Kaplan ideas of rewriting desire

A  year ago I took a course that was based upon who has the “right” to share their story, and who has the “right” to have their voice be heard. These two questions often arise when I read books, and even when I write on my own, but more so in a probing manner like who is going to be interested in this/my story and why, versus someone’s “right” of voice. In thinking about Carla Kaplan’s opening question on page 138, “Why does Hurston begin her novel with a woman awakening to her sexuality?” those two questions began to fester in the back of my mind. Every person has the “right" to share their own story, and everyone should have a chance to be heard, but in the literary world not everyone is granted equal opportunity to tell their narrative, especially in the realm of male versus female, and white versus other nationality narratives.

Hurston delves into her novel with a risqué approach right from the beginning - she is addressing feminine sexuality, and specifically that of a black woman’s journey within her sexuality. She is hitting two categories, that of the woman, and that of being black, that are not widely explored and especially together in the written world. As a modern day reader I had no problem jumping into the reading, but thinking about when this book was published in 1937, I’m sure not nearly as many people respected, analyzed, or were open to discussion about the book as we are today.  On page 139 Kaplan questions “rewriting desire itself as the desire to tell ones story” and also “Why does she foreground female sexuality only to represent “the oldest human longing” as the longing to talk?”

I connect these questions with the overall idea of wanting of intimacy with someone else. This theme is threaded throughout the book through relationships (in any capacity) with the opposite sex, with the same sex, family, friends, lovers, and also a relationship with the reader. Breaking down the complexities of gender, ethnicity, and other identities, all humans have a basic want and need for human connect, and intimacy whether it is in the form of physical touch or of verbal communication.  Adding identities further challenge and push the reader, to think outside of their comfort zone. In terms of sexual interaction and verbal interaction I think that this novel captures the development of both, and shows how intimacy in the most basic forms can be simple yet so complex. 

Kaplan: Erotic Conversation

Their Eyes Were Watching God is often passed as a piece of romantic fiction that relies heavily on societal gender roles. In its simplest parts, Kaplan argues that it is in fact a story of “a young woman in search of an orgasm.”  The story, in her words, explores a side of the black female sexuality that was not the mammy or the jezebel.  Janie was allowed the luxury of complication; that is to say that her story was that of finding a place of sexual inclusion and expression.  Her dream was be to be fulfilled in all aspects of love and life and most importantly, voice.

            During my first reading of the text, my viewpoints and stances were heavily influenced by my idea of feminism.  Feminism means, to me, a complete eradication of the gendered roles that constrict and restrict female advancement in social, political, and economical realms.  So when I read that Janie was silenced by her husband, Jody or not allowed to converse with her fellow citizens of Eatonville, it seemed obvious that Janie was slowly losing a voice that she had, arguably, never claimed.  She seemed to be a physical representation what the black feminist movement fought for. She is a black woman that, through her own autonomy, is actively seeking sexual and emotional satisfaction but stifled in the process. However, a closer look at the text, per Kaplan’s argument, offers a different interpretation. 

            Instead, Janie’s dream is expressed by the very telling of her story in the first place.  According to Kaplan, the nature of her speech is, in itself, erotic.  It calls of for a reciprocity of language that can only be likened to the nature of sex---a give and take. So, as Kaplan states, Janie’s experience under the pear tree is not born out of a need for sex or marriage but rather is a “revelation” that fully encompasses the spirit of conversation.  Their Eyes is about more than voice; it is also about the decisions Janie as the person telling her story is able to make in relation to how her story is told, to whom, and with what magnitude of “undertell.”  She makes the choice to tell her friend, Phoeby, instead of the nosy townspeople. She also makes the choice to paint dissimilar pictures of the abuse she experiences at the hands of her husbands. A better interpretation: Janie is not looking for the gift of speech, she is looking for the level playing field that constitutes an equal relationship.  There is a palpable link between Janie's search and the modern agendas of black feminism.

A comparison of duCille and Kaplan

Both duCille and Kaplan investigate the subtext behind Janie and Tea Cake’s relationship in their readings of the text. duCille writes that “Their Eyes Were Watching God is severely and profoundly critical not necessarily of heterosexual relationships in and of themselves but of the power imbalances” that are created in a patriarchal society (duCille 120). She writes that although it appears surprising, given that Tea Cake is the one Janie loves, Tea Cake’s death is a narrative necessity because Hurston aims to liberate Janie from “an overarching system of patriarchal domination” (duCille 120), which sees her end the novel without any of her three husbands. duCille argues that love of self can liberate black women from the bonds of love, but at the end, although the male oppressors are eliminated, “but female subjectivity does not win out over patriarchal ideology” (duCille 121). duCille does not necessarily agree with Willis’ focus on sisterhood as the unifying element of the novel, but instead focuses on the fact that women’s self realization is stifled.

Kaplan also focuses on Tea Cake and Janie’s relationship. Kaplan notes that marriage doesn’t quite work out for Janie’s first two husbands, but instead of focusing on Hurston attacking a patriarchal system, as does duCille, Kaplan writes that “Janie’s first two husbands are punished for being bad listeners” (Kaplan 153). Kaplan also notes the novel’s “revenge on Tea Cake,” but instead of the death serving as a way to finally liberate Janie from a system of patriarchy, for Kaplan the death is a form of punishment for attempting to speak for Janie, and an inability or refusal to listen (Kaplan 154). According to Kaplan, Tea Cake’s death is liberating for Janie, not because it frees her to be her own subject, instead of an object, but because it liberates her “to continue her quest, and ultimately, to satisfy her ‘oldest human longing – self revelation’ with someone who can listen" (Kaplan 154).

The difference between the duCille and Kaplan interpretation of the relationship seems to center around the importance of self-realization for duCille, and self-revelation for Kaplan. duCille highlights Janie’s struggles for self-realization and being the subject of her own story in a patriarchal society. Kaplan’s reading of the novel is focused on Janie’s quest for the perfect listener, and being able to tell her story to someone who can understand it. The ways these two readings of the text intertwine is especially interesting. Both the search for self-realization and self-revelation end at the same juncture, Phoebe and the town she had started in, with a community that neither gives her power, nor listens to her. Regardless of whether Hurston would have agreed more with duCille or Kaplan’s interpretation of her work, it is interesting that she chooses to have Janie return, after leaving behind three husbands, to a town in which she was powerless and silenced. This itself could be read as commentary on both self-realization and self-revelation. Does the fact that Janie returns to a community she does not like or necessarily trust imply something about the impossibility of women to truly escape the binds of the patriarchal society they grow up in, or the difficulty in finding people who can listen, outside of the society you have grown up in? Is Janie’s return inevitable?

Response to Kaplan

On page 149 of Kaplan’s paper, she says:

“Susan Lanser identifies what she calls ‘self-silencing’ as a ‘willful [albeit often staged] refusal to narrate’ that refuses the compromises embedded in narrative conventions, protects narrators or characters from ‘direct contact with an unfruiendly or uncomprehending readership,’ and indicts the audience to which the narrator will not speak as unreliable, unworthy, or otherwise inadequate. Building on Lanser’s description of the subversive imperatives of ‘self-silencing,’ I want to argue that Janie’s various refusals of public voice, self revelation, and fighting back do constitute an important form of political protest.”

This argument is supported by another quote further down on the page:

“…the trial scene serves as a microcosm for the novel as a whole, an allegory of the dilemma Janie faces in seeking the audience with whom she might satisfy her longing for self-revelation.”

Kaplan’s argument that Janie’s choice not to speak is an act of agency reminds me very much of Foreman’s essay about Harriet Jacobs and the literary tool of the under-tell. As Janie chooses when to speak and to whom as a ‘form of political protest,’ Jacobs uses the act of undertell to protect her own voice and that of her grandmother. As Janie is placed in front a harsh, unforgiving audience while she is on trial, when she returns to Eatonville, and during her marriages, so Harriet Jacobs is presenting her novel to a group of white women who are unlikely to understand or believe her story without the advocacy by Lidia Child on her behalf. 

Jacobs uses the act of the undertell in order to create a dynamic landscape in her work between not only silences, but also a personal claim to her story. Examples of the discursive claiming of her story include choosing to confess to her sins rather than describe herself as the victim in order to claim agency, and naming the father of her child. This parallels Janie’s choice to share her story with Pheoby, something Kaplan calls her “self-revelation” through the sharing of her story.

I would also like to add that Hurston’s words as quoted by Kaplan on page 148 seem to underscore Foreman’s argument about the subversive strength of the undertell:

“The white man is always trying to know into somebody else’s business. All right, I’ll set something outside the door of my mind for him to play with and handle. He can read my writing but he sho’ can’t read my mind. I’ll put this play toy in his hand, and he will seize it and go away. Then I’ll say my say and sing my song.”

I’m interested to know if (maybe in Hurston’s opinion? Maybe yours?) if this ‘saying my say and singing my song’ is personal or social? Is Janie saying her say when she’s sharing with Pheoby or is she singing her song in a highly personal way, when she returns to her room? Does the fact that this telling of her story may be very internal and personal for Janie make it in any way apolitical? 

Response to Octavia's post

Octavia, you made some really great points. More specifically your point about Janie and Phoeby's relationship. I hadn't thought about it before and I suppose I just glazed over Willis's reading or just blindly accepted her reading of their relationship.

Sisterhood is certainly an important theme in Hurston's novel, as well as patriarchal ideologies. I believe that, atht e novels end, Phoeby's newly felt agency was due to the telling of both her friend's resilience and strength against the oppressive men in her life. This, in my opinion, is what allowed Phoeby the strength to want to stand up to her husband, even if it's just going fishing with him which can be assumed doesn't happen.

So yes, I agree with you Octavia, that sisterhood is just as an important theme as patriarchy in Hurston's novel.

duCille Response

Ann duCille makes a lot of valid points about the ways in which Their Eyes Were Watching God is not a clear cut romance or a story of a woman's triumph over the patriarchy. However, on page 121, I felt that duCille challenged the validity of the love shared between Janie and Tea Cake when she said, "[Janie's] final thoughts are not of self but of Tea Cake, who remains the essential medium of meaning in her life, and, perhaps, the last illusion." I disagree that her relationship with Tea Cake could be an illusion, though I do agree that it was fraught with instances of patriarchal domination.

The duCille passage brought to mind the passage from the novel where Tea Cake hits Janie. This part of the novel, and the way in which the narrator addresses it, has always seemed an unresolved issue of violence in their marriage. On page 147, the narrator says "being able to whip her reassured him in possession. ... It aroused a sort of envy in both men and women." The envy of the men and women struck me, but the narrator's refusal to dehumanize Tea Cake after he hits Janie in an attempt to dominate her is also thought-provoking. Rather than seeing the romantic elements of Tea Cake as an illusion or the violent elements of Tea Cake as villainous, the narrator seems to ask us to understand that in their eyes this was love. Other chapters show that Tea Cake really wanted to be good to Janie, however, within the strictures of the system duCille discusses, this beating the only way he knew how to treat her under the circumstances.This is not to justify his actions, but rather to complicate our understanding of Tea Cake and Janie (and those who envied them for it).

In a way, I think duCille's point is close to my own, which is especially clear on page 123 where she says, "is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even independent-minded women can be captured, bound, diminished, and domesticated by patriarchal ideology and romantic mythology that suborne abuse when viewed of "true love"? From this mindset, it could also be asked: is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even a well-intentioned and loving husband can be brutalized by and ultimately succumb to a patriarchal ideology that understands this behavior as "true love"? These questions pointedly places the blame on ideology rather than Tea Cake himself, who is as much a product of this system as Janie is a victim of it. This, to me, is made clear by the envy of their peers, who saw the beating as a noble and loving thing to do.

I think duCille is too quick to focus on the negative aspects of Janie's relationship with Tea Cake rather than using them to show the complexity of a loving relationship within the confines of a patriarchal ideology. Janie and Tea Cake had the closest thing to ideal true love in the novel because he was willing to see her as an equal in many respects. However, this was complicated by his own human flaws as well as the ideology of patriarchal dominance.

Response to duCille

Anne duCille argues that reading Their Eyes Were Watching God  as a novel that celebrate heterosexual love or  sisterhood and acquiring female independence is to underread and oversimplify the novel. She instead believes that the novel is about powerlessness, power, submission, self-fulfillment, silence, and voice. I agree with her reading of the text. Not only does the novel entail perspective on sisterhood and relationships between men and women, but it also draws attention to how the two function in a male dominated society. Anne duCille is making a point that the context in which Janie tries to find self-fulfillment and love is just an important part, if not more, of understanding the message or intent of the novel.

I, however, disagree with the rejection of Susan Willis’ reading of Janie and Pheoby  friendship and the value that it has. Susan Willis believes that the novel has a point where they highlight the value of female friendship in dealing with a patriarchal society. She mentions the passage where Pheoby feels that the conversation with Janie has inspired her to have agency and not be silent about what she desires, in her relationship in particular, saying, “Ah means tuh have Sam take me fishing wid him after this.” duCille rejection of this idea speaks to the way that feminism excludes women who believe in the equality of women, but still hold men to some importance. duCille argues against Willis’ because she believes that if Willis’ reading was true, Pheoby would have asked that Janie be fishing with her. In my reading of this passage, I believe that Susan has a valid reading, because it is possible to have female friendship and still want to have a relationship with a man despite the patriarchal society that we live in. The passage where Janie says that , “..mah tongue is in mah friend’s mouf,” indicate the closeness of their relationship. Janie and Pheoby’s friendship is not obsolete because Pheoby is not the one that Janie thinks of at the end of the novel or because Pheoby doesn’t ask Janie to go fishing with her. Subversive sisterhood, considering Pheoby’s inspiration to have agency from the conversation that she has with Janie and considering the language between them to understand the intimate nature of their friendship, is just as much a theme in the novel despite the fact that it still allows Pheoby and Janie to include men, and that’s ok.  

duCille highlights the idea of forgetting and remembering that is mentioned at the beginning of the novel and uses that to make the point that the novel undermines the problem of patriarchy by having Janie continuously seek love from men despite the way that they oppress her as participants and believers in a patriarchal ideology, and I will have to disagree. The novel acknowledges the problem and rejects it through Janie. Janie is not content with the power that the men in her life attempts to exert over her, and she tells them so. She does not tolerate it, because she leaves the men that do not understand her attempt to help them to see the problem with their expectations of her, which stem from a male-dominating ideology. She does continue to want to be with a man and it’s ok for her to continue to want to find a man who is in opposition with this ideology as she is.

duCille makes some great points about making sure to consider context to understanding the entire intent of the novel, but falls short when it comes to understanding what the bare bones of the novel — the things that are happening in the novel that are readily noticeable to a non-feminist reader — along with the meat — the patriarchal context in which everything is happening — means.