The Holder of the World is a book that tells the story of Hannah Easton, born in the American colonies around 1670, who is a woman that thirsts for adventure and desires to expand her possibilities. Hannah was raised in a unique domestic environment compared to other children of Puritan society. Her mother, Rebecca, had a secret love affair with a Nipmuc (King Phillip), which is how she acquired knowledge of wild medecines. Hannah, too, learned from her mother and developed a unique personality. A series of other horrid events shaped Hannah's character into someone who is constantly moving, in search for new and exciting things, and a practitioner of unorthodox healing methods.
Changing Gears
Now, let me introduce the concept of Representation and Agency in the context of my blog. Agency can be defined as the state of being in action of or exerting one's power. A person who is wealthy most likely has more agency than others, as they may not be as limited as others who are not as priveleged.
Representation is the placing of something in the absence of its presence. For example, the senator of a state represents that state in the U.S. Senate because the entire state cannot be there. Representation also has many other definitions and functions: a novel's function as a representation of reality, an iconographic function (i.e Nirvana represents Grunge Rock), the representation of yourself to yourself, the representation of yourself in public.
Another very important function of representation is its function in media. The media represents many figures and groups in the media and has a strong influence in it. The representations of groups in the media puts people into roles. For example, 'a man should act the way a man is represented in the media.' A woman 'should act the way a woman is portrayed in the media.' Therefore, the way things are represented limits agency.
Back to The Holder of the World
Hannah, in the novel, moves from Salem to London, and form London to India, and from India to...well, I haven't got that far yet. These relocations all involve Hannah's desire from something new, adventurous, partially influenced by her unusual upbringing (as I mentioned before). She wishes to push herself to new possibilities. It is the need to find out who she is and be herself. Her desire, perhaps, comes from her desire to exert her agency beyond the limitations that her surroundings impose on her.
In Salem, when Hannah was living with the Fitches, Hannah's agency was limited by the representations of what a lady should be, a Puritan lady to be exact. If she was going to use some wild herbs from the forest for medecine, it was tabooed or alien. It was then that she married Gabriel Legge, which was an escape from Salem and its limitations.
In London, Hannah's agency was limited by her role as a wife, or rather, the representations of what a wife should be. And when Hannah heard the news of Gabriel's "death," she had more agency.
In India, the English women were to act in contrast to slave girls (Indian women). The identity of Enlish women as proper, upright, educated, elegant, is constructed by a public a space - or rather, the representation of an English women in the public space. The representation of what an English women should be limited Hannah's agency. She did not engage so much with Indians, at least for the middle section of the novel, though she desired to discover and learn new things. She did not venture to new places in India, since it was her role to stay in the house and wait for her husband.
I think the constant tension between representation and agency puts Hannah in these different spaces. Hannah doesn't seem to be satisfied with roles constructed by public representations.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Strategy and Tactics
We have seen the superbrands and multinational corporations. They are everywhere, from Gap, to Walmart, to Nike. With big corporations come big revenues, which yields power, and big production, which yields suffering. A lot of times we look at brand names, logos, and the discount prices, and we forget about what went into the products. It is no secret now, that what goes into the products of multinational corporations are unsafe, unfair factories, with numbers of underpaid and mistreated workers. As Walter Landon says in Naomi Klein's chapter The Discarded Family, in her book No Logo, "Products are made in the factory but brands are made in the mind" (195). It is unfortunate that these multicorporate products are made in such hostile factories. It is also unfortunate that there are those who do not have access to this information. And it is even more unfortunate that there are those who are aware of this information and don't believe it.
I remember watching a film in English class that illustrated the workshop conditions in Bangladesh. Mostly young workers (mostly women) were overworked in making clothing for Walmart and Disney. Sometimes, the workers weren't paid for the hard labor they put out. The hours were long, at times 23-24 hours, only getting 3 hours of sleep. Breaks were limited to only a few minutes. And with the conditions of the facility and machines they were working with, any form of health regulations or safety was thrown out the window. At times, the managers would abuse the workers. The workers are paid very little, not even enough to scrape by. Yet, they are providing for children and families at home. These facilities are everwhere around the globe, in third world countries and even China. Naomi Klein also gives an example in the chapter The Discarded Factory, in which Carmelita Alonzo died from 'overwork' in Cavite. Carmelita, along with other workers, were working a lot of overnights during a peak season for the V.T. Fashions factory. Carmelita was ill one night, and the manager refused to let her go to the hospital. Carmelita was eventually admitted to a hospital where she died.
This issue is undoubtedly unfair and unjust. But approaching the issue has proved difficult, even creating rifts amongst activists with different interests in approaching the problem. Some have approached the issue with the idea of not supporting the corporations that have such factories or attempting to run those companies out of business. For some, the strategy is to hurt these companies or run them out of business. Some of the tacticts that activists or unions have used is violence. The problem with this tactic, is that companies threaten to shut their productions down and follow through with their threats, as mentioned in the "Migrant Factories" section in The Discarded Factory chapter. Even though this result may be desired by some activists, it has more dire consequences in other places of the world. Poorer countries need the factories for jobs.
Rather, I think that the strategy should be to keep the corporations and factories, but improving the health and safety conditions of the workers, the policies, their work environment, pay, and holding corporate boss's responsible for severely unfair treatment. This is not an easy strategy, since its tactics involve politics, a very large number of people, heavy influence, and a lot of time.
I remember watching a film in English class that illustrated the workshop conditions in Bangladesh. Mostly young workers (mostly women) were overworked in making clothing for Walmart and Disney. Sometimes, the workers weren't paid for the hard labor they put out. The hours were long, at times 23-24 hours, only getting 3 hours of sleep. Breaks were limited to only a few minutes. And with the conditions of the facility and machines they were working with, any form of health regulations or safety was thrown out the window. At times, the managers would abuse the workers. The workers are paid very little, not even enough to scrape by. Yet, they are providing for children and families at home. These facilities are everwhere around the globe, in third world countries and even China. Naomi Klein also gives an example in the chapter The Discarded Factory, in which Carmelita Alonzo died from 'overwork' in Cavite. Carmelita, along with other workers, were working a lot of overnights during a peak season for the V.T. Fashions factory. Carmelita was ill one night, and the manager refused to let her go to the hospital. Carmelita was eventually admitted to a hospital where she died.
This issue is undoubtedly unfair and unjust. But approaching the issue has proved difficult, even creating rifts amongst activists with different interests in approaching the problem. Some have approached the issue with the idea of not supporting the corporations that have such factories or attempting to run those companies out of business. For some, the strategy is to hurt these companies or run them out of business. Some of the tacticts that activists or unions have used is violence. The problem with this tactic, is that companies threaten to shut their productions down and follow through with their threats, as mentioned in the "Migrant Factories" section in The Discarded Factory chapter. Even though this result may be desired by some activists, it has more dire consequences in other places of the world. Poorer countries need the factories for jobs.
Rather, I think that the strategy should be to keep the corporations and factories, but improving the health and safety conditions of the workers, the policies, their work environment, pay, and holding corporate boss's responsible for severely unfair treatment. This is not an easy strategy, since its tactics involve politics, a very large number of people, heavy influence, and a lot of time.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
A Cookie Cutter
I remember when I was ten, going on 5th grade, I moved in with my older sister and brother-in-law. My mom had reason to believe that the enivronment I lived in had a negative influence on my upbringing. So my mom had me move in with my older sister in her new house in the suburbs of Apple Valley, MN. There, it was intended for me to have resources and schooling not accessable to me in the Twin Cities. Apple Valley is where I spent a four year interval of my life, from 5th grade to 8th grade, which are the most odd years.
I remember the atmosphere of school those years. There were the 'pretty' people, 'not so pretty' people, and the middle people. Even though no one said it, it was plainly obvious. It was the way everyone organized themselves in tables at lunch, the way everyone talked to each other, what they ate, what they wore, what they did after school. The 'pretty' people only mingled/"dated" each other, and the same with the other classes, and any intermingling was weird or shocking. I never really 'hung out' with anyone after school. I was 'friends,' or rather, acquaintences with different people of different 'class.' It was weird coming from very diverse schools going into homogenous schools. In this environment, I felt out of place and insecure. I never really fitted in. And on top of that, I was not living with the 'nuclear family' at the time, which created a sense of space and isolation from my peers.
I remember when people would ask me about who I was living with at home, and I would have to go through a long explaination about my mom and older sister agreeing on bringing me to Appley Valley. I remember going to the grocery store with my older sister and her husband, and the way they felt somewhat embarassed having me around because it looked as if they were my very young biological parents. I remember how weird it felt at times when I brought my brother-in-law to conferences, when everyone brought their parents, and some of the discussions involved father-child or mother-child relations. I remember the father-son events, or mother-son events, in which I never attended. Even though I knew I was welcomed to attend, it still was socially awkward among my peers bringing my older sister or brother-in-law to these events.
My intention is not to complain or bicker, in fact, I had a lot of good times in my years in Apple Valley. The point of my blog is to question the nuclear family, and explore how the homogenizing of the 'nuclear family' can create isolation among individuals.
Jane Juffer discusses in the chapter The Corporate University, in her book Single Mother, of how the different aspects of different family structures (specifically single mothers/parents) can create isolation and immobility. Jane Juffer uses the example of how she cannot attend many social events because she is caring for a child at home, alone. Although it sounds like bickering, it is more so the reality of the situation: "What I am trying to describe, perhaps ineptly, is the feeling of isolation that derives as much from a general work climate as it does from a specific policy initiatives, or lack of policies. As most of the reports on academia and parenting studies argue, what needs to change in order for mothers to feel supported is not just the policies but also the culture, one in which admitting one's need seems like an admission that work will not get done. I believe there's a connection: that working with the university to adopt more family-friendly policies not based on the nuclear family will lead to a more communal environment" (95-96). It is important not to create a cookie cutter that shapes the same needs for everyone. In order to obtain true equality, we have to understand what is accessable for each person (which is complicated). The lack of non-nuclear-family-friendly policies and resources handicaps single parents from the same opportunities married couples or single people get. Even within the single parent branch, there is a difference in accessability among different classes of single mothers (poor, middle-class, rich).
I remember the atmosphere of school those years. There were the 'pretty' people, 'not so pretty' people, and the middle people. Even though no one said it, it was plainly obvious. It was the way everyone organized themselves in tables at lunch, the way everyone talked to each other, what they ate, what they wore, what they did after school. The 'pretty' people only mingled/"dated" each other, and the same with the other classes, and any intermingling was weird or shocking. I never really 'hung out' with anyone after school. I was 'friends,' or rather, acquaintences with different people of different 'class.' It was weird coming from very diverse schools going into homogenous schools. In this environment, I felt out of place and insecure. I never really fitted in. And on top of that, I was not living with the 'nuclear family' at the time, which created a sense of space and isolation from my peers.
I remember when people would ask me about who I was living with at home, and I would have to go through a long explaination about my mom and older sister agreeing on bringing me to Appley Valley. I remember going to the grocery store with my older sister and her husband, and the way they felt somewhat embarassed having me around because it looked as if they were my very young biological parents. I remember how weird it felt at times when I brought my brother-in-law to conferences, when everyone brought their parents, and some of the discussions involved father-child or mother-child relations. I remember the father-son events, or mother-son events, in which I never attended. Even though I knew I was welcomed to attend, it still was socially awkward among my peers bringing my older sister or brother-in-law to these events.
My intention is not to complain or bicker, in fact, I had a lot of good times in my years in Apple Valley. The point of my blog is to question the nuclear family, and explore how the homogenizing of the 'nuclear family' can create isolation among individuals.
Jane Juffer discusses in the chapter The Corporate University, in her book Single Mother, of how the different aspects of different family structures (specifically single mothers/parents) can create isolation and immobility. Jane Juffer uses the example of how she cannot attend many social events because she is caring for a child at home, alone. Although it sounds like bickering, it is more so the reality of the situation: "What I am trying to describe, perhaps ineptly, is the feeling of isolation that derives as much from a general work climate as it does from a specific policy initiatives, or lack of policies. As most of the reports on academia and parenting studies argue, what needs to change in order for mothers to feel supported is not just the policies but also the culture, one in which admitting one's need seems like an admission that work will not get done. I believe there's a connection: that working with the university to adopt more family-friendly policies not based on the nuclear family will lead to a more communal environment" (95-96). It is important not to create a cookie cutter that shapes the same needs for everyone. In order to obtain true equality, we have to understand what is accessable for each person (which is complicated). The lack of non-nuclear-family-friendly policies and resources handicaps single parents from the same opportunities married couples or single people get. Even within the single parent branch, there is a difference in accessability among different classes of single mothers (poor, middle-class, rich).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)