WEBVTT

00:02.500 --> 00:06.070
Prof: So I'm not sure
how long this lecture is going

00:06.067 --> 00:06.557
to be.

00:06.560 --> 00:08.520
We could be finished in ten
minutes,

00:08.520 --> 00:11.750
though I doubt that,
and if we're not finished at

00:11.753 --> 00:15.393
the end of the fifty,
there are some things that I've

00:15.393 --> 00:18.983
reserved for the end of the
lecture that I definitely do

00:18.984 --> 00:20.294
want to get said.

00:20.290 --> 00:23.390
I don't know if you've noticed
that there are times when the

00:23.393 --> 00:26.293
last point or two that I
appeared to have been preparing

00:26.287 --> 00:30.087
to make never get made,
but in this case I want to make

00:30.086 --> 00:34.436
sure that they are made so that
if I don't finish today,

00:34.440 --> 00:36.740
or if I still have a point or
two to make,

00:36.740 --> 00:40.500
I'll definitely be taking up
those points at the beginning of

00:40.502 --> 00:41.822
Thursday's lecture.

00:41.820 --> 00:42.870
All right.

00:42.865 --> 00:48.715
Now the African-American
tradition of literary production

00:48.718 --> 00:51.748
is rich and long standing.

00:51.750 --> 00:56.140
As Henry Louis Gates tells you,
the first really rather

00:56.144 --> 01:00.134
important poet in the tradition,
Phillis Wheatley,

01:00.131 --> 01:02.981
is an American colonial writer.

01:02.978 --> 01:07.848
The flourishing of the slave
narrative form begins in the

01:07.846 --> 01:12.026
eighteenth century,
continues into the nineteenth,

01:12.028 --> 01:16.108
the nineteenth century
witnesses extraordinary works of

01:16.111 --> 01:18.681
fiction,
and in the twentieth century,

01:18.679 --> 01:21.939
of course most conspicuously in
the Harlem Renaissance,

01:21.938 --> 01:25.908
but throughout the century
there has been extraordinary

01:25.912 --> 01:28.932
work done in the
African-American literary

01:28.929 --> 01:29.959
tradition.

01:29.959 --> 01:32.269
It's a very rich tradition--in
other words,

01:32.269 --> 01:37.209
somewhat in contrast with the
very rich but also very recent

01:37.214 --> 01:42.414
tradition of African-American
literary theory and criticism.

01:42.410 --> 01:46.870
It's possible to argue that the
development of theory and

01:46.870 --> 01:51.890
criticism in this tradition was
somewhat balked by a preliminary

01:51.888 --> 01:56.108
way in which it found itself at
odds with itself.

01:56.110 --> 02:00.650
Black criticism and black
feminist criticism from the

02:00.646 --> 02:05.876
beginning saw that they didn't
have quite the same agenda.

02:05.879 --> 02:07.639
This is something that can
resonate,

02:07.640 --> 02:10.990
perhaps, later in this lecture
when we move to other topics,

02:10.990 --> 02:14.520
but in the meantime critics
like Barbara Christian,

02:14.520 --> 02:17.650
Barbara Smith,
Hazel Carby,

02:17.651 --> 02:24.401
and Bell Hooks were in their
variety of ways working with

02:24.397 --> 02:29.677
emphases that other,
male African-American critics

02:29.681 --> 02:32.191
weren't quite comfortable with.

02:32.188 --> 02:35.708
So while work,
especially beginning in the

02:35.709 --> 02:37.789
eighties,
proliferated,

02:37.791 --> 02:41.921
there was, as I say,
a kind of internal divide which

02:41.918 --> 02:46.448
has been a complex matter to
negotiate and which is,

02:46.449 --> 02:50.399
I think, now largely sort
of--well,

02:52.139 --> 02:56.239
and African-American literary
theory is moving forward

02:56.241 --> 02:59.571
unfettered any longer by these
concerns,

02:59.568 --> 03:03.148
or at least by any excess of
these concerns.

03:03.150 --> 03:07.530
But in the meantime that may
partly account for a certain

03:07.526 --> 03:11.826
delay in the emergence of theory
and criticism given the

03:11.825 --> 03:15.965
long-standing richness of the
literary tradition.

03:15.968 --> 03:20.128
Now the role of Henry Louis
Gates in African-American

03:20.128 --> 03:22.318
criticism is,
it seems to me,

03:22.316 --> 03:25.756
exemplary, although there are
some rather harsh moments in

03:25.763 --> 03:29.493
this essay,
moments that I wish to take up,

03:29.488 --> 03:32.668
that would suggest an element
of--

03:32.669 --> 03:38.529
what shall I say?--extremism or
overkill in Gates's thinking.

03:38.530 --> 03:44.750
This is actually not at all the
persona that he has projected.

03:44.750 --> 03:49.600
Indeed what's extraordinary
about Gates, whose

03:49.598 --> 03:56.058
administrative power and whose
abilities as a program builder

03:56.062 --> 03:58.112
are remarkable.

03:58.110 --> 04:00.950
After he left Yale to go to
Harvard,

04:00.949 --> 04:04.629
he was able to gather to
Harvard Anthony Appiah,

04:04.628 --> 04:06.998
Cornel West,
and others who have since

04:06.998 --> 04:11.408
departed from Harvard,
but Gates is in a way an empire

04:11.414 --> 04:16.324
unto himself and he has been an
extraordinary figure.

04:16.319 --> 04:18.349
The earliest work,
which is actually among the

04:18.345 --> 04:20.455
earliest work in
African-American criticism,

04:20.459 --> 04:22.649
is what you've been reading for
today,

04:22.649 --> 04:25.639
and it established his
reputation together with--

04:25.639 --> 04:32.209
not so much discovery of,
but authentication of--

04:32.209 --> 04:35.419
a manuscript by Harriet Wilson
which he published,

04:35.420 --> 04:40.300
an important contribution to
our knowledge of

04:40.297 --> 04:45.727
nineteenth-century
African-American literature.

04:45.730 --> 04:49.130
In any case,
what happened then was that

04:49.127 --> 04:52.437
Gates who by some miracle or
other--

04:52.440 --> 04:55.790
he was a perfectly good writer
in the first place but gradually

04:55.791 --> 04:59.271
became a marvelous writer--
began writing for The New

04:59.266 --> 05:02.916
Yorker,
and during this phase of

05:02.918 --> 05:05.938
his career,
when among other things he

05:05.935 --> 05:09.075
produced a remarkable
autobiography about growing up

05:09.083 --> 05:14.083
in West Virginia,
during this phase Gates really

05:21.490 --> 05:24.330
and racial factions.

05:24.329 --> 05:27.819
In other words,
he was a voice of moderation

05:27.819 --> 05:32.929
without incurring any imputation
of Uncle Tom-ism or anything of

05:32.934 --> 05:33.994
the sort.

05:33.990 --> 05:38.980
His sheer urbanity as the
remarkable writer that he is in

05:38.978 --> 05:44.588
those years when he wrote under
Tina Brown for The New Yorker

05:44.589 --> 05:48.419
was just a remarkable
achievement,

05:48.420 --> 05:53.300
and his career is still going
strong.

05:53.300 --> 05:57.770
Now for Gates,
as for Elaine Showalter last

05:57.773 --> 06:03.953
week and for Woolf before her,
the problems surrounding the

06:03.951 --> 06:07.361
concept of identity persist.

06:07.360 --> 06:13.090
Identity--which of course is an
important anchor for the

06:13.093 --> 06:18.413
thinking of people who feel the
need for voices,

06:18.410 --> 06:23.260
for a place in the literary and
cultural horizon--

06:23.259 --> 06:26.259
is nevertheless at least
potentially,

06:26.259 --> 06:31.189
as we've begun to notice
already, a kind of quicksand.

06:31.189 --> 06:37.889
There are two problems really
that dog the issue of identity.

06:37.889 --> 06:40.249
One of them is the problem of
"essentializing"

06:40.252 --> 06:43.082
which I'll take up now,
and then, as I'll take it up

06:43.084 --> 06:46.644
next, also the problem of what
might be called the identity

06:46.637 --> 06:47.187
queue.

06:47.190 --> 06:52.650
In other words,
I am a lower-class black

06:52.649 --> 06:58.949
lesbian feminist whose nation is
Palestine.

06:58.949 --> 07:02.209
Needless to say,
I have a variety of identity

07:02.213 --> 07:06.073
options to choose from,
but the result is I've got to

07:06.072 --> 07:09.192
figure out which of them has
priority.

07:09.189 --> 07:14.309
In other words,
which of those identities do I

07:14.307 --> 07:20.217
suppose has the underlying
integrity and essence,

07:20.220 --> 07:24.310
essentiality,
that can motivate,

07:24.310 --> 07:29.050
as it were, the characteristics
of my other identities,

07:29.050 --> 07:32.800
which are therefore somehow or
another placed further down in

07:32.800 --> 07:33.550
the queue?

07:33.550 --> 07:37.820
So this is a topic that I'll
come back to in a minute,

07:37.819 --> 07:41.379
but in the meantime the problem
of essentializing,

07:41.379 --> 07:44.519
as we call it:
for example,

07:44.516 --> 07:52.116
as Gates describes it on page
1893 in the right-hand column,

07:52.120 --> 07:57.140
where he's very clear on the
dangers of ascribing,

07:57.139 --> 08:02.449
whether positively or
negatively, attributes to any

08:02.451 --> 08:07.341
group that is constituted as or
thought of--

08:07.338 --> 08:10.168
because of course,
the notion of race and whether

08:10.173 --> 08:13.193
there is race is in
itself according to Gates

08:13.185 --> 08:16.945
problematic--
the problem of ascribing

08:16.951 --> 08:22.131
attributes even honorifically to
a race is,

08:22.129 --> 08:27.809
as he describes it on page
1893:

08:27.810 --> 08:33.000
The sense of difference defined
in popular usages [finally my

08:32.998 --> 08:36.888
voice is changing]
>

08:36.889 --> 08:41.389
>

08:41.389 --> 08:45.769
of the term race has
been used both to describe and

08:45.767 --> 08:49.067
inscribe differences of
language,

08:49.070 --> 08:51.280
belief system,
artistic tradition,

08:51.283 --> 08:54.573
"gene pool,"
and all sorts of supposedly

08:54.568 --> 08:57.988
"natural"
attributes such as rhythm,

08:57.990 --> 09:00.680
athletic ability,
cerebration,

09:00.676 --> 09:03.026
usury,
and fidelity.

09:03.028 --> 09:06.058
In other words,
obviously, apportioning out

09:06.058 --> 09:10.168
stereotypes to the various
groups that may come forward as

09:10.169 --> 09:14.519
candidates to be races--
he's pointing out that all of

09:14.524 --> 09:18.074
these stereotypes do nobody very
much good.

09:18.070 --> 09:21.580
So the problem of
essentializing,

09:21.583 --> 09:27.953
which undergirds the wish to
make manifest the existence of

09:27.952 --> 09:30.262
race gives pause.

09:30.259 --> 09:31.079
Think about it.

09:31.080 --> 09:34.480
On the other hand,
Gates seems to be divided at

09:34.484 --> 09:38.634
the beginning of his essay
between a certain candor about

09:38.629 --> 09:41.009
race,
as in the work of Hippolyte

09:41.014 --> 09:44.304
Taine that he describes,
in which "race,"

09:44.303 --> 09:47.523
"milieu"
and "cultural moment"

09:47.517 --> 09:50.927
are considered the key
determining issues of any kind

09:50.927 --> 09:53.547
of artistic or cultural
production.

09:53.548 --> 09:54.558
He says of that in effect,
"Well,

09:54.558 --> 09:58.008
at least race is being talked
about," while at the same

09:58.008 --> 10:01.518
time obviously wincing away from
the implications of race and

10:01.515 --> 10:04.785
from the belief that there is
such a thing as race,

10:04.788 --> 10:09.248
which goes all the way back to
Montesquieu and others from

10:09.253 --> 10:09.883
Taine.

10:09.879 --> 10:11.779
Nevertheless,
as I say, he's rather cheerful

10:11.778 --> 10:14.248
about the fact that at least
race is being discussed,

10:14.250 --> 10:18.280
unlike the twentieth century
when the whole thing is swept

10:18.278 --> 10:22.308
under the rug and a kind of
ersatz and hypocritical

10:22.307 --> 10:26.827
politeness prevents anybody from
talking about such categories at

10:26.831 --> 10:29.701
all,
and gives rise to the idea that

10:29.696 --> 10:32.586
we all exist in the same Great
Tradition,

10:32.590 --> 10:35.720
that work either belongs to
that tradition or,

10:35.720 --> 10:38.600
if it for some reason seems
egregious or outside the

10:38.596 --> 10:41.676
tradition,
it just can be shoved aside and

10:41.677 --> 10:42.507
neglected.

10:42.509 --> 10:45.679
That's the supposition of the
twentieth century when folks

10:45.682 --> 10:47.022
don't talk about race.

10:47.019 --> 10:52.969
So the very question whether it
is an issue is part of this

10:52.974 --> 10:58.524
problem that is dogged by the
more complicated issue of

10:58.519 --> 11:00.469
essentializing.

11:00.470 --> 11:03.830
For example,
suppose--and of course,

11:03.830 --> 11:07.510
you've been reading about this
in Showalter as well--

11:07.509 --> 11:12.809
you ascribe positive value to
what another person might call a

11:12.809 --> 11:13.939
stereotype.

11:13.940 --> 11:19.700
This is what the important
Francophone African poet Senghor

11:19.697 --> 11:23.967
does, as Gates says at the top
of page 1901,

11:23.967 --> 11:26.547
the right hand-column.

11:26.549 --> 11:29.889
Gates says:
When we attempt to appropriate,

11:29.886 --> 11:33.576
by inversion,
race as a term for an

11:33.581 --> 11:37.011
essence,
as did the Negritude movement,

11:37.009 --> 11:40.849
for example ("We feel,
therefore we are,"

11:40.852 --> 11:43.162
as Senghor argued of the
African),

11:43.158 --> 11:47.308
we yield too much,
such as the basis of a shared

11:47.307 --> 11:48.277
humanity.

11:48.279 --> 11:51.779
Such gestures,
as Anthony Appiah has observed,

11:51.777 --> 11:55.507
are futile and dangerous
because of their further

11:55.506 --> 11:59.156
inscription of new and bizarre
stereotypes.

11:59.158 --> 12:05.408
So you can see there are a lot
of landmines to be avoided in

12:05.409 --> 12:11.339
negotiating the discourse of
race, and certainly Gates is

12:11.342 --> 12:13.252
aware of them.

12:13.250 --> 12:15.770
Now there's also the problem,
as I say,

12:15.769 --> 12:19.449
of the identity queue,
and Gates himself may have a

12:19.448 --> 12:23.308
little difficulty with this,
at least from time to time,

12:23.307 --> 12:25.467
because as I said at the
beginning,

12:29.797 --> 12:33.467
with feminism in the
African-American critical

12:33.471 --> 12:36.331
tradition still to work within.

12:36.330 --> 12:39.290
So for example,
on page 1894,

12:39.288 --> 12:45.308
a somewhat problematic passage
in which the identity queue

12:45.312 --> 12:50.602
seems to be at issue,
about a third of the way down,

12:50.595 --> 12:53.295
the left-hand column,
he says:

12:53.298 --> 12:58.168
The sanction of biology
contained in sexual difference,

12:58.168 --> 13:02.268
simply put, does not and can
never obtain when one is

13:02.269 --> 13:05.739
speaking of "racial
difference."

13:05.740 --> 13:10.330
Yet we carelessly use language
in such a way as to will

13:10.331 --> 13:13.871
this sense of natural
difference into our

13:13.870 --> 13:15.150
formulations.

13:15.149 --> 13:17.949
So what he's saying is in
biological terms there's

13:17.948 --> 13:20.518
definitely a difference between
the sexes,

13:20.519 --> 13:26.239
but in biological terms there
is not necessarily a difference

13:26.238 --> 13:29.668
among the so-called primary
races.

13:29.668 --> 13:35.678
The result is that at least
when one speaks of women and men

13:35.677 --> 13:41.237
in the feminist tradition,
one has to come face to face

13:41.236 --> 13:44.866
with the problem of actual
difference;

13:44.870 --> 13:48.520
whereas when one speaks of
black and white in the

13:48.519 --> 13:53.159
traditions of discourse about
race, one isn't actually talking

13:53.158 --> 13:56.048
about a genuine difference at
all.

13:56.048 --> 14:01.738
Therefore the discourse with
the greater integrity of the two

14:01.743 --> 14:07.063
is the one which is about
differences that are absolutely

14:07.056 --> 14:10.306
ephemeral,
as opposed to the one which is

14:10.308 --> 14:12.808
about differences,
which, whatever one thinks of

14:12.813 --> 14:15.033
them and whatever one wants to
make out of them,

14:15.029 --> 14:18.249
are nevertheless essential.

14:18.250 --> 14:21.910
Now plainly when we go back to
feminist criticism,

14:21.908 --> 14:25.248
particularly the gender theory
of Judith Butler,

14:25.250 --> 14:29.450
we'll see of course that the
whole question of the biological

14:29.450 --> 14:32.980
basis of sex,
the biological difference

14:32.975 --> 14:37.975
between the sexes which
essentializes what we will be

14:37.977 --> 14:42.607
wanting to talk about,
is of course something that is

14:42.606 --> 14:46.276
profoundly in question,
and not just because of

14:46.277 --> 14:49.657
so-called trans-gender issues
but also,

14:49.658 --> 14:53.648
at the same time,
because of the way in which our

14:53.652 --> 14:57.232
very sexual identity is
something which,

14:57.230 --> 14:59.510
according to Butler,
we construct.

14:59.509 --> 15:05.089
So there is an insistence here
on a biological difference

15:05.091 --> 15:10.871
between these two forms of
discussing identity which may or

15:10.873 --> 15:14.963
may not seem to us to be
problematic.

15:14.960 --> 15:19.210
Now I think this is the point
at which we can see the

15:19.206 --> 15:24.186
importance of the extraordinary
essay that I've also asked you

15:24.188 --> 15:26.638
to read, by Toni Morrison.

15:26.639 --> 15:29.989
We know her best,
of course, as a novelist,

15:29.988 --> 15:34.368
but she's also a distinguished
critic, as she has been a

15:34.373 --> 15:38.283
distinguished editor of other
important work.

15:38.279 --> 15:43.329
Here it seems to me that her
reflections in some ways give us

15:43.330 --> 15:47.790
a sideways exit from the
predicaments that I have been

15:47.789 --> 15:51.429
talking about,
the problem of essentialism and

15:51.429 --> 15:53.799
the problem of the identity
queue,

15:53.798 --> 15:57.018
because what Morrison wants to
say--

15:57.019 --> 16:01.579
and I think she borrows here
particularly from the famous

16:01.577 --> 16:05.647
discussion of the master-slave
dialectic in Hegel's

16:05.648 --> 16:10.918
Phenomenology of Mind--
what Morrison wants to say

16:10.918 --> 16:16.668
is that identity isn't so much a
question of what something is

16:16.673 --> 16:20.733
but rather a question of what it
is not.

16:20.730 --> 16:26.030
She says not that we should be
so much preoccupied with what it

16:26.029 --> 16:28.909
is to be black,
but rather that,

16:28.909 --> 16:33.769
as we think about the way in
which being black is inscribed

16:33.770 --> 16:38.390
within the white tradition--
as we think about that,

16:38.388 --> 16:42.508
we need to think about what
white is not:

16:42.511 --> 16:46.251
in other words,
as she says repeatedly,

16:46.245 --> 16:52.255
about black as absence,
as negation, as negativity.

16:52.259 --> 16:55.369
We have to understand the
absolute--

16:55.370 --> 16:59.040
and this is where she drives
her argument from the

16:59.041 --> 17:03.981
master-slave dialectic--
the absolute necessity in the

17:03.981 --> 17:09.041
construction of white identity
for there to be,

17:09.038 --> 17:15.858
as an absence and as a lack
over against white identity,

17:15.858 --> 17:20.478
the existence of the African
American and,

17:20.480 --> 17:23.070
more particularly,
for the better part of the

17:23.067 --> 17:26.197
American cultural tradition,
of the slave.

17:26.200 --> 17:31.040
Let me quote then from her
essay on page 1795,

17:31.038 --> 17:35.338
the left-hand column,
where she says:

17:35.338 --> 17:41.838
In that construction of
blackness [this is a third of

17:41.844 --> 17:47.224
the way down]
and enslavement could be found

17:47.222 --> 17:55.232
not only the not-free but also
the projection of the not-me.

17:55.230 --> 17:58.380
The result was a playground for
the imagination.

17:58.380 --> 18:02.360
And what rose up out of
collective needs to allay

18:02.356 --> 18:07.156
internal fears and rationalize
external exploitation was an

18:07.163 --> 18:11.133
Africanism--
a fabricated brew of darkness,

18:11.125 --> 18:14.505
otherness,
alarm and desire--that is

18:14.509 --> 18:16.279
uniquely American.

18:16.278 --> 18:19.318
Then she points out that
although her subject is the

18:19.318 --> 18:22.488
American tradition,
there also exists a European

18:22.486 --> 18:26.726
Africanism with its counterpart
in its own colonial literature.

18:26.730 --> 18:30.280
To reinforce this,
she takes a remarkable example

18:30.280 --> 18:34.970
which must have reminded you,
those of you who know Faulkner,

18:34.972 --> 18:39.172
of Thomas Sutpen or at least
reminded you in some ways of

18:39.170 --> 18:42.630
Thomas Sutpen--
the example of this character

18:42.625 --> 18:44.965
Dunbar,
who actually rose up not so

18:44.974 --> 18:48.814
much out of the swamp as out of
the Scottish Enlightenment and

18:48.805 --> 18:52.675
came to the United States and--
according to Bernard Bailyn,

18:52.682 --> 18:55.922
the historian from whom she
cites her information--

18:55.920 --> 18:59.880
became a completely transformed
character.

18:59.880 --> 19:03.650
I won't quote to you the long
passage from Bailyn's text which

19:03.653 --> 19:06.813
makes what Morrison wants to
take from it clear,

19:06.808 --> 19:12.388
but rather from what Morrison
summarizes of it on page 1796,

19:12.390 --> 19:15.170
the top of the right-hand
column:

19:15.170 --> 19:20.240
I take this [William Dunbar]
to be a succinct portrait of

19:20.242 --> 19:23.872
the process by which the
American as new,

19:23.867 --> 19:27.127
white, and male was
constituted.

19:27.130 --> 19:31.510
It is a formation that has
several attractive consequences,

19:31.509 --> 19:35.399
all of which are referred to in
Bailyn's summation of Dunbar's

19:35.398 --> 19:38.778
character and located in how
Dunbar feels "within

19:38.778 --> 19:41.088
himself"--
"a power,

19:41.087 --> 19:45.007
a sense of freedom he had not
known before."

19:45.009 --> 19:49.439
This is uncannily parallel by
the way to the rationalization

19:49.443 --> 19:51.703
for slaves in Greek culture.

19:51.700 --> 19:55.970
The Greeks always said that the
reason they had slaves was so

19:55.970 --> 19:59.530
they could be free:
in other words so that the home

19:59.528 --> 20:03.228
or ruling population was
liberated in the case of the

20:03.229 --> 20:07.289
Greeks from performing the daily
necessities that are life

20:07.286 --> 20:09.916
sustaining and keep us going.

20:09.920 --> 20:12.950
In other words,
to be free according to the

20:12.953 --> 20:16.643
citizen of the Greek
polis is to be free from

20:16.638 --> 20:17.288
work.

20:17.288 --> 20:21.458
Now in a certain way,
this is still a rationalization

20:21.458 --> 20:26.748
that Tony Morrison sees in the
American slave-owning tradition,

20:26.750 --> 20:30.940
but it's not so much in the
case of this Dunbar a freedom

20:30.941 --> 20:31.841
from work.

20:31.838 --> 20:36.638
It's a more broad and insidious
idea of freedom:

20:36.635 --> 20:42.295
freedom from responsibility,
freedom from the need to

20:42.300 --> 20:48.040
acknowledge otherness as human--
freedom, in other words,

20:48.044 --> 20:53.804
from the sorts of constraint
imposed by old world civility in

20:53.804 --> 20:58.464
Scotland and in London;
freedom on this frontier,

20:58.455 --> 21:01.295
in this wilderness,
in this swamp,

21:01.303 --> 21:04.843
simply to be whatever one wants
to be.

21:04.838 --> 21:12.708
That freedom is achieved on the
backs of the black slaves.

21:12.710 --> 21:16.780
It is in some ways similar,
as I say,

21:16.778 --> 21:20.368
to the rationalization for
slavery in Greece,

21:20.368 --> 21:25.518
but it is in a way more
insidious and certainly more--

21:25.519 --> 21:28.889
in the terms that Morrison's
giving it to us in--

21:28.890 --> 21:30.200
more dialectical.

21:30.200 --> 21:34.910
That is to say,
it is the question of whether a

21:34.914 --> 21:40.454
person could become white
without the availability of a

21:40.452 --> 21:45.122
black absence,
of that which can be

21:45.118 --> 21:53.278
oppressed-- like a kind of
spring for the jack-in-the-box--

21:53.279 --> 21:56.999
which allows the white
jack-in-the-box to leap out of

21:56.996 --> 22:01.496
the box because of that which
has been suppressed down below.

22:01.500 --> 22:05.560
All of that is part of Toni
Morrison's concern,

22:05.558 --> 22:09.518
and it colors her,
well, certainly controversial

22:09.519 --> 22:12.719
reading of Huckleberry
Finn--

22:12.720 --> 22:14.670
which nevertheless,
it seems to me,

22:14.670 --> 22:18.330
has a quite profound interest.

22:18.328 --> 22:23.038
Now my own first instinct when
people single out Huckleberry

22:23.044 --> 22:27.454
Finn for blame is to
wince away, because it's an

22:27.453 --> 22:29.283
extraordinary novel.

22:29.278 --> 22:33.818
The controversy about it in the
school districts which made it a

22:33.817 --> 22:37.987
banished book had mainly to do
with the "N-word,"

22:37.994 --> 22:41.654
to which we'll return,
and the question of who has the

22:41.653 --> 22:43.593
right to use the
"N-word,"

22:43.586 --> 22:46.016
which is not an easy question
to answer,

22:46.019 --> 22:47.479
as we'll see.

22:47.480 --> 22:51.950
But that controversy,
while it had an authentic

22:51.953 --> 22:55.473
basis,
was nevertheless certainly in

22:55.469 --> 23:00.929
literary terms and in terms of
the imagination perhaps rather

23:00.929 --> 23:01.929
limited.

23:01.930 --> 23:06.600
Morrison gives rise to another
equally and intensely critical

23:06.596 --> 23:10.016
way of thinking about
Huckleberry Finn.

23:10.019 --> 23:14.329
She argues that to liberate
Jim--

23:14.328 --> 23:17.848
which of course is the
tremendous failure at the end of

23:17.852 --> 23:21.312
the novel,
a failure of imagination on the

23:21.305 --> 23:26.595
part of Tom Sawyer and a failure
of will or independence of mind

23:26.599 --> 23:30.689
on the part of Huck himself--
that the failure to liberate

23:30.692 --> 23:33.702
Jim, which would have been the
easiest thing in the world,

23:33.700 --> 23:37.710
because all they had to do was
point out the right fork in the

23:37.708 --> 23:41.498
river,
is an absolute necessity for

23:41.499 --> 23:48.579
the ongoing self-definition of
whiteness as it's available both

23:48.584 --> 23:53.474
to Tom and to Huck and,
after all, by implication,

23:53.468 --> 23:55.058
to Mark Twain himself.

23:55.058 --> 23:57.188
He couldn't figure out how to
end the novel.

23:57.190 --> 23:59.450
He wrote it,
then it lay on his desk for a

23:59.445 --> 24:02.465
long time because he just
couldn't figure out what to do

24:02.473 --> 24:05.063
with it,
and he finally comes up with

24:05.057 --> 24:08.727
this--as we all agree--
appalling ending.

24:08.730 --> 24:13.420
Toni Morrison says it's the
only ending available

24:13.421 --> 24:17.191
because in ways that the,
as she sees it,

24:17.190 --> 24:22.340
sentimentality of the novel and
the sentimentality of the

24:22.343 --> 24:25.843
relationship between Huck and
Jim,

24:25.838 --> 24:29.628
which is so strong that it
caused another critic named

24:29.633 --> 24:33.713
Leslie Fiedler to talk about a
homoerotic relation between

24:33.713 --> 24:36.083
them--
the title of Fiedler's famous

24:36.077 --> 24:38.177
essay is "Come Up on the
Raft,

24:38.180 --> 24:44.230
Huck, Honey"--with all of
that in the background,

24:44.230 --> 24:48.990
Toni Morrison says the basic
structure of consciousness in

24:48.994 --> 24:54.004
Twain's novel is obscured,
a basic structure which makes

24:53.999 --> 24:58.179
it absolutely imperative that
Jim not be free.

24:58.180 --> 25:02.740
If Jim is free,
then there is no Other over

25:02.736 --> 25:07.506
against which whiteness can
define itself.

25:07.509 --> 25:10.729
That's the way in which she
makes use of the general

25:10.726 --> 25:14.636
argument about the traditions of
American literature in culture

25:14.635 --> 25:17.595
in applying it to Huckleberry
Finn.

25:17.599 --> 25:18.369
All right.

25:18.368 --> 25:22.238
Let's go back to Skip
Gates--Henry Louis Gates's

25:22.243 --> 25:27.363
nickname, sorry--another person
who was at Yale and whom I knew

25:27.355 --> 25:28.505
very well.

25:28.509 --> 25:32.079
I actually had a little bit to
do with the origin of the notion

25:32.083 --> 25:35.433
of the signifying monkey;
I'll come back to that later.

25:35.430 --> 25:38.140
Barbara Johnson,
also now at Harvard,

25:38.140 --> 25:42.270
and I had a lot of
conversations with Skip at that

25:42.269 --> 25:46.039
period about this,
and so it's not that I feel

25:46.040 --> 25:49.400
proprietary--
it's Skip's idea--but I was in

25:49.396 --> 25:54.006
on that,
and so it's not just name

25:54.005 --> 25:55.535
dropping.

25:55.538 --> 25:58.308
I get to call him by what his
friends call him.

25:58.308 --> 26:03.628
However, I'll try to remember
to say Henry Louis Gates,

26:03.634 --> 26:07.484
and in any case to return to
him now.

26:07.480 --> 26:14.550
I want to talk a little bit
simply about his understanding

26:14.549 --> 26:21.249
and the understanding of others
of the African-American

26:21.249 --> 26:25.649
tradition--
both of the critical tradition

26:25.646 --> 26:28.266
and of the literary tradition.

26:28.269 --> 26:30.819
First of all,
the grasp of the critical

26:30.817 --> 26:34.567
tradition as basically a
two-step or two-part progression

26:34.573 --> 26:39.203
is something that he shares with
Elaine Showalter from last time.

26:39.200 --> 26:43.310
You remember Showalter says
that the important movement of

26:43.313 --> 26:47.283
feminist interventions in
literary criticism begins with

26:47.281 --> 26:50.601
the moment that she calls
"feminist":

26:50.602 --> 26:54.702
that is to say,
the moment of Kate Millett and

26:54.701 --> 27:00.061
other authors who talk about the
degradation and unfair treatment

27:00.058 --> 27:05.738
of women in male books,
and then what Showalter prefers

27:05.741 --> 27:11.701
and supposes to have supervened
and to have become more

27:11.703 --> 27:14.663
important,
"gynocritical

27:14.656 --> 27:18.256
criticism,"
which is women's appropriation

27:18.255 --> 27:21.535
of literary traditions for
themselves,

27:21.538 --> 27:26.758
the archival work that makes
the canon of women's literature

27:26.757 --> 27:31.177
not just leaping from great name
to great name,

27:31.180 --> 27:34.570
but an actual unfolding and
continuous development from

27:34.565 --> 27:37.915
decade to decade,
as Showalter puts it.

27:37.920 --> 27:41.640
Now Gates on page 1896,
the right-hand margin,

27:41.636 --> 27:45.766
sees it in much the same way
for the development of

27:45.768 --> 27:48.328
African-American criticism.

27:48.328 --> 27:50.508
You can do two things
basically, says Gates.

27:50.509 --> 27:52.739
He doesn't put them
chronologically,

27:52.738 --> 27:56.048
but you could map onto what
he's saying here the same

27:56.049 --> 27:57.769
chronological sequence.

27:57.769 --> 28:02.179
He says: What I mean by citing
these two overworked terms [he's

28:02.179 --> 28:05.659
talking about "the
other" in particular]

28:05.663 --> 28:08.723
is precisely this:
how blacks are figures in

28:08.721 --> 28:12.441
literature [that is to say,
how they're represented in

28:12.440 --> 28:14.860
literature,
demeaningly,

28:14.855 --> 28:20.265
even perhaps honorifically],
and also how blacks

28:20.269 --> 28:22.109
figure, as it
were,

28:22.109 --> 28:24.329
literature of their own making.

28:24.328 --> 28:26.028
[You can see,
in other words,

28:26.032 --> 28:29.502
the same movement in his
thinking about these issues.]

28:29.500 --> 28:32.330
As Showalter argued too,
the question of the

28:32.329 --> 28:35.489
literary tradition is
more complicated;

28:35.490 --> 28:36.960
it has more steps.

28:36.960 --> 28:40.430
In other words,
the powers of self-expression

28:40.428 --> 28:44.688
available to women from the
beginning of their creative

28:44.685 --> 28:49.175
expression passed through more
than just two stages,

28:49.180 --> 28:53.480
and the same thing is true of
African-American literature.

28:53.480 --> 28:58.140
Now I think that Gates simply
takes for granted as an implicit

28:58.141 --> 29:02.041
premise of the work that was
done the year before he

29:02.038 --> 29:05.778
published this essay in
Critical Inquiry by

29:05.784 --> 29:09.304
another colleague of ours here
at Yale--

29:09.298 --> 29:11.688
who died tragically not too
long thereafter--

29:11.690 --> 29:15.620
named Michael Cooke,
who in 1984 wrote a book called

29:15.624 --> 29:19.634
Afro-American Literature in
the Twentieth Century:

29:19.634 --> 29:22.494
The Achievement of
Intimacy.

29:22.490 --> 29:27.320
Cooke argued in this book that
the history of African-American

29:27.316 --> 29:31.426
literature passes essentially
through four stages.

29:31.430 --> 29:35.750
It begins with what Cooke calls
"self-veiling":

29:35.750 --> 29:37.960
the period,
in other words,

29:37.964 --> 29:42.284
in which people attempting for
the first time to write--

29:42.279 --> 29:46.449
and of course Gates talks about
the way in which writing is

29:46.450 --> 29:50.480
really writing oneself into the
human community for black

29:50.477 --> 29:53.597
people--
the people who first attempted

29:53.595 --> 29:55.695
to write used white models.

29:55.700 --> 29:58.180
Phillis Wheatley,
the poet whom Gates talks

29:58.178 --> 30:00.478
about,
a remarkable poet and a very

30:00.480 --> 30:03.450
interesting one,
nevertheless wrote in the

30:03.445 --> 30:07.335
manner of Alexander Pope,
so much so that a great deal of

30:07.343 --> 30:11.973
her work is almost impossible--
which is course a point of

30:11.970 --> 30:17.250
praise--to distinguish from that
of Alexander Pope.

30:17.250 --> 30:21.520
She is an instance of the first
phase, which Cooke calls

30:21.521 --> 30:23.621
"self-veiling."

30:23.618 --> 30:25.808
The second phase,
which Cooke calls

30:25.810 --> 30:28.840
"solitude,"
involves continuing to use

30:28.838 --> 30:31.798
white models,
a white prose style,

30:31.795 --> 30:36.725
a way of narrating which is
obviously derived from white

30:36.732 --> 30:42.302
teachers and white models but
which nevertheless involves,

30:42.298 --> 30:45.458
as its central theme,
self-definition.

30:45.460 --> 30:50.380
Here you might want to think of
Douglass and of slave narratives

30:50.376 --> 30:54.606
in general,
where the emphasis is on being

30:54.611 --> 30:59.681
taught by white people,
but nevertheless there is a

30:59.682 --> 31:04.412
tension which exists and which
founds and governs the

31:04.405 --> 31:09.035
possibility of self-liberation
and self-freedom.

31:09.038 --> 31:12.018
In other words,
the slave narrative as an

31:12.020 --> 31:16.490
ongoing form partakes of this
second phase in the development

31:16.491 --> 31:20.891
of African-American literature
as Cooke understands it.

31:20.890 --> 31:24.330
Thirdly, there is what Cooke
calls "kinship,"

31:24.329 --> 31:27.899
a literature in which African
Americans reach out to each

31:27.898 --> 31:30.448
other,
identify themselves as a

31:30.452 --> 31:33.752
community,
not as individuals struggling

31:33.747 --> 31:36.847
to be free but rather as a
community.

31:36.848 --> 31:43.688
Cooke identifies this phase
with the experimentation with

31:43.692 --> 31:51.022
dialect and a way of narrating
and poetizing which involves a

31:51.023 --> 31:57.013
self-conscious insistence on
verbal and linguistic

31:57.011 --> 31:59.091
difference.

31:59.088 --> 32:01.998
You can think of many of the
poems, for example,

32:01.999 --> 32:05.529
of Langston Hughes in this
regard and of a great deal else

32:05.528 --> 32:08.188
that goes on in the Harlem
Renaissance;

32:08.190 --> 32:11.180
so that's the third phase,
kinship.

32:11.180 --> 32:14.500
Then the last phase--and what
I'm going to want to say is that

32:14.499 --> 32:16.729
Gates doesn't think we've
reached this.

32:16.730 --> 32:19.180
In other words,
the point of disagreement

32:19.178 --> 32:22.238
between Cooke and Gates is
precisely about this.

32:22.240 --> 32:24.600
The last phase,
which Cooke calls

32:24.596 --> 32:28.276
"intimacy,"
is the freedom to expropriate

32:28.280 --> 32:32.610
any and all models,
not in other words to insist

32:32.608 --> 32:37.548
necessarily on one's own
creative paradigms as a racial

32:37.546 --> 32:42.656
tradition but to expropriate
anything that comes ready to

32:42.664 --> 32:43.584
hand.

32:43.578 --> 32:46.338
Ellison's Invisible
Man, for example,

32:46.344 --> 32:48.394
is a masterpiece of High
Modernism.

32:48.390 --> 32:51.170
It takes freely,
in other words,

32:51.173 --> 32:56.293
from whatever traditions come
to hand and are most readily

32:56.291 --> 33:01.681
available for the kind of work
that Ellison wants to do.

33:01.680 --> 33:04.870
Cooke identifies this perhaps
rather optimistically with what

33:04.866 --> 33:07.466
he calls "intimacy":
in other words,

33:07.470 --> 33:12.920
a merger, a finally achieved
merger of traditions such that--

33:12.920 --> 33:17.290
and this is plainly the ideal
of Virginia Woolf as well--

33:17.288 --> 33:22.838
such that one no longer has to
write as a spokesperson.

33:22.838 --> 33:28.438
One no longer needs to be
concerned with thematizing the

33:28.442 --> 33:34.352
kinds of identity out of which
one's writing has arisen.

33:34.348 --> 33:37.268
One can write just anything one
wants to--

33:37.269 --> 33:40.899
in other words,
the utopian vision of "no

33:40.897 --> 33:45.307
matter who I am,
I have access to absolutely any

33:45.309 --> 33:49.399
forms and themes I care to work
with."

33:49.400 --> 33:52.700
That is the vision of Michael
Cooke,

33:52.700 --> 33:55.500
which Gates,
I think, unfortunately,

33:55.500 --> 33:59.550
rightly feels that we haven't
quite arrived at,

33:59.548 --> 34:02.588
and that's why I deliberately
used the word

34:02.593 --> 34:06.513
"expropriate"
in talking about Cooke's fourth

34:06.505 --> 34:07.225
phase.

34:07.230 --> 34:12.610
If I use models other than
models made available by my own

34:12.612 --> 34:18.472
tradition, I'm not just kind of
pulling them out of the air.

34:18.469 --> 34:22.009
I'm using them with a
calculated purpose.

34:22.010 --> 34:26.380
I always have something in mind
in choosing the model that I

34:26.382 --> 34:27.052
choose.

34:27.050 --> 34:33.460
We're not really quite at
intimacy because self-definition

34:33.460 --> 34:35.710
is still at issue.

34:35.710 --> 34:38.580
You can talk about the High
Modernism of the Invisible

34:38.581 --> 34:40.741
Man all you like,
but think of what the

34:40.735 --> 34:42.475
Invisible Man is about.

34:42.480 --> 34:46.220
The Invisible Man is
still about what it means to be

34:46.222 --> 34:46.742
black.

34:46.739 --> 34:49.869
What is "passing"?

34:49.869 --> 34:55.869
What does it mean in other
words to have this racial

34:55.865 --> 34:57.155
identity?

34:57.159 --> 35:00.629
So that, yes:
traditions, manners,

35:00.630 --> 35:06.450
styles have been expropriated,
but at the same time the

35:06.454 --> 35:11.854
business of writing as an
African American continues,

35:11.849 --> 35:15.699
and it is as much,
after all, a question of

35:15.699 --> 35:19.549
self-definition as it has been
hitherto.

35:19.550 --> 35:25.620
As Gates sees it,
it continues to be the issue.

35:25.619 --> 35:27.389
We use other models.

35:27.389 --> 35:30.839
We need to make them our own.

35:30.840 --> 35:35.180
Otherwise we're just colonized
by them, and then after all

35:35.184 --> 35:37.704
we're back in phase one,
right?

35:37.699 --> 35:40.659
We're back in self-veiling
because, after all,

35:40.657 --> 35:43.087
Phillis Wheatley used other
models.

35:43.090 --> 35:47.320
Phillis Wheatley actually
aspired to the idea that she was

35:47.320 --> 35:48.880
just a poet.

35:48.880 --> 35:51.650
She could write about anything
she wanted to write about--

35:51.650 --> 35:54.850
the tears of Niobe in the
painting by Richard Wilson--

35:54.849 --> 35:58.139
whatever it might be,
she could write about it

35:58.143 --> 36:00.343
because she was just a poet.

36:00.340 --> 36:06.910
That was her great aspiration,
to be received not as

36:06.909 --> 36:12.349
that amazing thing,
a young black slave woman who

36:12.347 --> 36:14.157
could write.

36:14.159 --> 36:16.089
She wasn't interested in that.

36:16.090 --> 36:21.010
She wanted to be a poet,
and so in a certain sense you

36:21.014 --> 36:23.064
can see the problem.

36:23.059 --> 36:27.199
If intimacy is achieved in the
fourth phase,

36:27.199 --> 36:30.269
well, then that's finally just
the realization of what Phillis

36:30.268 --> 36:32.178
Wheatley wanted in the first
phase,

36:32.179 --> 36:32.999
>

36:33.000 --> 36:36.380
and we have to admit,
for all of the complicated

36:36.384 --> 36:39.124
reasons that these critics go
into,

36:39.119 --> 36:43.489
that this is not a moment which
can be said yet to have been

36:43.485 --> 36:44.295
achieved.

36:44.300 --> 36:45.260
Okay.

36:45.260 --> 36:51.820
Now this brings us to Gates's
key concept: what does it mean

36:51.824 --> 36:56.724
to expropriate other people's
traditions,

36:56.719 --> 37:00.749
more particularly the white
tradition,

37:00.750 --> 37:04.990
Here Gates is after all
thinking primarily about

37:04.994 --> 37:06.084
criticism.

37:06.079 --> 37:12.799
How can we do theory and
criticism in the white man's

37:12.797 --> 37:14.217
language?

37:14.219 --> 37:19.949
How can we appropriate or
expropriate for ourselves the

37:19.949 --> 37:22.389
white man's language?

37:22.389 --> 37:27.469
The necessity of bending
language to one's own purposes

37:27.467 --> 37:33.107
is what is emphasized in the
remarkable epigraph on page 1891

37:33.112 --> 37:36.312
that Gates takes from Bakhtin.

37:36.309 --> 37:40.039
This is, it seems to me,
as central a passage in

37:40.036 --> 37:42.616
Bakhtin,
by the way, as anything that we

37:42.615 --> 37:45.255
studied when we were actually
reading Bakhtin,

37:45.260 --> 37:49.320
and I'd like you to make note
of it because I think it really

37:49.320 --> 37:53.250
can illuminate a great deal
that's going on in Bakhtin that

37:53.246 --> 37:56.696
we didn't perhaps fully
articulate at the time.

37:56.699 --> 38:00.059
This is what Bakhtin says:
… language,

38:00.061 --> 38:02.301
for the individual
consciousness,

38:02.304 --> 38:06.234
lies on the borderline between
oneself and the other.

38:06.230 --> 38:09.760
The word in language is half
someone else's.

38:09.760 --> 38:15.350
It becomes "one's
own" only when the speaker

38:15.353 --> 38:19.473
populates it with his own
intention,

38:19.469 --> 38:25.069
his own accent [and you can
hear Gates wanting to emphasize

38:25.072 --> 38:30.642
that word "accent"],
when he appropriates the word,

38:30.641 --> 38:35.251
adapting it to his own semantic
and expressive intention.

38:35.250 --> 38:38.420
Prior to this moment of
appropriation,

38:38.420 --> 38:43.050
the word does not exist in a
neutral and impersonal language

38:43.050 --> 38:46.060
(it is not,
after all, out of a dictionary

38:46.056 --> 38:48.216
that the speaker gets his
words!)

38:48.219 --> 38:58.029
[how true], but rather it
exists in other people's mouths,

38:58.030 --> 39:02.140
in other people's contexts,
serving other people's

39:02.143 --> 39:07.183
intentions: it is from there
that one must take the word,

39:07.179 --> 39:09.589
and make it "one's
own."

39:09.590 --> 39:13.240
Now actually during the course
of his essay,

39:13.239 --> 39:18.609
Gates echoes this sentiment of
Bakhtin by quoting Derrida at

39:18.612 --> 39:23.532
the very top of the right-hand
column on page 1901,

39:23.530 --> 39:26.270
where he says,
"We must master,

39:26.268 --> 39:29.558
as Derrida wrote,
'how to speak the other's

39:29.557 --> 39:33.157
language without renouncing
(our) own."

39:33.159 --> 39:35.879
Now how do you do this?

39:35.880 --> 39:41.770
How do you set about talking
the language you are given?

39:41.768 --> 39:43.848
This isn't, of course,
just a question of the

39:43.851 --> 39:45.321
difference between the races.

39:45.320 --> 39:48.390
It's a question of all of us in
relation to each other.

39:48.389 --> 39:51.499
As Bakhtin says in what you
have already read,

39:51.501 --> 39:55.581
most of the time we're speaking
other people's languages.

39:55.579 --> 40:01.469
It is rare indeed that we can
say, feeling very much like

40:01.465 --> 40:07.075
creative writers when we do so,
that we have somehow wrenched

40:07.079 --> 40:11.439
other people's language out of
its conventional usages and made

40:11.443 --> 40:14.993
it our own,
slightly rewritten it so that

40:14.994 --> 40:16.804
it is truly our own.

40:16.800 --> 40:21.160
So more broadly speaking,
this is the challenge that

40:21.161 --> 40:26.381
faces a theoretical tradition or
a theoretical enterprise,

40:26.380 --> 40:29.400
I should say,
that doesn't want to be just

40:29.398 --> 40:33.298
derivative from what other folks
have already said.

40:33.300 --> 40:37.320
The concept that Gates brings
to bear on this,

40:37.320 --> 40:41.830
because after all he
recognizes, as does Showalter

40:41.826 --> 40:44.286
too,
that the notion of the

40:44.293 --> 40:48.603
sign is probably the
cornerstone of white male

40:48.601 --> 40:52.491
literary theory--
he recognizes that in order to

40:52.492 --> 40:56.572
perform this expropriative act,
he's got to do something with

40:56.565 --> 41:01.085
the notion of the sign,
and so he talks about the way

41:01.088 --> 41:06.048
in which one can signify
on something.

41:06.050 --> 41:09.740
He introduces it very quietly
on page 1900,

41:09.735 --> 41:13.945
the right-hand column,
just seemingly in passing,

41:13.945 --> 41:17.715
near the top of the right-hand
column:

41:17.719 --> 41:19.899
Since writing,
according to Hume,

41:19.902 --> 41:23.522
was the ultimate sign of
difference between animal and

41:23.518 --> 41:26.388
human,
these writers implicitly were

41:26.385 --> 41:30.615
Signifyin(g) upon the figure of
the chain itself…

41:30.619 --> 41:34.529
Notice the accent.

41:34.530 --> 41:37.780
You don't necessarily pronounce
the g:

41:37.775 --> 41:40.425
they were signifyin' on the
chain.

41:40.429 --> 41:44.159
Of course, the great chain of
being, which is hierarchical,

41:44.155 --> 41:47.555
is very different from the
vertical chain of the chain

41:47.559 --> 41:48.779
gang, isn't it?

41:48.780 --> 41:52.290
It's very different from the
chain that holds slaves

41:52.291 --> 41:53.051
together.

41:53.050 --> 41:57.220
That's part of what it means to
"signify on"

41:57.215 --> 41:58.155
something.

41:58.159 --> 42:01.869
At least allegedly,
the "signifier"

42:01.873 --> 42:06.603
in the white male theoretical
tradition is just a kind of

42:06.599 --> 42:10.989
placeholder in a play of
linguistic differences.

42:10.989 --> 42:15.489
The question of the underlying
sociological and cultural basis

42:15.494 --> 42:19.704
of this play and of the way in
which this play takes shape

42:19.704 --> 42:23.014
isn't taken into account--
again, allegedly--

42:23.014 --> 42:25.634
because--well,
in ways that you can probably

42:25.632 --> 42:28.132
grasp from what we've said all
along,

42:28.130 --> 42:30.480
this is slightly to
oversimplify,

42:30.478 --> 42:33.118
but this is the position taken
up.

42:33.119 --> 42:36.099
In any case,
you therefore need to take the

42:36.097 --> 42:38.717
signifier and signify on
it.

42:38.719 --> 42:40.789
Well, what is it to signify on
something?

42:40.789 --> 42:45.359
This is an expression that
Gates takes from the trickster

42:45.358 --> 42:48.828
tradition,
the tradition of African

42:48.826 --> 42:54.336
storytelling in which the weaker
is also the smarter,

42:54.340 --> 42:57.610
and the monkey or Anansi the
Spider--

42:57.610 --> 43:00.800
some of you may remember the
songs of Rafi from your

43:00.797 --> 43:03.107
childhood about Anansi the
Spider--

43:03.110 --> 43:07.490
in which the monkey or the
spider tricks the big,

43:07.489 --> 43:10.069
bad guys, the elephant,
the lion.

43:10.070 --> 43:13.770
All of the bad guys get tricked
because they are stupider,

43:13.768 --> 43:19.338
and the little guy is always
able to signify on them,

43:19.340 --> 43:22.370
to trick them,
and to lie to them without

43:22.371 --> 43:24.951
their realizing what's going on.

43:24.949 --> 43:29.799
This way of talking about
signifying is very much in the

43:29.804 --> 43:34.754
tradition of African-American
folklore and first comes to

43:34.746 --> 43:40.126
public consciousness in a song
by the scat singer Oscar Brown,

43:40.130 --> 43:44.450
Jr., written by Oscar Brown,
Jr., called "The

43:44.454 --> 43:47.284
Signifyin' Monkey."

43:47.280 --> 43:49.480
If I could sing,
I'd sing it to you.

43:49.480 --> 43:51.700
Fortunately,
I can't sing,

43:51.695 --> 43:56.925
but it became extremely popular
and was picked up by various

43:56.927 --> 44:02.417
instrumental jazz groups and was
a staple in the jazz tradition

44:02.423 --> 44:05.353
of the fifties and sixties.

44:05.349 --> 44:09.759
In any case,
Oscar Brown Jr.'s notion of the

44:09.755 --> 44:16.305
signifying monkey is where Gates
takes his essay's title from and

44:16.311 --> 44:22.661
which is where also he gets this
idea of taking somebody else's

44:22.661 --> 44:29.121
discourse out of its context and
insisting on bending it into an

44:29.115 --> 44:33.855
African-American context--
in other words,

44:33.856 --> 44:38.796
a context which is one's own
and not just the context one is

44:38.795 --> 44:39.545
given.

44:39.550 --> 44:44.150
Now the other example of
"signifyin' on"

44:44.148 --> 44:49.028
that Gates gives is the
culminating example of The

44:49.030 --> 44:55.040
Color Purple, and the
conversation about "gettin'

44:55.038 --> 45:00.758
the man out of your eye,"
which is a way of taking back a

45:00.764 --> 45:07.434
problem that exists even within
the African-American tradition.

45:07.429 --> 45:12.929
As Gates has been pointing out,
Wheatley and later Rebecca

45:12.934 --> 45:18.544
Jackson take their models of
education and self-development

45:18.536 --> 45:24.426
from white male figures who have
taught them how to read.

45:24.429 --> 45:29.609
In each case of course,
this is pernicious because the

45:29.606 --> 45:34.976
existence of the white male
figure is very much still in

45:34.980 --> 45:36.250
your eye.

45:36.250 --> 45:39.560
You got to get the man out of
your eye, at least according to

45:39.559 --> 45:42.759
the dialogue Gates quotes from
The Color Purple.

45:42.760 --> 45:46.780
Well, the interesting thing
there is that in a way the issue

45:46.775 --> 45:50.655
of feminist criticism comes back
to haunt Gates's argument

45:50.657 --> 45:54.607
because plainly Shug doesn't
just mean the white man

45:54.606 --> 45:57.326
when she says "the
man."

45:57.329 --> 46:00.369
A big issue in The Color
Purple, of course,

46:00.369 --> 46:05.059
is the emergence of a possible
feminism from social

46:05.056 --> 46:09.646
constructions that aren't just
defined by race;

46:09.650 --> 46:13.030
so that when Gates says
"the man,"

46:13.034 --> 46:17.524
which all of us recognize as
shorthand for "the white

46:17.518 --> 46:21.608
man," can be signified on
by an African-American

46:21.612 --> 46:25.342
tradition,
making it a term of opprobrium,

46:25.335 --> 46:27.295
right?--
"get the man out of your

46:27.295 --> 46:29.735
eye"--
at the same time it can be

46:29.744 --> 46:33.304
signified on by the
feminist tradition,

46:33.300 --> 46:37.120
making it a term of opprobrium
not in a completely different

46:37.117 --> 46:39.427
way,
but in an overlapping and

46:39.425 --> 46:41.275
partially different way.

46:41.280 --> 46:45.840
Gates, in emphasizing the one
as opposed to the other,

46:45.840 --> 46:50.490
is perhaps tilting again toward
a certain imbalance.

46:50.489 --> 46:54.029
Now finally I want to take up
the example,

46:54.030 --> 46:57.730
the most controversial example
in his essay,

46:57.730 --> 47:00.960
one which is a source of
outrage for most readers,

47:00.960 --> 47:06.450
at the bottom of page 1893 in
the left-hand column.

47:06.449 --> 47:11.339
He's been talking about the New
Agrarian moment out of which

47:11.336 --> 47:15.976
there emerged a number of
figures associated with the New

47:15.976 --> 47:19.716
Criticism,
including Robert Penn Warren,

47:19.717 --> 47:24.707
who very early on repudiated
the New Agrarians and became a

47:24.713 --> 47:29.283
politically progressive figure
in his own writing.

47:29.280 --> 47:32.200
Many of you have probably read
All the King's Men,

47:32.195 --> 47:34.435
certainly,
and his poetry as well.

47:34.440 --> 47:37.340
He was an avatar,
a central figure,

47:37.344 --> 47:42.044
in the development of the
thinking of the New Criticism,

47:42.043 --> 47:44.953
which we have briefly studied.

47:44.949 --> 47:49.039
Now Warren wrote a poem called
"Pondy Woods,"

47:49.041 --> 47:53.741
which is quoted completely out
of context by Sterling Brown and

47:53.739 --> 47:58.289
unfairly out of context in the
passage which I'm not going to

47:58.286 --> 48:02.446
read because I don't think I
have the right to speak the

48:02.454 --> 48:08.134
"N-word";
so I'll just have you look at

48:08.130 --> 48:13.640
it--and I'll come back to that
in a minute.

48:13.639 --> 48:18.499
Sterling Brown's response is
also recorded there for you.

48:18.500 --> 48:22.070
Well, the problem is,
from the standpoint of anybody

48:22.070 --> 48:26.050
who's actually read the poem--
but remember in some ways it's

48:26.045 --> 48:28.875
a problem raised by a New
Critical perspective,

48:28.880 --> 48:33.280
and I'll explain what I mean in
a minute--

48:33.280 --> 48:40.890
that expression is spoken by a
buzzard or vulture from--

48:40.889 --> 48:43.569
I forget whether it's Tennessee
or Kentucky.

48:43.570 --> 48:47.860
The episode takes place in
northern Louisiana,

48:47.860 --> 48:52.990
and the buzzard is sitting
expectantly on a tree waiting

48:52.987 --> 48:58.297
for a fugitive slave who has
been chased into the swamp by

48:58.302 --> 49:01.102
his white pursuers to die.

49:01.099 --> 49:03.839
The vulture is sitting
there--well, if it could it

49:03.835 --> 49:07.235
would be--rubbing its hands with
glee waiting for this to take

49:07.240 --> 49:07.800
place.

49:07.800 --> 49:11.870
It's the vulture that says it
in the poem: nothing to do in

49:11.867 --> 49:15.287
other words,
as we say, with the author of

49:15.289 --> 49:18.509
the poem,
Warren, who is writing a

49:18.514 --> 49:24.044
completely sympathetic evocation
of what it's like to be a

49:24.036 --> 49:30.426
fugitive slave in this state of
terrible and overwhelmed panic.

49:30.429 --> 49:34.689
So it seems completely unfair
and it is, I think,

49:34.690 --> 49:39.310
unfair as Sterling Brown took
it up and as Gates then

49:39.306 --> 49:43.386
perpetuates the idea in his own
reference.

49:43.389 --> 49:47.359
The one thing I would add,
however, is that it's a New

49:47.362 --> 49:52.012
Critical idea that we invoke to
say that it's unfair.

49:52.010 --> 49:56.820
It's the New Criticism,
in which Robert Penn Warren was

49:56.818 --> 50:00.378
a participant,
that tells us we shouldn't

50:00.380 --> 50:04.210
confuse speakers in poems with
authors.

50:04.210 --> 50:07.640
In other words,
an author is someone,

50:07.639 --> 50:11.529
according to the New Criticism,
who is dispassionate and who

50:11.525 --> 50:14.815
introduces dramatic voices even
in lyric poems,

50:14.820 --> 50:20.620
voices with which we are merely
confusing ourselves if we

50:20.623 --> 50:23.943
associate them with an author.

50:23.940 --> 50:28.350
Now this is something that we
just take for granted when we

50:28.351 --> 50:29.341
read poems.

50:29.340 --> 50:33.110
All poems for us are to some
degree dramatic monologues on

50:33.106 --> 50:37.136
the model of Browning and others
in the nineteenth century.

50:37.139 --> 50:39.199
We read them that way now,
but it is,

50:39.199 --> 50:43.649
as I say, a New Critical idea,
and it comes back to the

50:43.650 --> 50:47.180
question,
"Who has the right to use

50:47.184 --> 50:48.884
the 'N-word'?"

50:48.880 --> 50:54.140
It's a frequent term used on
the street,

50:54.139 --> 50:56.759
as you know,
in African-American culture,

50:56.760 --> 51:01.550
used almost with a certain
fondness as a form of mutual

51:01.545 --> 51:04.675
greeting,
but at the same time it is a

51:04.684 --> 51:09.134
term that continues rigorously
to be rejected as available to

51:09.130 --> 51:13.800
anyone other than someone who
belongs within this community.

51:13.800 --> 51:15.790
And so that issue lingers.

51:15.789 --> 51:19.309
It's an issue that
Warren--because of course he

51:19.309 --> 51:22.979
wrote long before this
controversy began to arise

51:22.983 --> 51:26.183
around the word--
the controversy really boiled

51:26.177 --> 51:29.347
over precisely at the time of
the banning of Huckleberry

51:29.353 --> 51:33.393
Finn from public schools,
much later, and so there's a

51:33.393 --> 51:37.783
kind of innocence perhaps in
Warren's use of the word.

51:37.780 --> 51:40.410
Nevertheless,
in the critical tradition it's

51:40.407 --> 51:43.707
a question, "Who has the
right to use it?"

51:43.710 --> 51:48.630
This gives rise perhaps to the
suggestion of a certain

51:48.628 --> 51:53.268
insularity in the thinking of
the New Criticism.

51:53.268 --> 51:56.308
Use any model you like:
the model of the Freudian

51:56.313 --> 51:59.743
unconscious, the model of the
political unconscious.

51:59.739 --> 52:02.529
In other words,
we've been reading a lot in

52:02.525 --> 52:06.165
this course about our never
quite saying what we mean to

52:06.172 --> 52:09.032
say,
of our never quite being fully

52:09.032 --> 52:13.332
in control of our discourse
because it bubbles up from the

52:13.329 --> 52:14.989
unconscious, right?

52:14.989 --> 52:19.419
Now if you take a model like
this, even though it's a nasty

52:19.418 --> 52:23.768
buzzard from Kentucky that's
saying what Gates quotes,

52:23.768 --> 52:27.478
nevertheless there is an
author, and it has bubbled up

52:27.480 --> 52:29.650
from the unconscious of that.

52:29.650 --> 52:30.990
Well, what are you going to do
with that?

52:30.989 --> 52:33.359
There's a kind of impasse there.

52:33.360 --> 52:37.440
We feel distinctly and vividly
and even bitterly--

52:37.440 --> 52:40.070
because I love Warren,
I love "Pondy Woods"

52:40.067 --> 52:42.237
and I also am something of a
New Critic--

52:42.239 --> 52:46.439
so we feel a bitterness about
the expropriation,

52:46.440 --> 52:50.770
the "signifying on"
what Warren says in this

52:50.771 --> 52:51.591
fashion.

52:51.590 --> 52:56.010
At the same time,
we have entertained these ideas

52:56.014 --> 53:00.904
of a subliminal author,
not an authority but an author

53:00.902 --> 53:03.302
welling up from below.

53:03.300 --> 53:08.740
If that's the case,
then we have to worry a little

53:08.744 --> 53:15.414
bit about how an expression like
that got into the poem after

53:15.411 --> 53:16.301
all.

53:16.300 --> 53:20.640
I call it a lingering problem
because it strikes me as one of

53:20.644 --> 53:25.064
those moments when probably it
would have been better if Gates

53:25.061 --> 53:30.351
hadn't followed Sterling Brown,
one of those moments when there

53:30.349 --> 53:34.929
is a kind of overkill in the
zeal of argumentation,

53:34.929 --> 53:39.069
but which at the same time we
can't absolutely dismiss out of

53:39.072 --> 53:42.942
hand for the variety of reasons
that I have mentioned.

53:42.940 --> 53:43.510
Okay.

53:43.510 --> 53:46.970
I'll leave it there,
and we'll return to many of

53:46.969 --> 53:51.459
these issues in a new vocabulary
and in new forms when we read

53:51.461 --> 53:55.511
the examples of post-colonial
criticism on Thursday that

53:55.510 --> 53:57.500
you've been assigned.

53:57.500 --> 54:03.000