Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Things i think about while washing up...


When I was a kid my grandma would often suggest I do the washing up, but she could never just ask me.
She would say things like "Can you do the washing up for your mother?" or "Rosie, you should do the washing up before your mother comes home" (other variations included "be a good girl and... ")
...
Now, this used to annoy me a lot at the time, and i never really knew why. Sometimes i would snap back "if **you** want me to do it, just ask me to do it." (while thinking, and don't guilt me into it based on what you imagine my mother might want)
...
it's occurred to me, just now, that there are at least two problematic things going on when we say to someone "Can you do this task for you mother" .. And probably i instinctively knew this, and it's why I always flinched at it.
1) it implies that the only person who might benefit from the task being done is a person's mother, thereby teaching us that only mothers do housework, and only mothers appreciate it being done by someonelse.
2)secondly, and i think this is perhaps more interesting, i don't learn to do the washing up because it is a good thing to do, or simply because it needs doing, i learn to do it, that i might please someone, or be considered a good girl. which is disturbing because housework should not be moral or gendered. it just should be done. (And yes, i am writing a thesis on how we regulate behavior)
...
I then thought about how sometimes, back in the day, i would be doing the washing up at church, perhaps after supper, or after youthgroup and all the kids had gone home, and often I would clean up for my group and other groups, and someone (usually a man), would say something like "Its so good of you to do all this", or they would imply it was my spiritual gifting. And its a good thing I was also gifted with **some** patience or else there might have been a lot of punched faces, because i would politely smile, or with gritted teeth say, 'someone has to do it', but in my head i would be screaming "THIS IS NOT A SPIRITUAL GIFT. THE WASHING UP JUST HAS TO GET DONE. HERE IS A F*@KING TEA TOWEL"
...
but at the same time, i had learned that doing this did somehow make me morally virtuous. maybe people would affirm me and give me a round of applause and say "well done Rosie".
...
and now i think about how i found the New Testament story of Mary and Martha problematic. and i remember how the standard take home was to being encouraged to spend time in God's word, and i used to feel smacked in the face, because somehow simultaneously, i was a good girl when i cleaned up, and people wanted to call it a gift, yet it was also not to be done, because spending time at the feet of Jesus was better.
...
And whatever other lessons might be in that passage, i couldn't hear them, because my self worth (and maybe my salvation) was somehow in the washing up but it also wasn't, and i knew this .
...
the take home is not that i often got angry or upset while busily doing things for my church.I did those things (mostly) with energy and enthusiasm, and yes, i do sometimes regret the hours of my life I poured into those activities, but i did them believing them to be of value, and all things said and done, i am glad i did it, and thankful for those years. .. When i started writing this I didn't even realise it was connected to memories of church. that just kind of happened.
...
the take home is that something as simple as how we talk about an everyday task can actually contribute to all sorts of complex ideas about morality and ethics, about identity, about what it is to be a girl, and about who should do housework. 

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Apologies & Pixar

This last week I have been thinking about apologies.
Particularly, I have been thinking about the form that apologies can take.

Now, if someone alerts me to the fact that something I have said has upset them, it might seem like the obvious response is to simply say “I’m sorry”. But, the more I think about it, there are a variety of possible responses, indeed a spectrum of responses, and while all of these responses do something, not all of them apologise to the hurt person of allow for reconciliation between us.

Come with me on a journey of thinking about apologies. We’ll consider the form apologies can take, and what the words do. We’ll think about an apology I made, and a Pixar film I wrote about at uni last year that has helped me to think about human relationships.

At the one end of the spectrum we have a response of denial. It denies the hurt of the upset person, and the fact that I said anything that might reasonably cause offense. It takes this kind of form: “Look, you actually misunderstood me, that’s not really what I said”. What happens here, is the fault of bad feeling is placed on the upset person. They had the wrong feeling or the wrong response. I just need to point this out to them, and then we both go on our merry way and nobody has to change. I go on saying, thinking and doing the same things, and the hurt person can go on feeling whatever they like and it is of no concern to me.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have, I guess a response of mortification, where I take on a lot of guilt, and at first our roles seem reversed. I might say “I’m so sorry, I can’t believe I did that, I feel so awful that you feel like this.” Now, I’m not sure this is really ok either, because the hurt person might now feel tempted to give ground and say they weren’t really that hurt, and not to worry about it. They might assume they overreacted, even though they’re thankful for the apology. They might even apologise to me for making me feel bad. So what does this apology do? It makes me a supposed victim, and it still erases the hurt of the person I upset. In short, not only did I upset the person, I then emotionally manipulate and bully them into thinking they hurt me.

Somewhere in the middle there are Quick Fix Apologies and Band-Aid Apologies.
In a Quick Fix response I say something like “hey, I’m sorry you feel like this”. This apology has a silent ‘but’. It is really, “I’m sorry you feel like this, but there isn’t anything I can do about it/its not my fault”. Here I see your pain, but I don’t think its any my responsibility. You probably feel obliged to say “no worries”, at which point we both carry on with our lives. We hope the apology covers up the incident, and business as normal resumes. It’s a quick fix because while it might allow a swift return to smooth operating between us, it doesn’t necessarily safe guard against repeat situations.

Very similar to the quick fix are Band-Aid apologies, but I believe Band-Aid apologies have some potential. In a Band-Aid case, I might say “look, I’m sorry you feel this way, but its really not what I intended”. This is ok. It’s a starting point, and I think we all make these kind of apologies all the time, and they do a lot to helping us to get on with our fellow humans. I acknowledge the other person, and I acknowledge their hurt, but I don’t accept any responsibility for it. This kind of response allows me and my friend to kind of patch things up. To stick a band-aid over the situation. She’s upset, I can see that, I’m sorry the situation happened, but it was all a misunderstanding. My friend is appeased, but there is no guarantee I won’t hurt her again, because I might carry on in the same way, and she might carry on ‘misunderstanding and being upset’.

This response though could start a dialogue of reconciliation and apology, because underneath Band-Aids we do often heal. I might follow up my initial comment, and say “I’m sorry you feel this way, and it isn’t what I intended, what can I say or do to avoid this happening again?” And then, my friend and I can enter into a dialogue and discuss the situation, and I can listen to them, and come to understand how my action was hurtful, and which point I might say, “I am so sorry. I’m sorry my words hurt you”.

Now, its possible that I might have said that last apology straight away. I might straight up say “I’m sorry my words hurt you. I’m sorry I hurt you”. Here, I acknowledge hurt, and I acknowledge that I said or did something that created hurt. This is an apology, and again this allows for reconciliation, and it allows for growth. We can grow together.

You might be reading this and thinking, but what if it was a misunderstanding? Or what if that person was having a bad day, was already on edge, or just thinks everyone hates them? Well, first off, I want to say, if someone claims you hurt them, you don’t get to decide that you didn’t. It may have been a misunderstanding, and maybe they do already feel like the world is against them, but if a person feels like the world is against them, then I say we go and stand with them and face that world together, and I can only do that if first I say sorry, and if second I go and listen to them, to paraphrase Maria Lugones, I have to be willing to travel into the world of the hurt person. The idea of seeing from the place of the view point of another, of world traveling is at the core of Lugones’ thoughtful and influential article, ‘Playfulness, “world”-travelling, and Loving Perception’, in which she insists that a failure to identify with another is a failure to love them. Lugones teaches us through the example of her relationship with her mother, as she writes:
To love my mother was not possible for me while I retained a sense that it was fine for me to and others to see her arrogantly. Loving my mother also required me to see with her eyes, that I go into my mother’s world, that I see both of us as we are constructed in her world, that I witness her own sense of herself from within her world. (Lugones: 1987:8).
What Lugones’ is hoping to show us is that empathy, love and understanding of others are interwoven. And an apology, a reconciliation is an act that requires empathy. If I’m to apologise effectively, I must be willing to imagine how my words sound in the ears of the other, even if they sounded fine to me.

Let me tell you of an apology I made perhaps a decade ago, that was made after a misunderstanding, and taught me to look from the eyes of the hurt person, even though they had misread me.
I was in church, perhaps 9 or 10 years ago, and I was sitting towards the front. I was very busy in this particular church. I was on Parish Council, I was a youth group director, I was on the roster at our youth/contemporary service as a Service Leader. I went to regular meetings to plan  and pray for the direction, activities an character of that service.  I was not without influence, though I don’t think I always felt that way at the time. This one evening at church, while I was sitting towards the front, we started to sing a particular song, and I turned to the person next to me and made a face. If you know me, this probably doesn’t surprise you. I’m not shy in letting people know I don’t like the vast majority of songs in the contemporary church repertoire. So, whats wrong with what I did. I don’t like a song, or I thought it was silly, and I make a face. I don’t have to like all the songs, so what’s the big deal? The deal is the song leader saw me, and read my face as being against her. She assumed I was casting judgement on her, on her musical abilities, her service and contribution to the church. She mentioned her hurt to a leader at our church, and I was spoken to and asked to write an apology. At first I was pretty indignant. I wanted to plead my case with this leader. I wanted to justify my actions. I wanted to explain that I didn’t have a problem with the song leader in question, but the reality was a woman at my church was upset because of something I had done. It didn’t matter how justified I thought my action was, what mattered was that I made steps to be reconciled. And as Christians, I think this matters particularly because we are told that to be reconciled with our brothers and sisters needs to happen before we come before God.

I wrote the apology. It was hard. I wanted to say “I’m sorry you are upset”, but my flatmate pointed out to me that this was not an apology. I’m going to be honest here. I don’t remember what I wrote. I don’t remember if my words were good enough. I don’t know if my apology did everything it had to. I don’t know if back then, in my mid twenties, I was capable of seeing that I had hurt a member of the body of Christ. I don’t know if I thought about the fact that if part of the body was hurting that perhaps the whole body was. I really doubt that I did. And I wish I could have done better. But I learned,  learned to be careful of my responses, of my in-jokes, in case they not always be thought of as witty or funny. I learned, but I’m not perfected, and I still sometimes catch myself eyerolling at a key change that I find unnecessary, and I remind myself that instead of demanding that all music be to my taste I should work towards being thankful for the time and talents other members of my church are willing to offer in service of our community.

I write these thoughts after I took part in facebook ‘discussion’ among Christians, where a few loud voices spoke back and forth at each other, and in the end, I don’t know if any of us benefited, or if any of us have had the opportunity to learn or grow from our interactions. In the end, the initial content of the conversation mattered much less to me than the suggestion by one of contributors that a hurt person had to prove they were sufficiently hurt (by him), before he would apologize. Of course, it’s possible I misunderstood him. I don’t know. I wonder, if when we find ourselves thinking someone needs to account for their hurt, if we might think differently if we were willing to travel into their world, and even if we’re sure we’re not to blame, maybe, just in case we are, we should try stepping into their world and seeing what they see.

Last year I wrote about the film Inside Out and the relationship between the anthropomorphised emotions Joy and Sadness. I used them to illustrate a concept of relational  identity and Posthuman subjectivity, as explained by theorists such as Allison Weir (through whom I encountered Lugones) and Rosi Braidotti (who I have been lucky enough to meet!). As I began to learn about relational identity I learned that through empathy and affective solidarity we can begin see the world not as self vs other, or us vs them, and instead we learn to grow in response to our encounters, our relationships, and our embodied experiences in the world. When I reflect on this interaction on facebook, in which a queer girl Christian told a straight white man Christian that his words contributed to an archive of hurtful actions on the part of the church even though he was well intentioned, I wonder what Joy and Sadness might be able to teach us here.

You might recall that early on this film Joy tries to erase and overlook Sadness by finding an out of the way corner for her, drawing a circle round her, and asking her to stay there. What good is Sadness in this mission of making the protagonist, Riley, happy? If you’ve got to insist on being sad, that’s fine, just be sad where you won’t get in the way. Its not until Joy and Sadness are both expelled from headquarters, have together suffered many trials and setbacks and then been separated that Joy, now alone in Riley’s memory dump, sees the value of Sadness. Here in the memory dump Joy can forget herself and cry. Reaching in to the bag she has been carrying which contains Riley’s core memories, Joy takes out a memory she has always considered a happy memory. As Joy replays the memory the beginnings of relational, transformative identification with Sadness occurs. On her second watch, Joy is able to see the memory turn blue, the colour representing sadness. Joy sees that this ‘happy’ memory is more complex, it contains multiple stories. The memory becomes happy only after it was held together in sadness. For Joy, this new identification with Sadness “becomes a process of remaking meaning” (Weir:2008:125). Joy learns to see the value in Sadness, and she learns that valuing sadness need not necessarily make her less joyful, instead it will allow them to work together more productively.

Joy and Sadness remind us that sometimes we need to travel out of the world where we are in control to learn what it is like to be hurt, to be upset, to be outside. To not be in control they remind us that empathy and apologies allow for reconciliation, for getting to know people properly which allows us to identify with people we thought were not like us. If I am a Samaritan on a lonely journey and I come across my cultural other, a Jew, beaten and left for dead, I can step into my other’s world. I can pick her up, and place her where she can recover from the hurt that in this instance, I did not cause, but that maybe I have contributed to or allowed to happen through years of inaction.  If I can do this I have learned to love my other, even though we have our differences.

For me, learning to apologise and to stand in the world of another, is part of learning to love. 

..
references:
Braidotti, R (2013) The Posthuman, Polity Press: Cambridge & Malden
Lugones, M (1987) 'Playfulness, "world"-Traveling and Loving Perception, Hypatia, 2:2 pp 3-19
Rivera, J (Producer) & Docter, P (Director) (2015), Inside Out (animated motion picture), Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Productions, France and America.
Weir, A (2008) ‘Global Feminism and Transformative Identity Politics’ in Hypatia 23(4), 110-133. Indiana University Press. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from Project MUSE database.
  also, a google image search sourced the pic of Joy and Sadness for me... and apparently it was posted here

 **If you're a christian person and you're thinking about your connections, friendships and relationships with LGBTIQ people, and thinking about the necessity of apologising to LGBTIQ people, whether you should do this, or how it might be done, one thing you might like to consider is visiting Equal Voices, and taking a look at this info on an apology **

Thursday, May 12, 2016

I Dreamt My Body

Or: Reflections of an Mres (cultural & gender studies) Student 

I dreamt my body in a warehouse
Hanging from the ceiling.
We planned to leave me there long enough for the lie to be read as truth.
I looked down on my feet, swaying, high above the floor and I feared, the deception being seen through, my body being shot, just to be sure.
I woke, my toes cold, and uncovered,
My quilt tossed aside.

Rub-a-dub dub, three masters students in a pub,
In a corner, dark and damp,
By the low light of a lamp,
One lass proclaims:
I kind of always hoped I’d grow up a lesbian.  Except the thought of going down on a girl is kind of unappealing.
and I respond, sure, but the thought of doing those things to a man isn’t much more exciting.
I stare at the wall. At an actual, literal wall. But maybe a metaphorical one too.  So many years of romance novels, of love songs, of wishing for a happily ever after, of being a morally good evangelical, of running from Cixous and De Beauvoir, of feeling offended by the liberals, coming home to the socialists, squirming at the radicals, but never ever pausing to consider what was beyond the veil of compulsory heterosexuality, because cloaked in the veil I had been unable to see it. And perhaps I will crawl back to them and utter, excusez moi, je vais ecrire maintenant. And I will write, this is all well and good, but what if, after years and years of being this person I rejected her, and, constituted a sexuality that is not one?


We see our bodies as a landscape
Of borders and unknowable terrains.
I planned to leave myself unknown until such time as…
… But now it’s been over a year since the first time the last man held my body against his, and maybe there will be another, and maybe there won’t.
In his kitchen, blues music, softly sweetly, and my cheek, my chest against his, and then suddenly but not surprisingly my lips against his.
Another day, I would drive away from his house and feel some sense of obligation to record the first time he crossed the borders of my body, but I left that page blank.  

On a Saturday night, a tired broken girl lies in the arms of a broken boy, and she wonders what it would be like if those arms were somebody else’s arms. He rolls over and goes to sleep and she lies awake and in her mind summons a vision of the face, the eyes of another. Tries to imagine their smile, wonders whether she would delight in undressing, in being undressed, in their company.  Would she delight in removing the veil, in uncovering herself? And if she takes out her phone, and sends a message in the middle of the night, will she be glad in the morning, will she want to stand somewhere proud and say, this is who I am, or softly, slowly, silently sink back under the sheets, the blanket, the quilt, wrapped in the warmth of the covers.


An intelligent woman, a beautiful woman, a research student, a teacher, starts dating someone. She says, it is so wonderful to be with someone who makes me breakfast in the morning. Someone who wants to shout out from the rooftops how great I am. Another woman says how nice it is to be with someone who listens when she cries. Elsewhere a woman steps out of the shower and cries for no reason in particular. Another crying woman imagines a new life taking form in her body, but immediately replaces the dream with one of loss, and tries to comprehend losing a life that never was. Across town another woman will sleep alone, afraid of the man she has left, because given a chance he would squeeze the life out of her. And we say don’t kiss frogs, but sometimes we only see the prince. Because despite everything, life teaches us that happily ever after is there for the taking. And maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. But the ending, which is not an ending, is that we are here, the quilts tossed aside, our toes, our bodies, ourselves uncovered. It is that we are living and that we lived. 

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Unlovable Girl


 
Once upon a time[1] there was a little girl, who became a teenager, who came to believe she was unlovable.  Though perhaps not undesirable…

 


I’ve been listening to Alanis Morrissette. I’m thirty-two.  I don’t know why this is happening. One day, a few weeks ago, I felt the need to start listening to Alanis again. It came from nowhere. No obvious prompting, just a sudden unexpected craving, like the day a few years ago when  I sat at Latimer Road tube stop, and suddenly out of nowhere wanted to smoke, despite not having picked up a cigarette in over a decade. A moment later I realised my hands were hurting, which is this odd thing that happens to me when I’m stressed and busy, and for some reason, that day, my body had remembered a response to stress from years and years ago, and asked me to feed it nicotine. And in a similar way, I think, Alanis is an old response to angst that I thought I had forgotten, but that when the right set of circumstances occurred, I remembered it. This musical stress release was buried deep in my memory, but throw me a handful of emotionally,  and (at the risk of sounding pretentious) spiritually confusing situations, and I turn to this angry, angsty music of my teens and early twenties.

 

The day after boxing day I find a clip of Unsent on youtube. I used to love listening to Alanis confess the things she would have said to the various men in her life, had she but sent the letter. Sometimes, when I listened to this song in my early twenties it made me feel normal. I had many unsent letters written in anger, in bitterness, in jealousy, in stupid over emotional teenage angst and melodrama. Never send those letters. Write them. They are cathartic. Sing along to the unsent letters of a celebrity, imagining her story is your own, but never ever send the letters. I have made that mistake. I thought I had the answers. I thought I could fix the problems of others, as though a neat solution was what they were looking for. I thought I stood on the safe high ground of good morality. I was young. I was misguided. I was wrong.

 

On the 27th December, 2014, sometime around midnight, I lie in bed, exhausted but wide awake, and the words of Unsent hover around me. I find that though the words fall to the same emotional place, of love, loss and longing, that place has changed in the intervening years. I’ve grown up, and I’m hearing what I didn’t hear before.

 

 

… Where this belief sprang from is not entirely clear. It started as just a little thing, a hint, a fear that she was on the outside, the outside of cool, the outside of belonging, the outside of success. The girl grew up, and as other ideas and beliefs took firm residence inside her heart/soul/strength so did this one. The easiest explanation is that she believed this about herself because nobody asked her out, if indeed that was a thing that people still did. This wasn’t entirely true. There was lovely boy when she was fifteen or so, who admired her in that intense and embarrassing was that only a teenage boy can, and he called her up, and actually did ask her out, and she said yes, or sure, or some such thing because saying no seemed rude. That was a mistake. At the same time, she started to follow a boy, in a niave and hopeless kind of way, for nearly two years, craving his attention, his friendship, his approval, in the way that only a very well behaved, risk adverse, church going private school girl can. Another girl, a broken girl, who lined her eyes with smudged black  mascara, who had a bad relationship with food, who listened to Tori Amos would tell her that she was too beautiful. That is why, she reasoned, in the self assured way of a fourteen year old who has been lying about her age, that is why he doesn’t talk to you/go out with you/act in anyway interested in you. No, the heroine replies. No, and hindsight hasn’t changed her mind. No, that simply isn’t true. And for the record, she says, I wasn’t overweight then and neither were you…

 

Verse three of Unsent, is addressed to Terrance, who was ‘open hearted and emotionally available and supportive’. Alanis recalls ‘how beautiful it was to fall asleep on [his] couch and cry in front of [him]for the first time’. Oh, that was the line that got me every time. I wanted that. I wanted someone I could sing that to. I had so much longing for what I had never had.

 

Excuse me for a minute while I yell at Freud.

Hey, dude, what do you know of women, of me, of my sexuality? Don’t you for a minute make assumptions about me, and what I lack and what I long for and what I desire. And don’t tell me giving birth will fill all my aching, empty spaces, because so many people spin that lie, but none spun it quite as absurdly as you did.

 

I am aware that many women have expressed this at greater length and with more intelligence that I have.

 

 

… the unlovable girl wandered through adolescence and on through her twenties. She watched the other girls at church get married. She imagined her feelings of not belonging, her fear of missing out, her unhappiness, her lack of success might be resolved if she too was lovable, like other girls. She could be just as good a wife, just as good a mother. She could live that life, couldn’t she?  But she knew, that although ever since she could remember she had dreamed this happily ever after for herself, deep down she knew it was not for her because she was still, and maybe ever would be, the unlovable girl. She was the girl who went out with no-one, who kissed no-one. She was busy, and anyway, romance bored her. In fact it practically revolted her. It belonged in other fairy tales, but not in her own story.  She got on with life, got a job, eventually went to university. Ran a youth group on Friday nights, sat on parish council at her church, planned a Christian summer holiday camp every year for ten years.  There she was this young, bright, energetic, loud, opinionated girl organising children and grown ups, arguing and reasoning with people more learned and experienced than herself, being useful, having a purpose. Sometimes those who were older than her, would ask if she was going out with anyone (yet), but as if she had time for that nonsense. . .

 

… She never had any intention of straying from the path, of stopping to pick flowers, of talking to the wolf. But time, and time again she did, because at twenty four the unlovable girl learned to flirt. Or rather, she learned who she could flirt with, because she’d always flirted. Goodness, she’d been doing that for a decade at least, but now, finally, in a world full of performers and artists and creatives and intellectuals she found her audience.  And for her efforts, the wolf gave her the consolation prize. The unlovable girl, learned something she had always suspected, was not, it turned out, undesirable…

 

**

In 2009, at a church home group meeting in London, I first stumbled across the practise of Christians sharing “a picture” they had received from the Lord. Often it was something very generic, something vaguely motivational. I have a picture of a path, in the country, winding through snow and up a mountain. There are no people. But I feel like the Lord is telling me/you/us that we need to be strong and keep going because he will carry us through to the other side of this problem/trial/sickness/hardship. That sort of thing. I don’t mean to be insincere. It was a very odd thing to witness.

 

This year, this Christmas, when I go home to my own bed, and lie there in the darkness, the absence of your/his/a body so tangible, you almost seem present, I have a picture that won’t leave my mind. It is a picture of a memory, of another Christmas, of another boy, from what seems a lifetime ago. It is unwelcome. I don’t want to see it, but it persists.  I’m in church, it is freezing cold, its Christmas Eve. I am on my own. I can’t remember if I had walked there on my own. I feel like we’d been fighting. I imagine I asked him to come, and he refused. I can’t remember. Earlier that night we’d gone to mass at the Catholic church. His brother had wanted to go.  We tossed the idea around at dinner. I can’t remember if anyone was actually that keen, but it seemed like the thing to do. I would go. I was not going to sit at home while they went to church. I didn’t mind about the branding. We threw on our coats and ran down into town. The church was full. We sat, gloved hands in our pockets, shivering, two atheist Irish boys with a strange love for the rituals of a church they never ordinarily visited, and me, a Sydney Anglican. Dumbly we sat through mass. Not one hymn was sung by the congregation. I felt like a spectator, an uninvited, unwelcome protestant. Maybe I told him this. Maybe I complained on the way home. Maybe I gave an annoying and ill-timed speech about the reformation. Maybe I told him it felt wrong not to have sung. I wanted to sing. I wanted to be involved.  Probably I cried. However it happened, I ended up at the quiet Church of Ireland service. During communion, I turned around. He is by the door. He catches my eye. I stand up and move to the back of the church. He goes outside, he is pacing back and forth, stamping out the frozen night air. He won’t come in.

 

In the summer, at an open mic night in Oxford, friends convinced him to read a poem. In his poem he recalled that night. He said he waited for me, in the snow, while I went to see my other boyfriend. I’ve never been a “Jesus is my boyfriend” kind of Christian. I hate that. But I knew what he meant. He had looked at me in his room in South London. You are beautiful, you are desirable, and you are in my bed. [But]. There is always something we don’t say.

 

And now, this Christmas, four years later, that picture of him outside, in the darkness, in the cold, won’t leave my mind. He used to accuse me of having a remarkable ability to see literary devices in my own life. How did I fail to see this example, this image, this picture at the time?

 

This Christmas, I remove myself, or perhaps am removed, from the gaze of another, who also tells me I am beautiful, but… but there is the pull of my ‘other boyfriend’, and his love, community, expectations, and ideal. And if I’m feeling less generous, his restrictions, his cage. Sometimes, when you’re at the door looking in, the inside is the place of warmth and light, but often, even though your feet are freezing in the snow, it is not.

 

**

 

“dear Jonathon, I liked you too much. I used to be attracted to boys who would lie to me…dear Marcus…you had a charismatic way about you with the women…dear Lou…the long distance thing was the hardest and we did as well as we could…”

 

Once when I listened to this song, I longed to know what it might be like to be able to tell the stories contained in this unsent letter. I projected the petty goings-on in my teenage life onto this song, seeing my foolish adolescent grievances to be bigger and more life changing than they were. I hit twenty, then twenty one. At twenty three a delightful boy told me I was a spinster. I felt old. I wondered why I was not more sought after. I was (am) vain. I was fairly certain I was attractive, that I was as good an option as the next girl, yet, I remained the unlovable girl.

 

…The unlovable girl became an adult. She stepped out one day and got distracted along the way. She wandered on and off the path and flirted her way through life, because though unlovable, she was not undesirable and that was nearly good enough. But fairy tales, are also cautionary tales, and it turns out that Prince charming is not a prince, and charm is not a quality to throw your glass slipper at. Sure it gets you free champagne and dinner, and a stack of cheeky text messages. But it doesn’t tell you he has a partner or that she is pregnant. Mr slightly awkward and un-cool might flirt with you online, act bashful, and be as suggestive as can be without being repulsive, then finally after many weeks hangs out with you in person, drinks till late in the night, and because he knows he is escaping interstate the next day, puts his pudgy stocky hands under your shirt, all over you, and suddenly he seems repulsive after all. The unlovable girl leaves the country, she finds someone who loves her, because that is what happens when you open the cage door and fly out. Your little metaphorical wings let you embark on that great literary trope of journey and awakening. And the unlovable girl learned she was a loveable woman, (and there is much more to say about this, but goodness I’ve said way too much already), but this wasn’t the end, this was not to be her happily ever after, because lovable women still have things they long for, and they project their longings on to another, because they are young and misguided. Lovable women can still be lonely, can still desperately crave recognition and belonging, can still be cheated on, still be left, still be broken.

 

 She would work with men who thought they were rockstars, one who would place his hands on her thighs (over her dress, mind you) to ascertain if she was wearing  stockings or pantyhose – she would let him, she wouldn’t really mind, she may have even implied she would be wearing her suspenders and stockings –  but somewhere it stung that this was the only way she could remain in his good books. Another would take her out when her heart was dashed to pieces and feed her pinot grigo until she could hardly stand, and tears were streaming down her face, and he would tell her all sorts of pathetic things, and she would go home, alone, and wonder how life had come to this, and still another would surreptitiously take her hand at a party after his girlfriend had gone home, and they would look at each other and in a brief moment seem to admit to each other an impossible truth they had been dancing around for over a year, and then they would let go of each other’s hands and the moment would be gone. And the unlovable girl learnt that she kind of hated being a desirable girl. Maybe she was too beautiful. Perhaps if she could still catch the attention of the right boy, perhaps he would think she was intelligent, interesting, thoughtful, generous, patient, lovable.

 

Better still, perhaps she could be the lovable girl, and not need anyone to tell her she was.  And the still the journey goes on, because it is life and not a narrative, and the happily ever after is not an end point, ‘ever after’ is happening all the time, every day, sometimes happily and sometimes not so, but still…

 

Today, when I listen to Unsent, I feel like I have now met all of the characters. I know these people, some well, some only in passing. I know what it is to have had these conversations, these feelings, these moments, these friendships/relationships/flings/encounters that lead to these confessions, these unsent letters. The song now hits an emotional space that knows, but still longs, not for unknown experiences, not for the magical, mythical cure all relationship, not even for evidence of my own desirability, but for calm, for rest, for comfort, for honesty, for enjoying vulnerability and security maybe in the arms of another, maybe in friendship or belonging to a community, or maybe just for contentment, wherever it lies.

 

 

… still, but still, I’m still looking at you, arguing with you, and yelling at you, yes even you Freud, because still she longed for much, still she felt lonely, still she wanted to know how beautiful it was to fall asleep on your couch and cry in front of you for the first time…

 

 

 

 

 

…Dear terrance, I love you muchly. You’ve been nothing but open hearted and emotionally available and supportive and nurturing and consummately there for me. I kept drawing you in and pushing you away, I remember how beautiful it was to fall asleep on your couch and cry in front of you for the first time. You were the best platform from which to jump beyond myself – what was wrong with me?...

 

--Alanis Morrisette—

---Unsent---

 

 

 

 

                                        




[1] Starting with “once upon a time” signifies that this can not be a true story. .right?
 

Monday, November 3, 2014

Does it matter that I’m a Woman?


Ramblings on Gender, Veils, Identity and Christianity

 
I sit in church, at 8:30 in the morning; I’m wearing a floral dress made on a 1950s pattern. I’m following a Book of Common Prayer order of service, singing hymns, reading the bible, Listening to a sermon on 1Corinthians 11:2-16, a passage I’ve never considered particularly controversial but today, the minister is talking about gender and I’m I’m squirming in my seat desperately wanting to hide. This is not a “ladies, be quiet and don’t preach” sermon, or a “submit to male authority” issue, but as I sit there, I’m hearing the words ‘masculinity’, ‘femininity’ repeatedly, and what seems to be an exhortation to men to embrace their masculinity and for women, their femininity,  and  I’m left thinking something is horribly wrong here, but why? What is it I take issue with? Is it because I am a woman? Or is it something else?

The irony of a (straight, white, Christian) woman wearing a dress cut on a 1950s pattern, one of the most endearing images of 20th Century femininity questioning the appropriateness of these words, feeling a little squeamish on hearing them ring out from the pulpit does not escape me. The absurdity of being someone who grew up in one of the institutions most seen as promoting heteronormativity, suddenly feeling like the dialogue on gender being presented was somehow misplaced and inadequate is also not lost. So why did these things suddenly rock me? Was I being overly liberal and refusing to hear an unpleasant truth? Or is it possible that Paul doesn’t really care, primarily, about my gender?

Somehow, despite this text clearly addressing both men and women and at times separately,  I had never thought of it as a gendered text. It is a text addressing a mixed congregation (which, as pointed out in the sermon, was radical) about appropriate approaches to the acts of prayer and prophesying. And as it happens, the text gives one instruction to Men (don’t cover your head when you pray) and an opposite instruction to women (cover your head when your pray), and I just don’t really see these instructions as being about gender, per se. Paul doesn’t give this instruction because he expects women to be feminine or because covering your head is inherently feminine, or because quiet femininity is godly, or because women are less worthy of display than men are. Surely, he gives this instruction as a way of providing a practical, but also cultural and historical solution to a spiritual concern, a still relevant question on our attitude towards worship. The solution he gives is gendered, because his society was, but there is no reason to think it has to be. Paul expected a certain attitude from his congregation, and that attitude, for those in church, is arguably timeless. We could throw about words like humility, respect, awe, reverence. He expected both men and women to approach God with awe, to take prayer seriously, and for whatever cultural reason, he knew no other practice, the practical solution he gives, is gendered.

I’ve never had a problem with this, despite never having covered my head in church. I think I always assumed that Paul expects me to be polite, modest, and respectful, to not revel too much in my rights. You know, I have every right to stubbornly hold whatever opinion I like, to dress however I want, to flaunt my body however I chose, but yet I choose not to wear a bikini to church (or work, or university or anywhere other than the beach for that matter). I dress nice, not to show off that I own expensive clothes, not because I want to be stylish or cool, but because I want to show, through my clothes, that I respect the ritual of going to church. Just like how we put on our good clothes – whatever they might be - to go to a birthday party or a wedding or a job interview. I’m not going to suddenly wear my bikini or ripped jeans to work, and spout some silly line about God being my ultimate boss now that I’m a Christian, and therefore making following the dress code of my employer redundant.  

 Lets face it, if every woman in Corinth, or in my society, was getting about in a head covering, for whatever reason (dad says, the church says, society says) but now as a Christian I no longer felt such behaviour necessary, and threw my veil off because I did not want to be oppressed by the expectations of my community, would anyone respect me as a serious thinker, as an example of morality, of a right way to live?[1] Or would I be considered a brazen, immoral revolutionary? There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, with challenging gender stereotyping, but sometimes one must take baby steps not radical leaps.

Yet somehow, despite taking no issue with Paul here, despite having spent years myself spouting the Anglican line about equal in value, different in role, despite my minister claiming qualities like bravery and humility as both masculine and feminine, as I heard him claim that ‘Jesus redeems the beauty of gender’, something didn’t sit right.

This passage just isn’t about gender. And I’m going to go as far as saying, being Christian shouldn’t be about gender. Gender is about how I form my identity, it is related to my biological sex, my sexuality, my character, how I present myself, but for some people the intersection between these things is fluid, and sometimes that fluidity is a joyful, wonderful thing, and sometimes it is messy and confusing. Whether as adults negotiating our relationships and the gendered roles we fulfil in them, or a four year old boy wearing sparkly, sequined ‘girly’ shoes, gender is a complex playground, and whether they should or they shouldn’t, words like ‘femininity’ and ‘girly’ still suggest very fixed ideas.

Gender can be about how I conform to or subvert what society tells me being an acceptable woman person is, it can be about how I stand up to the world and say, ‘this is who I am and what I do’. As a Christian, am I not called to see my identity primarily and fundamentally not as a woman, not as a daughter, a marital status, a profession, but as a follower of Christ? Maybe Jesus redeems the beauty of biological difference, because “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28).

Perhaps, my problem was primarily linguistic rather than say, theological or ideological. I cringed when from the pulpit I heard someone effectively say, go be feminine, and be feminine for God, because being feminine, sets off alarm bells about being the ideal feminine, about being a home maker and cake baker, domestic, passionless, silent. And despite the controversy of 1 Corinthians 14:34, I don’t think Paul wants this. He wants me to pray. He wants me to participate in church. Not because I am a woman, but because I am a Christian. And how I do it, whether I wear a veil or not, and ultimately, whether I am a woman or not, has nothing to do with it.

I can see that maybe my working definition of ‘gender’ is not the same as the definition understood by the majority in my congregation. But it is a dangerous word to throw about when it means certain and specific things to some people. I can see that talking about ‘biological sex’ or ‘biological difference’ is clunky, but there is a reality that amongst many people that gender is a construct or choice, something to grapple with, to display, to embody. And for some people it isn’t clear cut. For some people it is painful. And as a church we need to welcome those people.  Even if you go on to say things like men and women are interdependent, are complimentary to each other, to use words like gender, as synonymous with ‘biological sex’, to use them from the pulpit, the place of instruction really sounds like we’re pushing normativity and gender performativity as godliness, because for so many of us, the words ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ signify traditional gender roles and stereotyping, when actually, rather than redeem (or bring back) the beauty of gender, which rather than sounding like embracing difference, sounds like embracing traditional gendered ideals, even if you mean otherwise, Christianity should free me from the need to conform to an expectation that my life will follow a certain constructed trajectory, because these feminine things like motherhood and nursing, these masculine things like being tough and providing an income are not Christian ideals but culturally constructed gendered ideals, and they do not create worth or value.

I used to hate feminist literature. I thought it was written by bitter, grumpy women. Maybe I have become a bitter, grumpy woman, or maybe I saw through the lie that women are better at parenting because they are women (gender), and that the reality was something like women are better at breast feeding because they have breasts (biological difference). For a long time I didn’t get the nuance. I thought gender was just an inherent thing that went hand in hand with biological sex, and despite first starting to reluctantly read feminist theory in 2009, it is only now that I’m really understanding statements that teach us to perceive “ ‘feminism’ as a political position, ‘femaleness’ as a matter of biology, and ‘femininity’ as a set of culturally defined characteristics.”[2]

I write this because I think my concern, as I sat in church, in my modest 1950s style dress, was one of words and what they imply. Its true, that I probably do hold some views that are a little too liberal for what most Anglicans adhere to, and that are simultaneously a little too conservative for what my society upholds. That is my problem to work out. But it doesn’t make it any less important, that as church, we get our language right, just in case we send a message we didn’t intend. There is nothing wrong with asking the men and women in your church to be humble; to revere God; to approach worship appropriately. But there really isn’t any need to throw the language of gender into the mix, because exhortation to behave in a manner consistent with one’s faith is relevant to the whole church.  Advocating these attitudes has nothing to do with being feminine or masculine, despite the fact that we are all gendered, one way or another. Being these things has much more to do with being a decent human, and well, with being Christian, and I don’t think my being a woman is, in this instance, remotely relevant. 



[1] Interestingly, when I was in Dubai in January, I covered my arms and legs in public, and covered my head when I entered a mosque, despite knowing I had, as a white Australian woman every right to wear whatever I wanted. I didn’t do this because I think I am a worse woman if I did not, but because, a) I don’t want to stand out like an idiotic tourist, b)  I don’t want to offend, and c) Can I hope to be respected by and enter into dialogue with someone who expects a good woman to appear a certain way, if I refuse appear that way?
[2] Moi, T, ‘Feminist, Female, Feminine’, in  Belsey, C and Moore, J (Eds)(1989), The Feminist Reader, Basil Blackwell, New York

Friday, December 30, 2011

Considering Homesickness

It is three years since I’ve been to South West Rocks. In the summer, that is, as a leader of a beach mission team. I did go in the winter of 2010, just for the afternoon, so I could show the place to Matthew. I took him because it is a place that has come to feel like home to me, though I have never lived there, except for ten days at a time, in a tent, around this Christmas New Year holiday time. Despite that, the moment I turn off the highway and start driving out to the coast I am flooded with the feeling that I have arrived back where I belong, back where I am safe, perhaps even where I am special. And I wanted him to know, see and smell that place. There are two other places that come to mind which also create this sense of home, and which when I am not there I miss and long for, if only in some quiet and unfocused way. The more obvious of the two is the Sydney Opera House; the more peculiar is Baker Street tube station. I’ve become vividly aware of this in recent months as I have just moved to West London and come into work at Soho via the Hammersmith & City and Bakerloo lines, and often I’m struck by how happy I am simply to be back passing through Baker St, if only to change trains, as it was my nearest tube when I first lived in London in 2009. Changing trains there I feel suddenly like I’m balanced again, even though I hadn’t previously been aware of any unbalance. But there it is, in something so common place as walking up the stairs from platform three and crossing over the concourse to platform six, that feeling as though I have come home.

Throughout 2010, when I was back in Sydney, in my real home – either in The Party House, the apartment I had rented since late 2006 or in my parents’ home, which we had moved to in 1986 – I missed London, my 8th floor bedroom/cupboard on Marylebone Road, The Volunteer on Baker Streets and the friends who had hung out with me there. In London I miss the Opera House and the fact that most people in that building knew me, and particularly around this time of year I miss South West Rocks. When life takes me away from these places I am homesick for them.

While this is a homesickness for certain locations, it is obvious to me that is much more a homesickness for the memories, emotions and people associated with the places. A longing for an emotional home, rather than a physical one. For the comfort of particular people, situations and significances rather than the comfort of familiar homely surroundings. It is at this point that I think perhaps homesickness and conversely a sense of home coming, have a lot to do not only with longing and security but also with nostalgia, and a hanging on to the past.

The places that create in me a sense of homecoming whenever I am there are locations attached to formative experiences. They are places of learning which have come to signify a development in my sense of self, my ability to organise and lead others, to think intelligently and creatively. They are places of sometimes intense emotions, of flirting and falling in love and consequently the occasional heart battering. It is in these places that I have found enthusiasm and passion I didn’t realise I possessed. For education, music, literature. For talking about the God of the bible, and how my belief in him has shaped me.

When I pass through Baker St, if I take the time to stop and take note of the specific memories which flood me, I remember the liberating excitement of being in London, mixed with the comfort and contentment that came with realising I was still essentially the same me, just on the other side of world. The simple joy that I was actually on the London Underground (I still wonder, how it is, that this city has made even its transport system iconic) and of course Met Line adventures with Mel, Matthew, Kate, Chris and Hollie coming home from Midsummer rehearsals, discussing everything from feminism and Shakespeare to killer possums and giving lessons on how to speak like a character on Kath and Kim, and like a school girl, contriving as often as possible to sit next to Matthew for those precious eighteen minutes from Northwick Park to Baker St. It is a memory of having fun; of feeling like the things you thought, no matter how trivial, were interesting, important, somehow life changing; a sensation of aliveness which seemed different to anything I’ve known before. That’s where nostalgia comes into it, because I don’t want to let go of that. Because since then I’ve left the bubbles of safety and optimism I cultivated at university, in which one could dream of revolution - personal and political, and that other more common bubble of perfection and bliss: the first six weeks of brand new relationship.

When I miss the Opera House, its not just work or the work place or tickets to the opera, but the people and the fact that I know I have changed how I conduct relationships due to experiences connected with that building. Because I told myself it was significant, I can recall the surge of happiness and almost illicit pleasure of running down the ugly concrete stairs late one night in a candy pink formal dress to meet someone I naively thought I was in love with. A memory of self importance, of stepping outside of time and viewing my life as though it were a fictive invention and knowing that that moment would be one of the highlights, even though, with the retrospective knowledge, it was a moment that would never amount to anything and shouldn’t therefore retain any importance, except that it does because I told myself to treasure it.

But the place I feel I should treasure even more than I do is South West Rocks. I think of it now, from the other side of the world as I sit on the ferry approaching Dublin, and remember how when I first went there in 1999 I couldn’t imagine ever going back. Beach Mission was hard work. I hated camping. I had to sleep in a tent and walk a ten minute round trip just to go to the toilet. I was covered in mosquito and sand fly bites. I wouldn’t be going back. But I was wrong. A year later, when asked if I wanted to go to a training day I agreed, with an air of nonchalance. At some point I made a commitment to be on my beach mission team for ten years. And I was. But it was a long time before I realised I loved the place, in an enduring kind of way. Maybe its because there weren’t any candy pink formal dress moments. I never said to myself ‘Remember this moment. Hold it dear for all time’. Maybe that’s because once I got over my initial conviction that I would never go back to South West Rocks, I replaced it with the assumption I would never not go back. It became habit. Its what I did. I couldn’t imagine the weeks that preceded Christmas being filled with stresses that had to do with presents and cooking, they were about buying craft materials and finishing (or occasionally starting) to write a talk, or plan an activity or return trips to Officeworx to do photocopying and bind booklets.

But its not because of the work that went into preparing beach mission that made it feel like home, I’m not even sure if its primarily missing the people or relationships which makes me long for South West Rocks around New Year, but the fact that for ten years beach mission clearly focused my attention on God and shaped my time, my year and my life. Sure, like the Opera House, like Baker St, South West Rocks signals many, many happy memories. Moments of light hearted joy and serious insights into how the world operates. Mars bar milkshakes, singing along to Vegietales while washing up, watching Chris commando role his way to the shower block, hearing about the time Sally got herself stuck in a coat hanger, being told off by a team leader in my second year for staying up talking several hours past a sensible time for someone who had to get up early in the morning to run a full day of activities. These sorts of things I miss. Churning over all those big questions you usually don’t have time for: sanctification, forgiveness, elective salvation, mothering, divorce, eating disorders, death. But it is more than any of these moments. It is one of the few projects I have committed to for several years, and it is one of the few that gave me a reason to go and speak to strangers about why I believe in God. Being on a beach mission team taught me practical things about being a team leader, writing talks and bible studies, and making tricky decisions – like whether or not to cancel the hire of jumping castle due to imminent bad weather, I cried while making this decision I was that torn and afraid of getting it wrong, and in the end I’m not sure which decision I made, but I don’t remember any negative repercussions. Yes, part of feeling at home is one of belonging and feeling needed, important. And when I miss South West Rocks and going on beach mission, there is perhaps a selfish or needy part of me, that misses feeling like I was important, that people knew me, relied on me, looked up to me. But I also miss knowing that I was part of a team that were serving others. That we weren’t just providing some holiday fun, though there is nothing wrong with that, but that we were giving people a chance to think through some of life’s big questions.

Maybe I miss that too. A space in which to think through questions. To meet up with people who at times think like me, but who also know things and think things that I don’t. Right now, I feel like someone who has come to the end of a set word count and is desperately trying to tie things up, make one last final point, but without much luck. I wanted to write about missing beach mission, because its happening right now, on the other side of the world, and I’m not there, which still feels a bit strange. But then I wrote about homesickness, and longing for the past, and wondered if, in my case at least, these two feelings are intertwined, and I guess I have to say they are. I feel homesick not for places that have been my physical home, but for places with emotional significance. Places I have felt needed, loved, valued. Where I have contributed, where I have learned new things. And maybe its fitting to think about these things as the close of the year approaches, and people make resolutions, and to resolve that these things that I miss need not be a thing of the past, but must be made a part of the future, so that I can build my emotional home, a safe place, of love, value, significance and learning wherever I go.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Rant of Red Riding Hood: Once upon a time I had a name.


In years gone by I was made to wear a cape. A cape, a cloak, a cap, a hood. It was the Frenchman, Perrault, who first pinned me down, hemmed me in and clothed me. You see he saw me, out in the countryside, running through the fields with the other children, and he heard about me from the tongues of old women sitting by the fire. He took me from out of their bosom and brought me back to the city. He put me in a copper tub of water and soap suds. He scrubbed and scraped. He removed the grime, the dirt, the filth. He took me out of the tub, dried me, polished me, and there I was all clean, fresh and sparkling. Gone was my home, my history, my community, my context. And then he dressed me, most famously, in a hooded red cloak. The cloak was warm and soft and I didn’t mind at first, but in the end, it engulfed me. It erased my name and I became nothing more than that article of clothing. Before, I was a peasant, a daughter, a sewer, a weaver, grand-daughter. I was a girl, I was growing. I would be a woman. I would become an adult and I would marry and have children, and I would, of my own accord teach my girls to sew, to spin, to weave. I would, with my own words tell them to beware of the temptation of the bzou, to be smart, to be cunning. But instead I was kidnapped and trapped in my hood, always a child, always in the wrong, always a symbol of what not to be. Don’t stray from the path. Don’t take off your red cloak. Don’t stop being who Perrault made you to be. Even Ms Carter[1] clothed me in red, then stripped me naked once again, but claimed to be liberating me. But, Ms Carter, I didn’t want to sleep with the wolf. I wanted to run away. How dare you try and say ‘look what a smart lass she is, controlling the situation, seducing the wolf’ you were in control, not me. You left me with only my body to bargain with, but I'm smarter than that.

See, I never asked for my story to be about sexual deviance or assertion. I never signed the social contract that said I was forever to be a tool for passing on moral codes. I did not consent to being at the centre of four hundred years of story telling and debate. I am just a girl who learnt to sew, who learnt to contend with men and those around me, and learnt to one day take the place of the older women in the community. And I could do it, and would have done it, without the controlling hands of Perrault, the brother Grimm and Ms Carter. But you authors, you set me down on paper, you have pushed me and pulled me, dressed me and undressed me as though I were your play thing, and I object. You’ve all used me as your symbol, your sign, your code, your meme. Always I must represent something. I’m a lesson about temptation and obedience, I’m an example of “a poor child who did not know that it was dangerous to stop and listen to wolves”[2], I became “the literary standard bearer for good Christian upbringing”[3]. I’m a story of empowerment, I’m a fallen woman, I’m a seductress, I’m a metaphor, a trope, a reflection of changing ideas relating to gender equality and sexual power.

Why can’t I just be a young girl, with a mother and a grandmother; a girl with a personality who knew things and felt things, who once upon a time had a name.



[1] Carter, A (1979) ‘The Company of Wolves’, in The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories, Penguin: Hamondsworth

[2] Perrault, C (1999) (1697) ‘Little Red Riding Hood’, trans. Tatar, M in Tatar, M (ed) The Classic Fairy Tales, Norton Critical Editions, Norton: New York and London, pp12

[3] Zipes, J (ed) (1986) Don’t bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England, Gower Publishing Company limited: Aldershot, UK, pp 229

Thursday, November 18, 2010

One Grain of Rice

I handed this in, for Cul340 : Genre Writing, at the end of Semester 1, June 2010. It was my little literary flirtation with the Avant Guard, its a short story with a dash of essay and a hint of Creative Non-Fiction.

Text: One Grain of Rice

Rosie Clare Shorter

Abstract

In assessing the links that exist between both language and identity formation, genre and gender, the following text will use a variety of foods as a metaphor for the vast and ultimately unknowable types of characters and personalities that exist both in fiction and reality, seeking to illustrate a latent gap that exists between language and cognition, suggesting that just as genre definitions can be inadequate in the reading and valuation of a text, so language is inadequate in the reading and valuation of identity.

One Grain of Rice

It makes you feel good. But only for the short term, so you wouldn’t want to indulge too often. You know how it is, the way you just really, really want it. Like how you’d really, really want me. No, not want, but need, or desire. And you’ll be some place inconvenient, snowed in at the office, or waiting for the train, and suddenly, out of nowhere you are overwhelmed by desire. You know you should just head straight home. Take no detours. No distractions. But, you can’t, not now, not now that you’ve had the thought. Not now that you’ve realised there is something missing in your life. You simply feel empty, you can’t resist. And then afterwards, you start to question your actions you think…

Is this about sex? Everything always is. But the first paragraph? unlikely. What if it is? What if…

I tell you about myself. [1]

I tell you I’m writing an essay, a prose piece, an experiment. At least trying to. Its only ideas at the moment.

I tell you, Hi I’m Annabelle, I have this crazy idea. I want to know what you’d be if you were a food, and why. You’d say, I’m nothing special. I’m boiled rice. Simple, plain, accommodating, forgotten.

Forgotten. Yes, that is exactly how Lucianne feels. Once she thought of herself as interesting and attractive. Then her friends got married young, and she didn’t, and now she felt old, but she was only twenty-four. No-one notices her. She is invisible. Of course she is not invisible, but she feels it. In the dictionary it says: invisible / in’VIZƏbƏl/ adj. 1. not visible to the eye, either characteristically or because hidden (invisible guardian angels; the stick insect was invisible on the twig). 2. artfully concealed (invisible mending)[2] . Perhaps she was invisible like the stick insect. She was nothing special or different, positively or negatively. Like everyone else, she blended in to an undifferentiated background of Luciannes and Annabelles, after all no one pays attention to any one grain of rice, but rather it exists as part of a greater whole, a base, something that fills you but doesn’t excite you.

Which is curious because, when Annabelle asked their friend Ben Doherty what kind of food he would be, he answered, potato, because it was something that filled but didn’t excite. Also because potatoes are small, irregular and often overlooked. But he didn’t say that. That would have been too much. And he was never the type of person who told you everything at once. If he did it would sound something like: my name is Ben university like theatre I wonder Lucianne writing an essay viola would she go out with me movies not really yes.

It wouldn’t work. You could never hear everything. Having everything told to you at once would probably be just as confusing as withholding a vital piece of information. Like how in the opening paragraph the object wasn’t named. Like how later and Lucianne is now twenty five and she has been going out with Ben for a while but he doesn’t tell her about this other girl. Doesn’t tell her that he doesn’t want to see her anymore, because telling her might hurt her, but invisible Lucianne knows he isn’t actually looking at her, can’t see her, even though he is seeing her. Lucianne says, Ben this isn’t going to work. He never has to tell her about the other girl.

The other, other girl, Annabelle, is not going out with anyone because she wants to prove she is self-sufficient. She is still asking people what they would be if they were a food and collecting their answers to put together a collection about how we reduce people into small bite sizes so that we can understand them better, but hasn’t written it yet. She is not at all Ben’s other girl, but merely another girl, who, tonight, is meeting up with her ex-boyfriend. She is potentially his other girl but they both assume they are no longer attracted to each other, and that the threat will remain immaterialized. They are both wrong.

In the morning Annabelle wonders if it is somehow two years ago. It is not. She shudders and sends him home. He will let his feelings of guilt, remorse and confusion simmer on low heat for approximately six weeks before he breaks the heart of a wonderful woman when he relates this event to her. Annabelle doesn’t want to think about it, instead she reads about women and the writing of women, but the words scream at her like the angry accusations of a bitter old aunt:

Why don’t you write…

(I don’t have anything to say!)

Because writing is at once too high, too great for you, its reserved for “great men”… Besides you’ve written a little, but in secret; and it wasn’t good, because it was in secret, and because you punished yourself for writing, because you didn’t go all the way…[3]

She feels ill and shuts the book.

At home Lucianne, now twenty-five, is still not married, not going out with Ben, not yet working in a real job, not a mother, not finished her uni degree, and not going to clean the bathroom today. She is reading an article by Irigaray:

Her lot is that of “lack”… and “penis envy,” the penis being the only sexual organ of recognized value. Thus she attempts by every means available to appropriate that organ for herself: through her somewhat servile love of the father-husband capable of giving her one, through her desire for a child-penis, preferably a boy, through access to the cultural values still reserved by right to males alone and therefore always masculine, and so on.[4]

She is not entirely sure what it all means. She isn’t even sure, yet, if that is Irigaray’s position on the matter or if it is her summary of the accepted reading of life and that perhaps in a page or two she will turn it all on its head. The only appropriate thing to do in this situation is make a cup of tea.

Tea is a wonderful thing. Lucianne meets Annabelle for tea and cake one afternoon and says do you know it was a year ago we were sitting here, in this café and you asked me to compare myself to a food? Annabelle mumbles something incoherent. You never told me what you would be. Annabelle is taken aback because that’s where this whole conversation started.

Lucianne if I were a food I would be the most decadent piece of chocolate cake you can imagine. Rich, dark, creamy, bad for you. The type of chocolate cake that solves all your problems and makes you feel emotionally balanced. Cake that makes you feel good, but of course, only for the short term, so you wouldn’t want to indulge in it too often.



[1] Writing the self is merely one of many ways an individual comes to understand and express their unique identity, and is itself the realisation of the desire to be valued and considered significant. Shari Benstock says “This coming-to-knowledge of the self constitutes both the desire that initiates the autobiographical act and the goal to which autobiography directs itself”. Similarly, Kavita Hayton suggests that the practice of life writing “encapsulates both the desire of the writer to express an identity and the understanding that s/he is pursuing a deliberate, self-conscious textual reconstruction of that identity”

· Benstock, S (1988) ‘Authorizing The Autobiographical’ in Warhol and Herndl (eds) (1997), Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism, Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick)

· Hayton, K (2009)New Expressions of the Self: Autobiographical opportunities on the internet, Journal of Media Practice Volume 10 Numbers 2&3 © Intellect Ltd 2009)

[2] Moore, B (ed) (1993), The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press: South Melbourne

[3] Cixous, H (1975), ‘The Laugh of The Medusa’, trans. Keith Cohen and Paula Cohen, in Signs Vol. 1, No. 4 (Summer 1976), pp875 – 893, The University of Chicago Press, accessed at http://jstor.org/stable/3173239

[4] Irigaray, L (1977), The Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Cornell University (1985), Cornell University Press: New York, pp 23-24