Introduction
"Art is not a mirror to hold up
to society, but a hammer with which to shape it", says Marxist thinker and
dramatist Bertold Brecht (1898-1956). His idea is that art does not passively
reflect whatever happens in society, but it actively influences and guides it. Art
has a role to play, a function to inspire change in human society. It is in
apparent opposition to traditional view toward art and literature that they
"reflect" society as mirrors. In a way, both views seem correct. Some
literatures simply reflect society, whereas some dare to shape it anew. The
stories in this course too are divided over it. From the basis of two stories
to be interpreted here, we can claim that art doesn't only mirror society every
time, but sometime it hammers existing socio-cultural norms and values.
The stories of the discussion are 'Debbie and Julie' (1987) by Doris
Lessing and 'Life' (1977) by Bessie
Head. Between these two stories, 'Life'
seems more reflector kind, whereas 'Debbie
and Julie' seems more a shape-giver / change-maker.
Debbie and Julie
'Debbie
and Julie' with the character of Julie explores possibilities of change in a
society, although the story has limitations in this exploration. The story is
told from third-person perspective, but it is limited omniscient and all the
events are viewed from eyes of Julie. Julie here represents narrative voice.
Thus, since Julie doesn't simply hold up social practices, the story too
follows her and it attempts to give society a different shape. Julie's and Debbie's lives are not everyday
cup of tea of any society; they are far from general public life. They
challenge existing socio-cultural values, in order to signal change, in order
to give society a different shape. Thus this story doesn't simply mirror the
society to hold it up; but it tries to reshape our social practices as a
hammer. It presents a different form of society and asks the readers to think
of a new possibility.
At the end of the story, Julie
bravely decides to accept the baby later, "I'll take Rosie to Debbie's in
London… I've got to get out of here… In July, I'll leave… I know how things are
now". This passage clearly signals that change is soon to happen and
also is evidence that art / literature can help shape society. In the
penultimate paragraph of one sentence, the notion of change is strengthened to
mean that it is "sure" to happen, it is inevitable – "With her
arms around the panda Julie thought, I can do anything I want to do, I've
proved that". She is capable of bringing about change, capable of
hammering existing shape of society to give it a new form. So is the story,
since Julie represents voice of its narrative.
Change is not only possible or
inevitable, but it is "already seen" in character of Jessie, an aunt
of Julie. She has accepted and raised a baby without marriage, although society
in the beginning disapproved the decision. This fact, in deed, has inspired
Julie to think accepting Rosie, "Why, she, Julie, could have… she could be
sitting here now, with her baby Rosie, they wouldn't have thrown her out". It (the event and the story at once) also suggests that though a change
is not accepted in the beginning, if the change-maker has persistence and
patience to continue it, one day society will stop such disapproval. Now, Aunt
Jessie is happily living with her daughter Freda, Uncle Bob has accepted it,
and society too is unquestioning to a large extent. This event also inspires
change-making readers to persistently and patiently go for the change they
brought about, if they believe it is good, even if society disapproves of
it.
However, such a society-shaping
potential of the story has been limited by its other events themselves. Julie's
earlier acts and Debbie's portrayal as a sex worker, rather than challenging
existing social values, reflect and conform to traditional stereotypes
associated to women in patriarchy. Julie without knowing falls prey to Billy
Jayson (the boy who makes her pregnant). It was not an agreed relationship-
"… she saying No no, and he saying, Oh come on, then". After
this, Billy didn't have to bear any effect of it, but Julie was forced to leave
her parents and home. "Probably Billy had forgotten all about it… But why
should he?" . This single event is evidently enough to show that such
incidents ruin life of girls involved, at the same time effect on boys would be
zero, even if boys make it happen. This is what happens in society, many Julies
are being pregnant from Billys; and Billys are set free, but Julies have to
leave society. It clearly reflects most societies of the world exactly as a
mirror.
Julie takes birth-giving as a sin /
punishment and wants to get rid of it as soon as possible. She perceives giving
birth to a baby as a crime, thus wants to hide herself from people around.
After coming home, she hurries to get bath so that she gets rid of everything
associated with birth. "She soaped and rubbed, getting rid of the birth,
the dirty shed, the damp dog smell, the blood, all that blood…There. It was all
gone. Her breasts, she knew from the book, would have milk, but she would put
on a tight bra and fill it with cotton wool". If she really had
desired change – and if the story had power to shape society – the narrative
should have dared to celebrate motherly role of Julie; it should have allowed
Julie to give birth and grow her baby freely. In this regard, the story can't
elevate itself from merely reflecting what is happening in most of the
societies today.
In
patriarchy, women have two choices: whoever conforms to traditional gender
roles are angels, and those who reject are whores. This story literally presents
Debbie (and metonymically Julie too) as "whore" – a sex worker. She
seems deserted from her family and society. In this way, the story reflects our
society and culture that patriarchy leaves no place to any woman (and man too)
who doesn't accept its values. In real life too, characters like Debbie are
forced to set themselves off from society.
But,
she is everything for Julie. And, Julie and Debbie only are title characters of
this story. Thus, despite some limitations, presenting social outcasts at the
centre, the story has tried to challenge existing social situations in order to
give it a new shape.
Life
'Life',
in comparison to 'Debbie and Julie'
reflects time and place of the story more powerfully. Consequently, it has been
weak in terms of change-making capacity of art and literature.
Since
this story can be taken as a reflection of then society and culture, setting
(time and place) holds a privileged consideration in its reading. It is 1963,
when "the borders were first set up between Botswana and South
Africa" . By mentioning exact time, place and historical
circumstances in the very beginning, the narrative throughout the story claims
itself to be reflection of the real-life society. Life Morapedi and Lesego are
major characters of this story, who are often read as representatives of real
people with opposing socio-cultural values originated in urban and village
setting. Further, they are not only limited to 1963 and within Botswana and
South Africa, but they can represent collision between two people of different
socio-cultural settings of any time, any place.
As
Debbie in 'Debbie and Julie', Life in
this story is a sex-worker, thus a social outcast. He character also confirms
social view in patriarchy that women are never to be believed, despite their
verbal promises. On the other hand, Lesego is such a "macho"
personality that he is presented as if he is the "real hero" with
internal and external rigour, who can do anything. His characterisation
perfectly mirrors social expectations from an adult man in patriarchy. "Lesego had long been the king of this
world; there was, every day, a long string of people, wanting something or
wanting to give him something in a gratitude for a past favour".
Even, Life finds such a masculine quality in him, "she saw in him the
power and maleness of the gangsters…" . Thus, both of the characters
function as reflective representations of men and women from a typical
patriarchal society.
One
interesting and typical reflection of village life is when village women change
their treatment to Life. At first, they say, "we are very happy that a
child of ours has returned home" and they have expected "she is going
to bring us a little light". But as they gradually know about her
character more closely that the previous angel is actually a whore, they cut
off themselves from her. So happens in many societies is that people easily get
attracted to new comers and hope "some light" from them. Once their
expectations go in vain, the new comer becomes the worst person they have ever
met in life. This is exactly presented in the story, as if it is a mirror on
wall of those societies.
The
narrator openly claims about Life, "She hadn't the mental equipment to
analyse…" . Later, Life is proved wrong by characters of Lesego,
Sianana, and other neighbours. The story's undertone that Life is a criminal
thus deserves punishment is apparent when her murder is justified by everyone.
Though Sianana once questions "why did you kill that…?", he too
presents her as a woman who deserved some other severe punishments.
What
more? The end part very clearly states it is reflection of reality:
"That's what happens when two words collide". Whether it is
good or bad is a different question; but in every society, new culture is
always questioned and its followers are punished. So is presented in this
story. Given that the story doesn't have any strong character to oppose this,
it can be claimed that the story is interested to hold up to society as a
mirror but reluctant to shape is as a hammer.
Conclusion
The two stories discussed above are
written in time difference of exact ten years. Both writers are female, and grew
in Africa. Despite these similarities, there are considerable gaps in
representation of reality in their stories. Thus, it can not be claimed that
every art, every literature treats the society in the same way with the same
purpose. It can't thus be easy to say whether the quote "art is not a
mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer to shape it" is reasonable or
not. But it differs from art to art, as it differs from story to story on the
above discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment