75
3.3. Polyphonic Novel: A Site for Challenging Patriarchal Textual and Sexual Authority
Thought fights with thought; Out springs a spark of truth
From the collision of the sword and shield.
—W.S. Landor
The subversiveness of Gaskell‘s North and South involves challenging the dominant ideology and ethical values by positioning it in the dialogue with the marginalized ethical
value. It is through the ongoing dialogues between the characters that the dominant patriarchal and capitalist discourse can be challenged. Due to this feature, Bak
htin‘s concept of polyphony is a fruitful method to analyze how each ethical value interacts to one another.
Bakhtin‘s concept of polyphony is mainly discussed in his work Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. According to Bakhtin Dostoevsky‘s novel is the exemplar of polyphony
novel because there is, ―a plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses.‖
180
Bakhtin‘s polyphony refers to the construction of the voices of characters and narrator in the novel which according to Fowler as cited in V
ice are ―co- pressence of independent but interconnected.‖
181
Bakhtin contrasts Dostoevsky‘s from traditional monological novel in which characters have become objects and fixed elements in
the author‘s plot design and thus becomes finalized images of characters in the unity of a monologically perceived and understood world; there is no presumption of a plurality of
equally-valid consciousnesses, each with its own world, and the protagonists voices are constructed exactly like the voice of the author.
182
In contrast to monological novel, Dostovesky‘s works are not, ―illuminated by a single authorial consciousness; rather a
plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world, combine but are
180
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and Trans. Caryl Emerson. London: University of Minnesota
Press, 1999, p.41.
181
Vice, Sue. Introducing Bakhtin. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997, p.112.
182
Bakhtin, p.41.
76
not merged in the un ity of the event.‖
183
In Dostoevsky‘s novels, the characters are treated as independent subjects with unmerged and unfinalized
consciousnesses. The author‘s consciousness is present without transforming, subsuming, or finalizing the characters‘
consciousness es into single authoritative voice. The characters‘ voices exist ―alongside the
author‘s word and in a special way combines both with it and with the full and equally valid voices of other characters.‖
184
The characters are allowed to speak in ways other than the authorial voice, characters are not object to be manipulated or commented upon, protagonists
are no longer dominated by the authorial consciousness and the secondary characters‘ roles are no longer subsumed to their usefulness to heroes or to the author. In other words, as stated
by Bakhtin, the characters are not, ―exhausted by the usual functions of characterization and plot development, nor does it serve as a vehicle for the author‘s own ideological position.‖
185
The distinct characteristic of polyphonic novel is that there is no closure or finalized dialogues or explanatory words. The characters and narrator engage in unfinished dialogues.
Every consciousness of the characters‘ lives ―a tense life on the borders of someone else‘s
thought, someone else‘s consciousness.‖
186
According to Dentith this unfinalized dialogue ―does not mean relativism, which grants life to the differing discourses of the characters only
by failing to engage with them. Rather, the dialogue of the polyphonic novel is authentic only insofar as it represents an engagement in which, in various ways, the discourses of self and
other interpenetrate each other.‖
187
In other words, polyphonic novel emphasizes on the interconnectedness of individual consciousness with the others
‘. Bakhtin asserts this interconnectedness as follows:
And since a consciousness in Dostoevsky‘s world is presented not on the path of its own evolution and growth, that is, not historically, but rather alongside other
consciousnesses, it cannot concentrate on itself and its own idea, on the immanent
183
Bakhtin, p. 41.
184
Bakhtin, p. 41.
185
Bakhtin, p. 41.
186
Bakhtin, p. 60.
187
Dentith, Simon. Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1995, p. 40.
77
logical development of that idea; instead, it is pulled into interaction with other consciousnesses. In Dostoevsky, consciousness never gravitates toward itself but is
always found in intense relationship with another consciousness. Every experience, every thought of a character is internally dialogic, adorned with polemic, filled with
struggle, or is on the contrary open to inspiration from outside itself
–but it is not in any case concentrated simply on its own object; it is accompanied by a continual
sideways glance at another person.
188
Furthermore, Bakhtin states that the main principle governing Dostoevsky‘s worldview is the affirmation of moral and existential irreducibility of the other, ―[to] affirm
someone else‘s ―I‖ not as an object but as another subject.‖
189
The other is constitutive of the self and vice versa. Hence individual consciousness does not exist in itself but can only be
realized within the interaction with the other. Embodying this kind of world view, Dentith claims that
Dostoevsky‘s novels are inhabited, not by the many independent individuals of classical liberalism, but by characters whose truth only emerges in contact with, or
anticipation of, another‘s truth.
190
Dostoevsky‘s world view on individuality which is also shared by Bakhtin insists on particularity of otherness rather than the generalized other. They
also insist on open-endedness, heterogeneity and interconnectedness, instead of the finalized completeness of separate worlds of
individuals and homogeneity. Hence Dostoevsky‘s novels are dialogic, not dialectic in nature.
Dialectic is commonly applied in monological novel in which conflict and contradiction are fore grounded only to be resolved. Dostoevsky‘s novel, in contrast, as stated
by Bakhtin, ―tends toward dialogue, toward a dialogic opposition, as if tending toward its center. All else is the means; dialogue is the end. A single voice ends nothing and resolves
nothing. Two voices is the minimum for life, the minimum for ex istence.‖
191
In polyphony novel the dialogism of human voices and consciousnesses is represented to its full extent.
Polyphonic novel is democratic in treating plural and different voices.
188
Bakhtin, p. 60.
189
Bakhtin, p. 43.
190
Dentiht, p. 42.
191
Bakhtin, p. 246.
78
Bakhtin ‘s dialogism has been criticized by Zali Gurevitch for oversimplifying the
intricacies, instability and threat inherent in dialogue, such as interferences, oppositions, gaps, arduous construction of common topics, silences, breaks and laughters.
192
Gurevitch claims that Bakhtin has based his pluralist position o
n ―a supposition of wholeness of dialogic plurality‖ and assumed ―dialogue to be complete in its holding and maintenance of
plurality.‖
193
The assumption of the betweeness of dialogue has resulted in the supposition of dialogue as unitary and closed system, instead of its reality as problematic and torn link.
194
Gurevitch argues that dialogue must be seen as at once speech and silence, abridge and a gap. Dialogue is pulled between the constructive and deconstructive forces and these two forces
are constitutive of dialogue and cannot be separated. Gurevitch‘s criticism on Baktin‘s
dialogism sheds light to this research to notice not only the continuity of dialogue in the novel, but also the breakage or silence in the dialogue to understand how the breakage
influences the dialogic process in the novel. Bakhtin‘s view on the interconnectedness of individual consciousnesses resonates well
with fe minist‘s ethics of care that view the interrelation and interdependence of individuals.
Bakhtin‘s view on the nature of dialogism also resonates with feminists‘ views on dialogue as the constitutive part of ethics of care
. As stated by Noddings that, ―dialogue is the most fundamental comp
onent of the care model…[t]he emphasis on dialogue points up the basic phenomenology of caring.‖
195
From above explanation it can be seen that Bakhtin‘s concepts of polyphony and
dialogism are consistent to feminist relational thinking and ethics of care. These affinities become the
reason why Bakhtin‘s theory is used in this research to analyze Gaskell‘s novel.
192
Gurevitch, Zali. ―Plurality in Dialogue: A Comment on Bakhtin‖. Sociology 34.2 May 2000: p. 246. JSTOR. Web. 1 June 2015.
193
Gurevitch, p. 246.
194
Gurevitch, p. 246.
195
Noddings, Educating Moral People…, p. 16.
79
Though Bakhtin‘s theory is not really feminist in nature
196
, due to its absence in addressing the issue of gender in his philosophy of language
197
, Bak htin‘s theory is still useful for
feminism, especially for elucidating the inextricable relations between the content and the form of the feminist novel.
The polyphony of Gaskell‘s North and South in addressing gender issues makes the
novel becomes a characteristically feminist dialogic discourse. Its characteristic fits to the characteristics of feminist dialogic proposed by Dale M. Bauer as follows:
Feminist dialogics, thus, works to uncover not only masculine bias, but also a more subtle and seemingly neutral rationality, an impersonality that pervades all social life,
depriving both males and females of recognition from each other…The larger issue is the failure of a masculinized or rationalized public language what Bakhtin would call
the authoritative voice that is split off in cultural representations from the private
voice Bakhtin‘s internally persuasive language. A feminist dialogics would bring these two languages together in dialogue.
198
Feminist dialogics grounded on feminist relational thinking exposes the interconnections and tensions between masculine authoritative voice and marginalized
feminine voice. Feminist dialogics, as claimed by Dale M. Bauer, can disrupt patriarchal hierarchy.
199
Feminist dialogics overturns the monologic and transcendence world of patriarchy by focusing on the present, concrete human history, multiplicity, becoming or
permanent state of change. As stated by Karen Hohne and Helen Wussow, a dialogic
196
Kay Halasek in Feminism and Bakhtin: Dialogic Reading in the Academy 1992 expresses dismay over Bakhtin‘s lack of gender consciousness: ―In other words, Bakhtin like all of us falls victim to the ideology of his language, and what his
language and ideology omit is among other things gender.‖ cited in Hekinen, Denise. ―Is Bakhtin a Feminist or Just Another Dead White Male? A Celebration of Feminist Possibilities in Manuel Puigs
Kiss of the Spider Woman‖ in A Dialogue of Voices: Feminist Literary Theory and Bakhtin. Eds. Karen Hohne and Helen Wussow. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, 1994, p. 115.
197
Karen Hohne and Helen Wussow in A Dialogue of Voices: Feminist Literary Theory and Bakhtin 1994: viii questions the validity of an argument raised by some feminists that Bakhtin is not useful for feminism on account of the absence of a
treatment of gender in his theory. They further assert that, ―[r]ejecting him because he does not treat gender as a determining
factor in language ideology would be like rejecting any and all literature written by straight white men….But Bakhtin is accessible and valuable to feminism not only in terms of his philosophy, which is specifically directed at celebrating,
highlighting, bringing to the fore the vitalizing force of dialogism —that is, the incorporation and interweaving of various
voices to create a sum far greater and more generative than the parts —but even in terms of his form.‖ In Hohne‘s and
Wussow‘s opinion there are the possibilities that Bakhtin‘s concepts, such as heteroglossia and dialogism, hold for feminist writers. Bakhtin‘s concept can address well the issue of feminine ecriture.
198
Bauer, Dale M. Feminism, Bakhtin, and the Dialogic. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991, p. 2.
199
Bauer, Dale M. Feminist Dialogics : A Theory of Failed Community. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988, p. 2.
80
discourse is ―radically present, a living mix of varied and opposing voices, a process of inter- animation in which self and other create one another continually.‖
200
Due to its dialogic characteristic, then it can be said that the polyphonic form of Gaskell‘s North and South becomes a significant site for challenging patriarchal textual and
sexual authority. Polyphonic and dialogic form of North and South is the manisfestation of its challenge to patriarchal textual and sexual authority. As polyphonic and dialogic novel, it
resists monologic form which claims for absolute truth and closed-ended closure in addressing the relationship between individuals. Monologic discourse, as stated by Hohne and
Wussow, is ―grounded in patriarchal myth, deaf to other voices and discourses, and
subvertible only through transgression of the linguistic and literary laws that govern them. ‖
201
To challenge patriarchal textual and sexual authority, the structure of the novel reveals that Gaskell constructs her novel with the aesthetic of polyphony and dialogism. It is through this
form that the masculine authoritative speech can be subverted to liberate feminine voice, restore multiplicity, and introduce dialogic ethics between masculine and feminine voice. The
aim in employing aesthetic of polyphony and dialogism is to avoid privileging the feminine ethics of care over the masculine rights-based ethics of justice. In this sense, dialecticism is
avoided in the novel by asserting the complementation of ethics of justice and ethics of care, instead of merely reversing the binary.
200
Hohne, Karen and Helen Wussow. ‗Introduction‘. A Dialogue of Voices: Feminist Literary Theory and Bakhtin. Eds.
Karen Hohne and Helen Wussow. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1994, p.5.
201
Hohne and Wussow, p.4.
81
CHAPTER IV DIALOGIC REPRESENTATION OF SUBJECTIVITY: CHALLENGING
PATRIARCHAL DUALISM OF GENDER IDENTITY
and I too change perpetually —now this, now that.
—Elizabeth Gaskell
Patriarchal dualistic thinking underlies the notion of stable, fixed, and unitary identity. Patriarchal dualistic thinking is exclusive, exhaustive and denies open-ended kind of
differences. Dualistic thinking restricts legitimate understandings of gender identity, men and women, to only one way of being either. In Victorian Britain, being a woman requires one to
be innocent, chaste, pure, gentle, emotional, passive, submissive, self-sacrificing, dependent, virtuous, sensitive, dainty, frail, and caring. Being a man, in contrast, requires one to be
unemotional, rational, protective, tough, self-reliant, competitive, successful, clever, and heroic. Due to this essentialized gender difference, separation of sphere is justified. Women
are relegated to private sphere, whereas men to public sphere. Stable, fixed and unitary gender identity based on patriarchal dualistic thinking monopolizes the understanding of who and
what people are, and obscure the equal status of other identities and identifications. Moreover, the dualism of gender identity in Victorian Britain impoverishes the full self-realization of
humanity because it divides human reason from human heart by assigning the matter of reason only to men, and the matter of human heart only to women. Besides the division of
reasonemotion, within this dualistic gender identity, there are also the divisions of mindbody, consciousunconscious, subjectobject and publicprivate. These elements which
inherently condition and engage each other are set in exclusive opposition in patriarchal dualistic gender identity.