Polyphonic Novel: A Site for Challenging Patriarchal Textual and Sexual Authority

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.