What is clear to me in the Bluest Eye is that Toni Morrison is walking a fine between presenting problems that exist within the black community and also attempting not to exacerbate the problem. How does one present crucial issues that persist within a community whose images are systemically used to maintain a structure of power? This is the line that Morrison (and anyone who takes on an historically oppressed group's representation) has to navigate. Within the black community, I find the issue of privacy and publicity fascinating. Both have been used against the community and to its advancement. Publicity, and the act of being seen, has been crucial to black liberation struggles. That said, particularly now, black culture has also always been the target of criticism, which has created a very strict culture of privacy. Especially since racial binaries create a language that often leads black to assimilate. Civilized vs. uncivilized, chastity vs. sexual deviance, human vs. savage. In efforts to break away from ideas of black savagery, many black organizations have adopted solutions of assimilation. If blacks can simply control their sexuality, or present themselves a certain way they can be accepted, as opposed to challenging the whole structure that oppresses us all (Gilroy would say).
Whoo, so... what I'm saying is, these binaries create a culture of silence amongst blacks. Shedding light on some of the issues the Bluest Eye does can often be taboo. Especially since, doing this is quite the craft. Aaron McGruder, Dave Chappelle, The movie Precious, all attempted to do something similar but failed (or... succeeded, depending on where you're standing). We can see Morrison navigating this balance in the way she has constructed the novel. Giving us Pecola's story from multiple perspectives, giving us Cholly's history, etc. Also, in her other writings, she is clearly absorbed with this balance.
As she said in Unspeakable Things, in relation to the canon, but it's applicable here, too: "There must be a way to enhance canon readings without enshrining them." This quote can be applied to this issue as well, in that, there must be a way to shed light on the issues that exist in the community, without solidifying the stereotypes they seem to confirm.
Ms.--I agree. And as your appreciation of Morrison's careful and brilliant work shows, it is clear that most people understand that a new approach to "enhancing without enshrining" canonical literature requires intelligence, skill, delicacy, and most of all ATTENTION--something that technologies of perception make increasingly fraught and distracted. Because even if books like Morrison's, films like Precious or comedy like Chappelle's do in fact represent careful and considered projects to re-examine race, if audiences can't or won't digest them with proper attention to their depth, can these projects be successful?
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated reading your comments on The Bluest Eye because they tied the novel in more directly to issues of practical application that I've been trying to think about. Not only "What is race doing?" but "How do we disrupt what race does, in a manner that moves forward?" I think we have often asked this question, and gotten caught by stereotypes and hegemonic structures that seem to turn anything we try to do into a confirmation or extension of race. Morrison is certainly treading a fine line here, but I haven't thought enough about that aspect of her work to claim that was or was not successful.
ReplyDelete