Gates explains this past strand of logic in the popular view of Africans (and probably other non-whites) as originating in Descartes philosophy: "Writing...was taken to be the visible sign of reason" (8). I wonder, then, if literacy was/is the only viable way to enact a representation of either an individual or an entire group. 72 years after Phillis Wheatley's book of poems was published (Gates 7) came Frederick Douglas's Narrative. In his book, Douglas emphasized that ignorance (illiteracy) was the strongest obstacle to the abolition of slavery and that knowledge (literacy) was the surest path to freedom. In a country in which most people would not listen to the words of a slave or even a free African, words had to be written - to make it possible for them to represent their side of slavery, to make it more difficult to be ignored.
This seems a case of overcoming voicelessness with text. Although hardly a means of measuring humanness among races, sexes, and societies, literacy is a powerful tool - and sometimes the only tool - with which to achieve representation.
This is an interesting observation about the power of literacy, and it makes me wonder where the people in Up the Yangtze fit in. Although both of Cindy's parents are illiterate, they achieve a certain powerful voice through the filmmakers who relate their story to an audience who might recognize their plight. However, without the help of others, it seems that they would be still quite destitute. Perhaps, then, without literacy, a voice can only be achieved through those who are literate/part of a hegemonic group that is allowed a voice. Although Cindy is literate, and although this allows her to find a job and have more power to help her family than her parents have, her literacy does not necessarily provide her with a voice because she must use it to work in a place where she is told what to say and do, instead of being allowed more freedom. She is more free within society than her parents, but she is still unable to really lift them from their poverty without the help of others. It seems that literacy, then, provides survival, but not necessarily voice, for those who aren't part of the dominant culture or class.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if literacy is the only way to enact a representation of a person of group - I think that equally or more powerful representations can come from pictures, art, or film, or even speaking. As we saw in Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” even a body can become a text – a representation. It seems that in that case, this woman decided that her body would be a more effective text or representation than would a letter or a written text.
ReplyDeleteI am with you on the point about illiteracy being a factor in misrepresentation of groups and people - representing the self or the group becomes much more difficult in this situation. However, as Spivak notes, groups that cannot write or speak themselves into history (the subaltern) and are disempowered may be well represented if the academically powerful if they can get in touch with the consciousness of the subaltern group and figure out their voice (803). This point troubles me: do subaltern groups always need to depend on outside, powerful groups to correct the misrepresentations or even to create a representation at all? I think this question is related to your blog post.