man of the Crowd, the flaneur “is never alone; and, when singled out, he vanishes” (109). Wilson then goes on to say “he floats with no material base, living on his wits, and lacking the patriarchal discourse that assured him of meaning, is compelled to invent a new one.” For Wilson, this wandering existence is destructive and that the only way to survive the “disorienting space” of the labyrinth is to create meaning and beauty amongst the masses—“it lies in the ability to discern among the massed ranks of anonymity the outline of forms of beauty and individuality appropriate to urban life. The act of creating meaning, seemingly so arbitrary becomes heroic in itself” (11). This is the moment where I parted a bit with Wilson. I don’t mean that I necessarily disagree with this premise, but more that I’m confused with this somewhat hopeful suggestion. I really appreciated Wilson’s persuasive argument that the masculine gaze embodied by the figure of the flaneur is in fact destroyed by his own anonymity and the instability and invisibility that the city creates. I was also drawn to Wilson’s use of Poe’s Man of the Crowd to support the idea that the flaneur is a figure who vanishes outside of the crowd, but this moment when Wilson suggests that the heroism for both sexes lies in the ability to create meaning within urban life does not sit well with me—mainly because I do not know what that would like after having read this article. Wilson also does not pursue this idea much further and conveniently does not provide an answer for me *sigh.* I guess what I’m wondering is, have we seen instances in other texts (or even a moment in Wilson’s text that I am overlooking), that provides insight into this notion? What would this creation of meaning look like? It’s obviously not through painting…joke of course, but maybe not really?