Sister Carrie and Echos of the Past

I have to say I really enjoyed the excerpts from Dreiser's Sister Carrie, and I have to say that I would have liked to read it if we had more time! (As a side note I found a free electronic copy so I know what I'll be doing during the break). Anyway, back to the book. It is interesting to see so many of the conventions of "city" novels being used in an American context. We are presented with the usual coming of age tale right off the bat. I always enjoy experiencing the first impression of a big city through the eyes of a character, it allows us to see what we often take for granted. Her train ride exposes her to so many sights and emotions, feelings that I am reminded of when I rode the Metro into CSULA for the first time. I guess that is what is enchanting about coming of age novels, they are able to refresh what has become common everyday practices for us. Anyway, we see Carrie's fear of the city, it's overwhelming nature that is simultaneously frightening and intoxicating. Sister Carrie reminded me so much of the Romantic plot found in Mary Barton. We are presented with a young girl that is enticed by the luxuries that a smooth talking young man can offer. Drouet IS young Mr. Carson, down to the casual attitude toward young women and his flaunting of money. Of course we cannot have a young Mr. Carson without the fatherly captain of industry, Mr. Hurstwood (Carson Sr.) These men are driven by fine things and appearances, and Chapter 5 reveals to us that they are all part of a hierarchy that they are all aware of. Each man has his place within society, and are careful to remain within their boundaries. We also see the factory girls presented as uncivilized and rough. It is interesting that Carrie makes so much fuss about their inappropriate behavior around the men in the factory, yet she is the one that crosses all the boundaries that are in place for a respectable young girl. Just like Mary Barton, Carrie is obsessed with material objects that lead her down a path of impropriety. However, unlike Mary who wanted to help make a better life for her father, Carrie is motivated only by her materialism. The moment Carrie enters the city she seems to lose her morals, and is willing to sell herself out for a nice coat and new shoes. Mary is also the flanuer, and just as we have seen, she is at one point questioned as a woman of the night. It seems like almost everything we have read up to this point in all found in this novel. Even the streets, though not as crowed as London, still have that feeling of being difficult to navigate, and while Dreiser makes mention of the room that is found in the city of Chicago we are presented with the cramped workshops. When Carrie enters into the workshop that is filled with boxes, and is cramped and dark, I was taken back to the London cities and factories of novels past. I found myself wondering if I was meant to like Carrie and feel sorry for her, or if I am supposed to condemn her actions and see this as a cautionary tale. As I was reading I found my self basically yelling at her for falling for Drouet's promises, I have seen this too many times to know that this cannot end well in the timeframe it was written. Anyway, it is difficult to say much more without reading more of the novel, but I will state again that this novel seems to encompass everything that we have read about in the past 11 weeks and is a shame we did not have time enough for it!

Let's Get it Together, Ladies

Reading Walkowitz’s essay “City of Dreadful Delight,” which paired quite nicely with last week’s Wilson reading, brought to mind the Lacanian theory of the “other” and its connection to the eroticizing of low culture. Walkowitz quotes critics Stallybrass and White, who offer a culturally symbolic explanation for the “low-other” fetish:

“The top attempts to reject and eliminate the bottom for reasons of prestige and status, only to discover not only that it is in some way frequently dependent on the low-other, but also that the top includes that low symbolically as a primary eroticized constituent of its own fantasy life. The result is a mobile, conflictual fusion of power, fear and desire in the construction of subjectivity.”

This image of subject, feared and desired, is so relevant, as it applies to any sort of prejudice that we as observers connect to the unfamiliar. In more conspicuous instances, the thought of race and race relations applies. America has had a history (and some may argue that is still exists today) of eroticizing the non-white subject, particularly women of African, Asian, or Hispanic descent, and fetishizing them only for their physical unfamiliarity. They not only pose a potential political threat, but they also become symbols of sexualized idolatry. Walkowitz applies this theory to the Victorian prostitute, noting the binary between “domesticated feminine virtue” and the “public symbol of female vice,” a culturally reinforced separation.

The fact that bourgeois men and women became so invested in the investigation of prostitution implies its fetish, the feverish need to know and consume the subjects in question. Certainly this implication also highlights the Victorian habit of sexual repression, and it seems to subjugate all working women as degenerate, lowly others, threats to moral society. Of course, with fluctuations and fragmentations of the “readable” city comes the changing of idealized thinking (a throwback to Wilson’s “Invisible Flaneur”), and multitudes of marginalized personalities begin to inhabit the space between the morally good and despicably bad. Despite the changing politics though, women still get the short end of the stick.

Female identity remains a generalized idea. Even though we’ve moved centuries away from being compared to societal plagues, that underlying notion of subjectivity continues to permeate cultural thinking. It’s a shame too, because it even exists within female circles – we shame each other for sexual expression, body image, etc., yet we simultaneously disapprove of those going against idealistic forms of female beauty and self-expression. This is a huge roadblock for society in general. I ask, why have we moved forward in so many ways for equal rights, when we continue to adhere to archaic forms of Lacanian thinking? Can we ever get over ourselves, girls?

The Wandering Woman

     Wilson's claim that the prostitute acted as the "flaneuses' of the nineteenth-century city" (105) reminded me of the women we have read about, specifically Gaskell's Esther and Dickens' Lady Dedlock. Both women wander the streets in search of something, most notably knowledge. Even more interesting is the fact that these women are able to actively take the roles of observers, which was a role that I had previously associated with males. Despite the new found power to observe, the female flaneur also ends up constricted to the role of the fallen woman. I think the choice to have the wandering woman be embodied in the outcasted prostitute or fallen woman comes from the male anxiety of the growing presence of women in the city. With the growth of the metropolis came more opportunities for women, and although Wilson points out that they often were not extremely successful, women were still given more opportunities than what was available in the country. Women, whether they were prostitutes, proletariates, or bourgeois were finding themselves walking the same streets that their counterpart men were. They were no longer the observed, but were able to observe as well. More importantly we see this observation directed at men, both Aunt Esther and Lady Dedlock are able to gain knowledge of male activities through their ability to move through the streets. I think it was important for society to describe these actions as performed by social outcasts to continue the ideologies that were prescribed to women. Observation was a power, but one that should be left to men only, or if in the hands of women should only be done to observe other women, which would imply that they would be doing so in the domestic sphere (at least this is what I think it would entail). By venturing out of the domestic sphere the women may be gaining slight independence but at what cost. Becoming a social pariah was the obvious outcome for the wandering woman. Power through observation meant disgrace. Wilson poses that prostitution becomes a metaphor for commodification, which works, but leaves all agency to men. I think this theory is just furthering a male-centric ideology that has dominated society, as well as literature, and takes the glory away from the woman who has the ability to move through society like her male counterparts. I think Lady Dedlock deserves a bit more recognition for her fluidity in her society, but unfortunately she is bogged down by social constructs, and somehow loses credibility because of her status as a fallen woman (which I disagree with, I think she rises above the men in her society). Male anxieties work to discredit any woman that had the audacity to move in the streets, but I think if we step away from the constructs we are able to see that these women are the ultimate symbols of knowledge and power, which was the desired outcome of observation.

Observation: The Good, The Bad, and the Bleak

    While reading Foucault I found myself questioning the validity of the argument that observation leads to discipline. In the case of contagion I find this theory valid. In visiting any ICU we are presented with the Panoptic, it allows both constant observation, but also helps prevent the spread of communicable disease. This model is less important for the restriction of the patients, but rather for a form of protection for them. As we see in Bleak House,  the spread of disease was extremely dangerous to society. Jo spreads whatever he has caught, presumably from Tom-All-Alone's, to Esther and Charley with drastic consequences for Esther. I find myself wondering however, is the real concern less about stopping the spread of disease from the poor and more about keeping it away from the upper class? While it's not specifically said, I feel that this is one concern that we are confronted with, and is why we see such a hesitancy from the upper class to associate with the poor such as Jo. I believe that Lady Dedlock's adverse reaction to touching Jo is both about her disgust of him as part of a lower society, but also a fear of what kind of illness comes along with his station in life.
   When it comes to the panoptic acting as a form of authoritative power I can only say that it is not as effective as Foucault makes it seem. Claiming that "A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation" is only partially true. This fictitious authority is only effective if the ones who are being watched or observed give it the power of authority. While it may be true that the idea of constant observation may work to quell certain actions of the observed, if those being watched no longer fear the watcher there is nothing that will stop them from their perverse or unacceptable actions. We see with Ms. Flite that she is aware of constant observation in the Court of Chancery, but she still acts irrationally because she no longer fears who or what is watching her. I believe what we see in Bleak House is actually and adverse reaction to all this observation. Foucault would say that society could effectively police itself through observation, but in the novel what we see is an immense amount of secrecy that is corruptive to all of the characters. Each character has their own secrets that they work to keep disclosed from each other, further intensifying the observations of one another. This paranoia springs from their own distrust that comes from over-observation. The power that is gained through observation is what destroys the humanity of the characters, they become consumed with a desire to know more, and yet the harder they look the more distorted the image is. The desire to see inside of a person or society makes it impossible for them to see the reality, they are looking so hard but cannot see what is in front of them.

Benjamin's Grandville

        There is so much to look at Benjamin's writing, so I decided to focus on the chapter that jumped out at me. Chapter III, "Grandville, or the World Exhibitions" brings forth the subject of commodity, commercialism, consumption, entertainment, modernity, and just about anything that would be cause for anxiety for that matter! We are presented with the World Exhibitions as a type of entertainment for the working class, a festival that allows them to entertain themselves as well as also be consumers for a moment, but what is interesting is whatBenjamin says regarding the exhibitions, " World exhibitions glorify the exchange value of the commodity.They create a framework in which its use value recedes into the background" (7). It seems to me that what he is saying that these exhibitions do not necessarily offer quality goods, or essential goods, but instead are used to inspire consumption. They excite people into becoming consumers of unnecessary products just for the sake of entertainment.
       What also caught my eye was the opening sentence, "World exhibitions are places of pilgrimage to the commodity fetish" (7). Benjamin immediately comes out swinging, there is no doubt that he is not a fan of such exhibitions. The use of the word fetish immediately jumps out, it has such strong sexual connotations. I would go on to say that it implies almost a type of sexual deviance. The sexualized language continues as he goes on to say "World exhibitions propagate the universe of commodities" (8). We get a sense that this propagation is a consensual act, that with the consumer there is an offspring that will come for from the coupling of these exhibitions and the commodity. These commodities are represented in Fashion, at least that where I think he goes with it- which would make sense because fashion is a driving force of consumerism. The idea of Fashion in opposition to the organic, and through the "coupling" of fashion and the "living body", we are left with unnatural state of being. We lose our human-ness through this obsession with the commodity, it is not natural to raise the value of items unrealistically. I don't know if I made sense of this, but I think Benjamin is trying to reveal an unnatural relationship that his become all consuming, and will spread throughout society if it is allowed to continue reproducing itself.

Carlyle and Mammonism

   My reading of Carlyle left me with a sense that he was a bit of an elitist (hopefully I am right in this assumption because my understanding of his writing is based upon this idea). He seems to say that the reason Laissez-Faire will not work for Europe is not the fact that a "Let it be" government is not effective, but rather because the lower class is incapable of functioning and surviving without the help of the government. Carlyle claims that there is a type of reliance between the Lower Class and the Upper Class, that the "captain" and "soldier" relationship creates a working kinship between the two classes. While I agree that there should be some sort of relationship or bond between the two classes, I do not think that the hierarchy that he describes was what was needed. As seen in Gaskell's novel, there was a lack of sympathy for the suffering of the lower class. This separation, the "captain" "soldier" relationship, is exactly what takes away from the human suffering that the working class was experiencing. Carlyle points out that a benefit to the more "hands on" type of government allowed for the Poor Law to be passed, but as we have seen in Engels, it was not meant to better the situation of the poor, rather to just keep them alive long enough to continue working.
   It is interesting that Carlyle sites Mammonism as a part of the downfall of Industry because that seems like an honest and true account of what was going on. However, he compares this Mammonism to the vulgarity of the "Chactaw", and then links the image of the Chactaw to that of the lower class. Instead of realizing that the greed of the upper class is what was destroying the working class Carlyle says it is the greed of the lower class that is their downfall. He says that these men are capable of moving up in society, and from that hope comes their Mammonism. As proof of otherwise though we see in Gaskell and Engles that this time of upward mobility was highly unlikely, if not impossible. The reality was that the dream of success in the city led to an endless cycle of work and starvation that few were ever able to escape from.
      While I think that Carlyle hits a a few key points, he is unable to see the true situation because he is too far removed from it. He is an elitist that is not forced to work to survive, he has no idea how hard Industrial living really was. Gaskell and Engels have shown some of the hard, disgusting, and heartbreaking realities that the working class was forced to endure. What I can say is that the last thing they would have needed was a "captain" to give them orders and purpose, and instead could have just used the kindness of the upperclass to help feed their empty bellies.

Different visions of Urbanization between Vaughn and Engels

     The difference in opinion about the effect of urbanization upon the proletariat between Vaughn and Engels is striking to say the least. In Vaughn's account we are faced with what sounds more like a Utopia, where science and literature flourish,  the intelligence of the common man is growing, and there is little to no crime because morality reigns supreme. This overly optimistic view of Vaughn's Great Cities can hardly be taken as an accurate account of the conditions of the working class. His claim that intelligence is enhance through the interactions of the working class and the upper class is totally false. Engels points out that factory owners hardly, if ever, had to walk through the filthy conditions of the cities. In fact, the working class is so far removed from the upper class that it is likely that they were truly unaware of the true conditions that their workers had to live in. The living conditions of the poor are compared to that of "pig-sty's" by Engels.
    The competition that existed between workers as well as the market are the cause for such horrific living conditions. Engels points out that in such an unpredictable market, the stability needed to create security was not possible. There were far more workers than there was work, and as a result the owners were able to pay wages that were hardly enough to feed families. This lack of compassion was purely money driven. Vaughn tries to claim that the moral standards are of the upmost when Great Cities are allowed to thrive, but what we are presented with in Engels' writing is a picture of heartless, capitalistic, and subhuman factory owners. While men, women, and children slowly starved to death in the streets that are filled with their own waste, the upper society was not even required to walk through those realities.
    Vaughn's claim that "If large towns may be regarded as giving shelter and maturity to some of the worst forms of depravity, it must not be forgotten that to such towns, almost entirely, society is indebted for that higher tone of moral feeling by which vice is in so great a measure discountenanced, and for those voluntary combinations of the virtuous in the cause of purity, humanity, and general improvement, which hold so conspicuous a place in our social history". (56-7) The reality being, according to Engels, is though there are charitable people and places that are willing to help the impoverished, they could help only 1% of the homeless and starving. There was not an equal moral reaction to the depravities found in the city, not even enough to be considered an drop in the bucket. While it would be nice to think that Vaughn's presentation could represent the conditions of the working class, we are forced to see the reality from Engels' brutal accounts of the Great Cities.

Carlyle's "Signs of the Times"

    Carlyle's "Signs of the Times" cleverly presents the reader with a criticism of the social changes that are occurring during his time. He addresses the falling away from religion, and "Mechanism" is what  takes it's place. Carlyle's fear is that the "Machine" is taking humanity away from the souls of men. "The Age of Machinery" is not just a physical replacement of men by machines, but is a spiritual replacement. Carlyle claims that men are losing their faith in place of the "Machine", "Not the external and physical alone is now managed by machinery, but the internal and spiritual also". What we see is a fear for the soul of man at a time when Capitalism and Industrialism was gaining strength. Even the Church is forced to mechanize in order to remain relevant in a booming society. No longer is the individual important, he must side with a group in order to be heard, become part of something larger than himself. Man no longer has a voice of his own, and as a result he his swallowed and then lost by society.
    The loss of faith in religion feeds the "Machine" that Carlyle is warning about, "This is not a Religious age. Only the material, the immediately practical, not the divine and spiritual, is important to us".  Religion has lost it's grip on the souls of men, leaving them empty and in search of something to fill the void. What we see is an attempt to fill the emptiness with the material, which brings us back to Capitalism. Men seek material objects, which fuels production and furthers Industrialization. Man is inadvertently creating their own demise, they are discarding their own value and individuality.This endless cycle creates the "Machine" that Carlyle is criticizing.
     What I find towards the end of Carlyle's "Signs of Times" however, is that there seems to be hope for mankind yet, "The time is sick and out of joint. Many things have reached their height; and it is a wise adage that ells us, 'the darkest hour is nearest the dawn'".  Even Carlyle can understand that things are ever changing, and even "The Age of the Machine" will come to an end. I like that Carlyle ends his article with a call for change. He is not just trying to criticize, or inspire fear about the souls of mankind, but challenges his readers to take a stand against the "Machine". It is a reminder that a machine cannot work without all of it's parts.