Goldberg’s piece made me think about a few subjects we have discussed this semester regarding identity. Since reading Quintilian, we have come back again and again to the idea that we, as humans, define our identity through opposition. I know who I am because I can explain what I am not. Goldberg seems to be explaining the same concept with homosexuality in Renaissance England. The common, strait people could not articulate homosexuality, but they could articulate “sedition, demonism, and atheism” (371). They, therefore, grouped the inarticulate identity of “other” with those “others” they could define. What makes this article interesting to me is Goldberg’s structuring of the homosexual identity as being defined through accepting the opposition by which the mainstream indentifies itself. (Do you think Doug will call in a translator for that last sentence?) Goldberg writes that “the voice, that is, of Marlowe’s rebellion against society, which is also the rebellion which his society game him to voice” (373). Marlowe was asked to act as an agent for the crown, and in doing so, was asked to pretend to embody all the things the English community claimed it identified itself against. In reality, this “otherness was in fact Marlowe’s real identity” (373).
In addition to the connection of chosen identity, the article made me think of The Crucible. I know the connection is fairly obvious, but it prodded me think about all of the imposed identities that we are forced to either accept or struggle to discredit. Goldberg’s example of Oscar Wilde is perhaps even more moving than that of Marlowe because there is no conflicting notion of double agency or government mystification: “It was because he was charged with posing as a sodomist that he fined his libel suit” (377). It is unnecessary to establish if Wilde was or was not a homosexual, at least in this instance; the important distinction is that he was convicted and labeled with no such evidence. The identity of “other” was imposed based on the part he played for the audience, regardless of whether or not the shoe fit.
The other subject I saw in this piece that connects with our class is the role of the author. Goldberg identifies the author, whether of texts or theatre, as a disseminator of ideas. It is this that appears to be the crown’s real fear in Goldberg’s piece: “the final charges point to the insidious powers of persuasion upon which authority—and authoring—rest” (376). This perspective is more aligned with I believe than what we have encountered in class. The author’s ideas might be subsumed or even subverted by the reader, but, if written well, they exist, and the possible danger (in the eyes of the crown) also exists that they will be passed on to the reader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your comment on the author struck a note with me as well. Goldberg references Greenblatt's discussion of the fluidity of the theater in allowing "a certain sphere of freedom to represent what might not be said within the city's confines" (80). Literature is permitted this sphere, too, as seen in the poetry of World War I where a broad interpretation is allowed for a discussion of men loving men.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention shoes. How many shoes do we wear in our "walk" of life? Men usually get by just fine with two or three types of foot wear. Women require a closet full. The joke about women and their shoes is a standing image. Obession with shoes is seen as a distinctly female trait in our society. Those shoes are for the most part uncomfortable, impractical, and potentially damaging. But women wear them--spiked heels, pointed toes, non-existent arch suppport and all. One of the reasons that women do this is in compliance to messages from different sources that this is what they should be wearing. So they step into them, limp around the office all day, and cry alone at night when they kick them off. Marlowe walked in many circles,in shoes not of his own choosing. The irony is that when he did get to put on the comfy pair, the shoemaker did not intend for him to wear them out in public. They were not stylish and were intended only for private wear. His refusal to remove them or have their wear limited was a liberating move. The feminist application here is similar.
ReplyDeleteWe always allow the "theater" (art & literature) to hold within it the "dark side...of culture" (376) - because we have to have someplace to put those "shoes" or wear them ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I understand completely what you mean Tony (no translator needed), because the very idea of "Other" embodies "the opposition by which the mainstream indentifies itself."
I think that the artist community is the perfect place for the Other to hide. Like Goldberg said, the stage actors were able to fulfill their desire for each other by expressing this desire in a way that was acceptable. Did the stage kisses make people in the audiences uncomfortable? Probably not. They still came in stinky droves to see the plays where men were playing women (playing men). And Wilde could fulfill his desire by pretending to be a straight man pretending to be gay.
ReplyDeleteInstead of "all the world's a stage" it should be "all the world's a masque."