The Holder of the World

The Holder of the World by Bharati Mukherjee adopts many elements of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s, The Scarlet Letter.  In this blog, I will discuss a few of the main points that Mukherjee emulates in his novel.

King Phillip

            In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is a strong female individual that is made an example of in front of the whole community.  She is ostracized, ridiculed, and punished for having pre-marital sex.  Hester is forced to have the A branded upon her chest and there it remains.  Hester suffers because of the community’s perception of her.  In The Holder of the World, Hannah Easton is punished and ostracized.  I see her mother’s death as a punishment of some sort from King Phillip.  The author does not really give an explanation for why her mother was killed.  It is as if King Phillip is asserting his dominance in America by having a massacre.  Mukherjee writes about the impact on Hannah, “Has any child been so burdened?  She has witnessed the Fall, not Adam’s Fall, Rebecca’s Fall.  Her mother’s Fall, infinitely more sinful than the Fall of man” (30).  Hannah witnesses the execution of her mother and is then raised with her neighbor.  There is a connection between Hannah and Hester Prynne.  They both suffer from an outsider’s perspective.

            Another key connection that I see between the books is the naming.  Nathaniel Hawthorne’s main characters are reflected in The Holder of the World as well.  Mukherjee chooses the names of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s characters in The Scarlet Letter.  Hester, Prynne, and even John Hathorne are utilized in The Holder of the World.  Mukherjee is commenting on The Scarlet Letter through these characters.  Mukherjee is also commenting on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s past because of the mentioning of Hawthorne’s ancestor, John Hathorne.  I think that Mukherjee is commenting on the reasons why Hawthorne added the “w” to his name.  John Hathorne is known for his participation in the Salem Witch Trials.  Nathaniel is ashamed of this and changed his name because of it.  I believe that Mukherjee is commenting on how the injustice is something that Hawthorne needed to conceal because it is a very dismal appearance toward his family line.

            There are a lot of key features of The Scarlet Letter that Mukherjee reflects on in his novel.  The Holder of the World is a reflection on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.

Agency

            Agency is the power to do something, to make a difference on a given issue.  With this in mind, I would like to consider the specific issue of campaign finance reform with compliments to Naomi Klein’s book, No Logo, and give agency a try.

  I believe that this is a major issue in society because it affects how our country will be run.  There are these Super PACS that are dictating the course of our elections because it belittles the voice of the lower and middle classes.  The Super PAC has no restrictions on how much money it may raise for a candidate.  However, the money that is raised by the Super PAC may not go directly to the candidate.  This means that the Super PAC has to publish its own advertisement whether it is directed in a positive light for the candidate or to degrade his competitors. 

            The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Super PACS by a 5-4 vote.  There was a lot of arguing going for both sides and the ultimate decision was made because super PACS are backed by the First Amendment.  The First Amendment granting the rights to freedom of speech has revealed that Money is now the main contributor to giving the individual the ability to speak in the political process.

            The main problem with money being a main source of speech is that not everyone has money.  The United States is a representative state that allows for each citizen to have the right to vote, and give testimony on political processes.  However, how can this be true when the voice of the people is not truly heard by the government?  Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, money is what yields freedom of speech in political processes.  This cannot be true because the voice of the middle and lower classes is submerged beneath that of the elites.  The elites have all the money and they are the ones that have the most political sway.

Downtown St. Paul

            The need for political equality is great.   I come from a neighborhood whose voice is belittled because it is poor.  I come from the ghetto in St. Paul (granted that my block is a few blocks away from the rougher parts of St. Paul but not directly in it).  I see the troubles of the lower class and I see the issues that they face on a daily basis.  I highly doubt that the government or even less likely, the rich see the struggles of the lower classes so why should they be the only ones that are making the decisions for them.  Campaign finance reform is necessary so that the voice of the lower and middle classes can be heard.  As of now, I see that their voice is hidden and left to the arbitrary will of the higher classes and the government.  I highly doubt that the founding fathers wanted this type of America.  All men are to be treated equally and all have the right to political equality.  The very freedoms that the founding fathers fought for against the British rule are now present again.  There needs to be equality. 

            Naomi Klein’s book, No Logo, addresses how big corporations have weaseled their way into many different affairs that should be out of their jurisdiction.  The major corporations have the money and means to sway political affairs away from any legislation that would impede the progression of the company.  There is a great need for reform so that the government does not become the puppet of major corporations and wealthy investors.  I urge there be reform and that the Supreme Court reverse their decision because it is leads to unconstitutional events and political inequality.

Slave Labor and the U.S.

            It is mesmerizing to think that the United States is prized as one of the greatest nations in the world but I question if we should really have this title.  The past few days have been eye-opening for me as we have learned and discussed about the idea of the “brand” and how America exploits workers to make a profit.  I am not generalizing and stating that ALL of America has succumbed to such treachery rather I would state that a few if not the majority of major corporations have focused on giving jobs to women of other nations.  Oh by the way, jobs in this context is the equivalent of slave labor as these women are subjected to constant harassment, discrimination, poor and unsanitary working conditions, eighty hour work weeks, and they receive dismal wages.  This emphasis on slave labor for these corporations (of course, they would never admit to it) has allowed them to make an astronomical profit but it also takes away the basic human rights that the individual deserves.

            The ideal of the brand is to spread your name out throughout the masses so that you can better make a profit.  Major corporations have found a loophole to the United States’ laws on employment by expediting their work force to other nations.  These nations have certain sectors that target younger women.  Younger women are more susceptible to these terrible conditions that have been previously stated because they do not have a choice in some cases.  Some women are forced into this horrific atmosphere because they need to make money for their family to survive.  The women are restricted and forced to work their fingers to the bone for little to no money.  They do not have adequate time with their families and they suffer to make ends meet.  These major corporations need to have some sort of punishment rained down upon them because of their exploitation.

A Nike "Factory" in China.

            The major corporations are allowed to make a major profit because they barely have to pay their workers.  For example, if a woman in Micronesia works 16 hours a day and only makes $.50 an hour (that is if she is lucky to make that much).  She is only making eight dollars for that day of work.  Now compare that to the price that the corporation is selling the item for in the United States.  The product easily surpasses the amount of labor that the woman earns and it is not justifiable that the company leaves the woman with barely enough money to make ends meet but they have a 500% profit on one t-shirt or whatever the item may be.  This is the harsh reality that we need to face in America.

            America needs to wake up and see the error in her ways.  There needs to be harsher sanctions against the tyrannical exploitation of corporations.  These corporations can no longer go unopposed.  There must be a punishment for these heinous crimes.  Should America truly be considered a great nation because we turn our backs on the rest of the world so that we can make a profit while allowing those in poverty to suffer?  I believe that American needs to have drastic reformation in order to reclaim its own identity of a super power.  The United States is on a slippery slope and will no longer be the home that I want to live in if it does not fight for the justice of the poor and the justice of those in need.

Representation

            In the world today, there is a great push for representation in corporate America.  Think about it, you cannot go anywhere without seeing a brand name on any item.  There are the big corporations that are representing themselves in ways that are outlandish.  In Naomi Klein’s book, No Logo, the problem with representation has been illuminated.  Furthermore, the agency of which the representation is intended is also addressed because it shows the purpose of the representation and why the corporation is intending that specific message.  Nathaniel Hawthorne, in The Scarlet Letter, utilizes the idea of representation and agency when he depicts the A that has been placed upon Hester Prynne’s garments.

Big corporations fighting

            No Logo addresses how representation of big corporations has weaseled its way into many different affairs that should be out of their jurisdiction.  Klein talks about how corporations have special agreements with many different organizations and schools to promote their product.  Big corporations have a tendency to target the agency of the youth. The youth are too blind and ignorant to realize the true goals of the major corporation or because they find it quick, easy or cheap to access.  Klein utilizes the example of a public school in Toronto that sold advertising rights to Pepsi.  Pepsi has invested large sums of money into these schools and are targeting the youth to promote their product.  In these contracts with the school, Pepsi blocks the school from selling any other competitive corporation’s product on its premises.  The youth of the nation have become “self-promoters” for these major businesses.  The young mind is easily conformed and is being shaped to admire these big businesses.  In order to win a competition, one school had a “Coca-Cola day” in which they brought in Coca-Cola representatives, and everyone in the school was forced to wear coke memorabilia or a red shirt.  One student was suspended because he wore a Pepsi shirt on this day.  It is quite apparent that there is a problem with major corporations because they are invading every aspect of our life to promote and to condemn us to their will.  Klein also writes about a Professor at Brown University’s research for a textile factory to investigate a few lung cancer cases.  The professor deduced that there were harmful conditions in the factory for the workers and that there should be certain reparations.  The textile factory (which was a large corporation) created a clause in the contract that the Professor could not go public with the information.  My guess is that the factory knew that they were creating hazardous working conditions but they did not want to admit it because it would ruin their image.  They wanted to be represented in a positive light so they tried to hush the professor by shutting down the professor’s research facility.  The representation of major corporations has taken its toll in America.  The truth is hidden and misconstrued because of the message that the corporations want to project to the world. 

            In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne utilizes representation and agency when depicting the A that is placed upon Hester.  The A was placed forth upon her garments by the community in order to represent the sins of her flesh.  The A was a branding in order to scare the community from committing any sinful acts that would violate the sanctity of the community.  The A became a representation of evil and the community’s agency was to protect the people from evil.  However, as time passes, the A has a new agency because it represents Hester as an individual.  Hester wears the A proudly and does her daily tasks whole-heartedly and cheerfully.  The A is then represented by her having a good attitude and its agency changes toward a good ideal.  In this way, Hawthorne shows the means of representation and agency.

Derrida and Hawthorne

            Derrida argues that the signified slowly slips beneath the surface of the signifier because of the many interpretations of the signifier.  The signifier’s job is to reveal a meaning of what is being signified.  However, the signifier may have many different interpretations which can confuse the true meaning.

            Derrida writes, “The substitute does not substitute itself for anything which has somehow existed before it” (280).  Derrida is analyzing the significance of the signifier and signified.  The signifier is the substitute.  If you think about it, the signified is slipping out of our understanding because it is being represented by the signifier.  The signifier is simply an alternative representation of something that has already existed; which is to say, something that already has its own meaning.  The signifier does not derive its meaning from its own being rather it is derived from one main idea that has been created before the signifier takes on its role. 

            Derrida can be compared or deconstructed when you think of it in a theological sense.  In theology, God is the Creator of the universe and all that resides in it. He is the Origin for life as we know it.  However, humans claim the glory for certain aspects of life.  Many things that humans have created are not truly their creations.  They are merely discoveries of God’s creation.  Derrida’s ideas compare to this theological idea because of the role of the signifier.  The signifier has not its own significance but significance in the fact that it receives meaning by standing for something else that has already existed.  In the same way that humans discover God’s creations, the signifier is differentiating from that which is already signified.  The signified has already existed and the signifier comes to represent the signified.  However, over time, the signified may begin to slip.

            The signified may begin to lose its essence because of the signifier.  The signifier is the representation of what truly is but it is not the thing itself.  The signifier misconstrues the signified because it takes on many different interpretations.  Derrida’s theory about signs seem similar to Hawthorne’s because they show how the original meaning can be clouded by the other signs.  Derrida shows that the more signs that represent one center make the comprehension of that center difficult.  Hawthorne utilizes the same concept when he places the A on Hester’s bosom.  The A loses its meaning as the years pass because the original center is “forgotten” and it is being thought of as a symbol of Hester’s positive qualities.  The original connotation of the A was to degrade Hester and to embarrass her in front of the whole community.  However, as the years passed on, the A took on many more signs which clouded the original center of the A and took away from its original meaning.  This is an example of how the signified begins to slip because of the signifier.

            Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Minister’s Black Veil” shows Derrida’s argument in full scale.  In this short story, the minister places a black veil to hide his face from everything.  There is no explanation on why he does this thing.  The veil sets the tone for many interpretations of why the minister has hid himself from the world.  The veil becomes a signifier to the public’s interpretations and their attempt to deconstruct why he wears the veil causes them to place many stereotypes upon him.  The significance of the veil was lost (however, Hawthorne chooses not to divulge the true significance of the veil to the minister) because it had slipped because of the signifier.  The veil lost its own significance because that which it had signified has slipped due to the public’s perception of it.

            Derrida has a strong thesis about the signifier and signified.  It is prevalent in society that the slipping of the signified happens without much consideration.  Now that I think about it, it has really occurred a lot in my childhood about how things have taken on many different meanings with one signifier.  After some time, the signified is lost behind the veil of the signifier.

Lacan's argument

            Jacques Lacan is a famous theorist that uses Freudian themes throughout his thinking.  In this particular blog, I will discuss Lacan’s ideas of the signifier and the signified; I will also discuss Lacan’s utilization of Freudian themes as well as metonymy and metaphor to express desires and symptoms.  To conclude this blog, I will criticize a flaw that I see in Lacan’s argument and I will suggest an idea to better construct or finalize his argument. 

            Lacan discusses the signifier and its relevance to the signified.  The equation is f(S) * (i/s).  That is to say that the function of the signifier times the identity of ones’ self, divided by the signified. It may seem like a very complex equation but I think that it is quite simple once it is broken down.  The function of the signifier is dependent on the individual perception which illustrates the significance of the signifier.  I believe that Lacan should better structure his argument to say that the function of the signifier is dependent on the individual’s perception of the signal.  Therefore, I would argue that the correct formula should be I =  s/S.  In my formula, the identity of ones’ self is equivalent to the significance of the signifier.  Therefore, the individual’s perception will determine the significance of the signal.  In my argument, I would further my argument by criticizing the idea that the significance of a signifier is not only determined by the individual perception but the environment of the signifier.  The significance of a symbol may vary based upon the location so I need to further revise my formula.  I is equivalent to M+E because I represents the identity of the individual.  The environment of an individual is a heavy influence on how they perceive things so it is important to place it in the formula.  Therefore, in the equation I = s/S, you may substitute the I for (m + e ) because it is the same exact meaning. 

            Now that I have criticized Lacan’s ideas of the signifier and significance, I will discuss his relations to Freud and his application of literary features to explain his ideas.  In his argument, Lacan states that we as humans do not know what we want.  It is a simple case of metonymy for Lacan.  People desire objects because the objects themselves project a feasible concept of desire.  Individuals seek out these objects because they believe it is what they desire when in reality they do not know.  This concept can be compared to the literary feature of metonymy because it is substituting the meaning of ones desires toward an object when in reality it is the object that creates desire.  This is compared to Freud’s ideas of dreams.  Freud argues that there are two types of content in dreams, latent and manifest.  The manifest content is the imagery that is present throughout the dream whereas latent content is the significance of the dream.  I would argue that the manifest content would be the symptom of the latent content.  I will dive into this idea in the next paragraph while identifying the literary features.

            The manifest content is influenced by the subliminal urges of the individual.  Therefore, I would argue that the manifest content can be compared to metaphor.  The metaphor that Lacan utilizes is the metaphor I want x.  This x factor shows that the individual is not complete because he desires something to make him complete.  However, as previously stated, Lacan flips this phrase and shows that it is actually “x creates a wanting I”.  Therefore the desires are lying present in the object itself.  Therefore, the manifest content of a dream is considered to be the metaphor because it is showing the symptoms of our wanting.  The literal events of the dream are Freudian slips of the desires.  The latent content is metonymy because it is hidden behind the shroud of the dream. The latent content utilizes a signifier (the manifest content) to show the signified (the desires).  Metonymy is the substituting of another thing to show the same meaning.  Lacan shows that the desires of the individual in a dream are the latent content because it is hidden behind the shroud of the manifest content.

            Lacan shows that metonymy and metaphor can be used throughout the world to represent our desires and the symptoms of our pursuit of these desires.  He utilizes Freudian themes to illustrate this idea.  Lacan’s argument of the signifier and the signified are lacking a certain element to make them concrete.  I have presented an idea to help solidify them but it may not be the only answer to the solution.

Metaphor and Metonymy

            Metaphors and metonymy are used throughout any type of literature that one reads.  Both these methods are used in daily life quite frequently without us truly realizing it.  In this blog, I will give the two major examples that I have come across in my life as of late while explaining the significance and meaning of a metaphor and metonymy.  Also, by using the examples, I will show how there can be confusion between metaphors and metonymy when the reader is left to interpret the meaning of the phrase or literature.

            Hayden White states, “Metaphor is essentially representational...in metonymy, phenomena are implicitly apprehended as bearing relationships to one another”.  These two ideas are very similar and have a few specific differences.  A metaphor allows for two things that are not similar to be compared and to show a resemblance.  Metonymy is utilized to pair a word’s meaning with another word while not using that specific word.  An example of a metaphor is ‘life is a journey’.  Life and journey are not two things that are used in the same context but they do have some resemblances so they are a metaphor.  An example of metonymy would be saying as White states, “a roar of thunder”.  A roar of thunder is a metonymy because the word roar is a substitute for the word sound.  Sound and roar have a relationship in which they both relate to the auditory sense. 

 There has been a metaphor and metonymy confusion that has happened in my life as of late.  For another one of my classes, the professor wrote on the syllabus “map of positions, stakeholders, audiences, and primary actors for issue” when referring to an assignment that he had assigned us.  The students took this in a metonymical way; we thought that we would be creating a map or a diagram of all these ideas.  However, the professor told us that it was actually a metaphor to something else.  The true assignment was writing a paper about the previously stated parts of the assignment.  The professor utilized metaphor in his assignments when the students interpreted it in a metonymical way.

I had another metaphor and metonymy confusion when I was reading for my Theology class.  We are studying the prophets of the Bible and I was reading from the book of Jeremiah.  Jeremiah 2:20 states, “Long ago you broke your yoke, you tore off your bonds. “I will not serve,” you said. On every high hill, under every green tree, you gave yourself to harlotry.”  On first sight, I was bewildered to see the phrase harlotry.  Harlotry means to fornicate with a prostitute.  I had taken a metonymical approach to the Scripture and had not thought about the use of language that Jeremiah had been utilizing.  In this instance, Jeremiah had been using a metaphor to depict the severity of Israel’s sin against God.  Metaphors and metonymy are very closely related and can be easily misinterpreted by a non-careful reader.

Metaphors and metonymy are used in daily life very frequently.  The individual must be careful to interpret the true meaning of each phrase that he or she reads.  Metaphors have a very specific relationship between two objects whereas metonymy has a relationship within the meaning.