Friday, November 21, 2008

Oscar Wilde - The Importance of Being Gay

The uninformed reader may interpret Oscar Wilde’s play, The Importance of Being Earnest, as a light-hearted celebration of humanity; but one who is keen to Wilde’s personality and personal history will certainly note this novel as much a celebration as it is a satire, subtly implemented but dripping with bitterness. Although Wilde crafts an accessible and humorous account of aristocratic life, he fails to omit his own hostility towards the upper-class, his own class, in the make-up of the story. Because he fuses the genres of satire and honest comedy, using elements from both, one can easily see that The Importance of Being Earnest cannot fully be categorized as either.

To recognize the ambivalent nature of Wilde’s play, one must become familiar with his personal history in order to clearly identify the two genres in his play. After understanding certain aspects of Wilde’s life, it becomes quite sensible that a man with essentially two lives, two conflicting natures, would write a play conflicted in motive.

Oscar Wilde was born in 1854 to a philandering Doctor and a feminist poet. He was given a privileged education and lived a rather posh life. Wilde attended Oxford and received his degree in 1878. He began his career writing art reviews and articles for magazines (Layman).

Wilde worked as an art reviewer in 1881 and soon embraced the idea of art for art’s sake. He eventually became widely known as one of the most fervent advocates for aestheticism. Rupert Hart-Davis explains this turning point in Wilde’s life,

He was the most articulate and popular spokesman in the late nineteenth century advocating the doctrine of aestheticism, which insisted that art should be primarily concerned with ‘art for art's sake,’ not with politics , religion, science, bourgeois morality, or other intrusions. ‘All art,’ he said, ‘is quite useless’ (Layman).

Obviously, despite his notorious cynicism (which was apparent from his first literary works), Wilde had a true appreciation for the arts.

He eventually gained celebrity among the cultured European crowd. His career began to take flight when he was involved in writing several “farcical” plays. It was during this time that he married his friend’s sister, Constance Lloyd. They had two children and he continued to write, despite often negative reviews from such writers as Henry James and Bernard Shaw. Hart-Davis writes of such reviews in his The Letters of Oscar Wilde, “James McNeill Whistler, who, with increasing acrimony, accused Wilde of pretentiousness and plagiarism” (Layman). He goes on to write of the reception of his novel, The Picture of Dorian Grey, “Widely reviewed, the novel generated considerable distaste, even revulsion, among many reviewers because of its suggestion of homosexuality” (Layman).Despite such instances, his success eventually grew, spurring several tours throughout America, Canada, and Europe.

The most pertinent and conspiratorial chapter in Wilde’s personal life began in 1891. With only nine years of his life left, he met Lord Alfred Douglas, and soon initiated what was then referred to in the Victorian Period as “The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name” (Kanfer). Wilde had since gained notoriety for his promiscuity with young boys, making his affair with Douglas more expected than surprising. Hart-Davis writes,

Wilde was also self-destructive, for his progressively compulsive homosexuality…arising from a need for inner stability but resulting in increasing guilt and inner division, led him into experiences with ‘renters’ (male prostitutes) as well as casual pickups. It was, he said, like ‘feasting with panthers. The danger was half the excitement’(Layman).

While his love affair with “Bosie”, as he was called, was kept quite under wraps from the general public, word eventually got out causing Wilde’s wife to leave him and Wilde was accused of homosexuality by his lover’s father (Hart Davis). Wilde considered this the undoing of his career and the cause of his demise, saying of Bosie,

My genius, my life as an artist, my work, and the quiet I needed for it, were nothing to him when matched with his unrestrained and coarse appetities for common profligate life: his greed for money: his incessant and violent scenes: his unimaginative selfishness.... I curse myself night and day for my folly in allowing him to dominate my life(Hart-Davis).

Wilde was soon imprisoned for sodomy and sentenced to two years of hard labor, most of which was in solitary confinement.

Armed with the knowledge of Wilde’s dramatic personal history, one can attempt to deconstruct his most notable play, The Importance of Being Earnest, and strip it to its two conflicting voices: Satire and sincere comedy.

The Importance of Being Earnest as a satire is quite digestible. Knowing that Wilde was often attacked by literary critics, one can filter out lines in the play that target the critics specifically and recognize the bitterness behind them. This is evident when Algernon says to Jack,

Literary criticism is not your forte, my dear fellow. Don’t try it. You should leave that to people who haven’t been at a University. They do it so well in the daily papers (Wilde 6).

Although this is obviously meant to be humorous, that does not excuse it from inferring more. Oddly enough, the critics and writers alike responded rather positively to the play. Hart-Davis writes, “H.G. Wells applauded the work, saying, ‘delightful revival of theatrical satire’” (Layman).

The most important reason one might consider this play a satire is the issue of Wilde’s homosexuality. The pertinence of this matter of Wilde’s lies in his possible motives for cynically targeting the aristocracy in his play. While he was known to keep company with the upper class, the aristocracy never fully accepted him, socializing with his celebrity but criticizing his personal life. While his homosexual tendencies would not cause as much as an eye twitch in the 21st century, homosexuality, and sexuality in general, was not something to be publicly tolerated. In her article, “The Bi-Social Oscar Wilde and ‘Modern’ Women,” Margaret Stetz writes,

Victorian homophobia, which was by no means confined to muscular men of the Rudyard Kipling and W.E. Henley type, but was also shared by women—even by sophisticated, intellectual, “modern” women (Stetz).

It is just as easy to find evidence in the play of his resentment for the public disapproval of his personal life. The criticism of upper-class follies appears when Gwendolen says to Jack of her mother,

Although she may prevent us from becoming man and wife, and I may marry someone else, and marry often, nothing that she can possibly do can alter my eternal devotion to you (Wilde 17).

It is hard to overlook the thinly veiled bitterness in this passage. Wilde points out the hypocrisy of people who criticize his flaws while being equally marred themselves.

Wilde attacks this shallowness throughout the play, as seen when Gwendolen explains why she loves Jack, “We live in…in an age of ideals. The fact is constantly mentioned in the more expensive monthly magazines…my ideal has always been to love some one of the name Ernest” (Wilde 10).

Although there is much evidence that this play is written in a satirical fashion, there is also support of it as an honest comedy. Knowing that Wilde was a subscriber to the philosophy of “art for art’s sake,” one would easily discount the play of having any substance or motive beyond pure, innocent comedy. Hart-Davis addresses this possibility, saying in reference to the characters of this play,

“The wit of the amoral dandy, who, in embodying the artistic ideal, is principally concerned with the beauty and perfection of phrasing rather than with its truth or moral vision”(Layman)

He goes on to say, “Wilde absorbed the idea that art was superior to life and that the one obligation was to transform life into art--to be as ‘artificial’ as possible” (Layman). Since Wilde fervently supported aestheticism and artificiality, The Importance of Being Earnest can be classified as a purposely artificial and aesthetically pleasing (the words used), and nothing more.

After weighing evidence of The Importance of Being Earnest as both a satire and an honest comedy, it is important to address the most compelling reason to consider the play as not fully either. Wilde struggled internally throughout his life with spirituality and material gratification. Margaret Stetz addresses this issue, perhaps unintentionally, saying in reference to Alice Meynell, a friend of Wilde’s “Meynell had converted to Roman Catholicism, a move that Wilde himself was several times on the verge of making.” (Stetz) In fact, Wilde did convert to Catholicism on his deathbed despite his firm loyalty to aestheticism—a testament to his dual personality.

Hart-Davis provides testament to this duality of Wilde’s play, saying, “Wilde's ironic use of the double, or doppelganger, perhaps unconsciously parallels the psychological division within himself” (Layman). With equal evidence in favor of the play as a satire and an honest comedy, as well as the recognition that these genres are conflicting in nature, it is easy to classify The Importance of Being Ernest as only partially earnest.






Citations

Kanfer, Stefan. "Feasting With Panthers." New Leader 06

1997. 11 May 2005 <>.

Layman, Bruccoli C. "Oscar Wilde." Dictionary of Literary

Biography,Volume 10: Modern British Dramatists, 1900-1945. Ed. Stanley Weintraub, and Rupert Hart-Davis. Pennsylvania State University: The Gale Group, 1982. 204-218.

Stetz, Margaret D. "The Bi-Social Oscar Wilde and "Modern"

Women." Nineteenth-Century Literature 2001. 11 May 2005 <://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0891-9356%28200103%2955%3A4%3C515%3ATBOWA%22%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z >.

Wilde, Oscar, and . The Importance of Being Earnest.

Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 1990.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

The Borderlands - Gloria Anzaldua

The “borderlands” as explained by Gloria Anzaldua in Borderlands/La Frontera is not merely the literal territory in which her identity was formed but a mental state of being that exists indefinitely, containing several unique characteristics that help one to identify other groups that occupy a similar figurative space.

One of the major aspects of the “borderlands” as Anzaldua describes it is the fragmentary nature that it entails. She refers to this when she writes, “Living on the borders and in margins, keeping intact one’s shifting and multiple identity and integrity…”(Anzaldua 25). In this passage, the author refers to her identity as one that is potentially in pieces. Because she has multiple ancestry lines, she suffers from being categorized as “not whole.” Instead of denying it, however, she acknowledges the patchwork qualities of her identity and reveals even more of the internal strife suffered by one with torn motives and loyalties. If she assimilates into the Anglo culture, she would be considered a traitor to her people; but if she lives in the Anglo world while fully embracing her Chicana heritage, she would be completely marginalized and alienated from her surrounding world. Anzaldua’s goal for herself and others that are afflicted by the fragmentary status of living on the “borderlands,” is to be fully each element that makes up her being, rather than being part of a larger whole.

Anzaldua makes a point of addressing the duality of living on the “borderlands.” While she makes the obvious point that living on the “borderlands” threatens one’s identity because it is not of the majority on either side of it, she presents a positive aspect to this state as well. The author explains how living on the border can actually support one’s identity in some ways. Since the person is identified by not just one specific culture, but usually two or more, the “borderlands” is the only place where a person can experience all of their cultures without completely assimilating to any particular one and

foregoing all of the rest of their heritage. The only flaw with this proposed plan, is that the “borderlands” itself creates an identity that is even more specific and narrow. If one veers too far towards any particular part of the combined culture, then they will be targeted for tyranny.

Because the “borderlands” serves as both a vessel of support and danger, the person living on it must develop a keen sense of awareness, which is another characteristic of people like Anzaldua. Since persecution is a reality, from all sides, one must be fully prepared and alert to the threats that target the minority culture. This necessity to survival results in heightening of the senses. There are benefits to this hyper-awareness, including a perception that is often not accessed by those comfortable enough to not care.

A border in Anzaldua’s world is that which lacks legitimacy as seen in the first chapter when she writes, “Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe, to distinguish us from them,” (Anzaldua 25). She emphasizes the vagueness of this term by explaining the ease with which the outside and inside of a border are identified, in comparison to the border itself which lacks such a definition.

Anzaldua is a proud, lesbian Chicana who might appear to be in a very similar predicament as gay couples seeking to be married with children. This is true, but not in the sense of connection merely through homosexuality. Both are marginalized by their vague status in relation to a larger sphere, and suffer by their inability to assimilate without losing some part of their identity.

Gay couples seeking to model their family after the typical American family module are presented with an identity crisis, similar to that presented in Borderlands/La Frontera. Since many homosexual people reveal their sexual preferences to their families and friends as a way of “coming out,” one can see how these people might seek acceptance from the gay community and culture after facing rejection and alienation from their own families. It is after assimilation into the gay community that the average homosexual person finds a long-term mate. Couples that choose to marry and adopt position themselves awkwardly on both sides. Since marriage and children have traditionally been the keystones of the heterosexual union, other gay couples may see this step as a betrayal. These people feel that their counterparts are foolishly trying to emulate the very people that have shunned and rejected them in the first place.

This is not the only cause of turmoil within the gay community. Homosexuals also suffer amongst themselves when they adopt children, but are not allowed to be married. Gay marriage is considered illegal, which illegitimates the home that they are trying to create. Theoderek Wayne explores this side of gay unions when he writes, “The illegality of same-sex marriage fosters a feeling of alienation among homosexuals.”

Gay couples seeking this merger may encounter friction from their community, but it is the majority, or heterosexual society, that will pose the largest threat. State Representative Randy Ball argues in his article against gay adoption:

This issue has to take into consideration the influence that

religion has on the public. Throughout our society is the

deeply rooted Judeo-Christian ethic that holds that homosexuality

is immoral and that we should not put children into that

environment.


Gay marriage and adoption are threats to physical reproduction and the destruction of the family unit as society knows it today, however minuscule the chances of it occurring are. Because homosexuals have prided themselves on the severe difference between their lifestyles and that of heterosexuals, it is with justification that heterosexuals discover the new invasion of their “territory” as a threat, not only to their pride but to the future of their society. The majority feels threatened because homosexuals as a group have embraced a lifestyle that is not popular with the heterosexual family. Their reason for doing this is to erase the negative stigma that goes along with their preferences and at the same time form an identity that is theirs to revel in.

It is because of the opposing forces of both their gay community and the majority of modern society that gay couples wishing to unify and raise children are faced with a very difficult decision to make. One option for them is to fully embrace their gay community and way of life as separate and the conceptual opposition of the heterosexual lifestyle and risk being ostracized by the majority. Their other option is just as unappealing and involves risking what identity they have embraced and leaving the defined space of homosexual to enter into the unknown sphere of marriage and parenthood as a gay couple. This move does not come without the threat of possibly encountering hate from both sides of the figurative border.

The challenge for these particular gay couples, from Anzaldua’s perspective, is to overcome the tendency to identify themselves as part homosexual (their partner choice) and part heterosexual (their lifestyle choice). Instead, empowerment will come from identifying themselves as fully each element of their being. This change in the definition of their “category” will actually create a new and separate category, or a third state of being. Just as Anzaldua considers her borderland culture a separate one unto itself, gay couples seeking marriage and children will legitimize their existence by embracing their identity as separate.

Anzaldua presents many difficulties that accompany life on the “borderlands,” but she does manage to convey a general feeling of acceptance. She explains the hardships of this existence, but shows the contentment and pride that can be reached with true exploration of identity. Just like Anzaldua, gay couples seeking the family life are not completely barred from this altered existence. Life on the “borderlands” can limit the expression of the several parts of one’s existence, but can also give one the opportunity to create a new identity and experience.

References:

Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. Ed. Joan Pinkvoss. San Francisco, Aunt Lute

Books, 1999.

Ball, Randy. “Should Gay Couples be Allowed to Adopt?” The Daily Item. Bucknell

University. 11 August 2002. http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/flagb/

gaymarriagedebate.htm

Wayne, Theoderek. “Private Freedoms, Public Legislation: A Case for Same-Sex and

Polygamous Marriages Using John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.” 24 July 2002.http://

216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:vq_zu83dUZcJ:www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/liberty/essays/essay1.html+alienation+of+homosexual+adoptive+parents&hl=en