Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Shame

My second post I hope to dedicate to the concept of Shame.... and exploring rather than debating the notions of this feeling. Can I call it a feeling?


I began to think of SHAME, mainly because of two separate conversations I had in the last week with some friends as well as Goggler's thought provoking posts and the article she posted about SATC. Moreover Shame, is one of my favourite Rushdie books, that I've read about 3 times justin the last academic year :$


What exactly is Shame?? I cannot provide an OED definition as my Athens username and password has now expired, please if you are still a student, can you do a search for me on http://dictionary.oed.com! It should come up with several definitions...I do have some web definitions here: shame  (shm)
n.
1.
a. A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.
b. Capacity for such a feeling: Have you no shame?
2. One that brings dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation.
3. A condition of disgrace or dishonor; ignominy.
4. A great disappointment.
tr.v. shamed, sham·ing, shames
1. To cause to feel shame; put to shame.
2. To bring dishonor or disgrace on.
3. To disgrace by surpassing.
4. To force by making ashamed: He was shamed into making an apology.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shame

When I think of shame I think of that burning feeling of guilt which manifests itself as bright red cheeks and makes your stomach do somersaults because you know you have done something bad. Or know that you are going to get in trouble for doing something bad (often I find my conscience only kicks in when I'm about to get found out! Perhaps this is why Rushdie writes: "Shame is like everything else; live with it for long enough and it becomes part of the furniture.")
Rushdie depicted Shame most memorably in the character of Sufiya Zinobia who would burn bright red from shame for all the other characters who lacked shame, were shameless:
"Between shame and shamelessness lies the axis upon which we turn; meteorological conditions at both these poles are of the most extreme, ferocious type. Shamelessness, shame: the roots of violence."

Let's be specific. Rushdie when writing Shame not only referred to Pakistan and its history, but the microcosm of violence in households, towards familieis, towards women, but also towards sexuality. And it is the latter I am concerned with.


Can any good come of shame? Is there an innately built sense of shame or is it all a case of culture? Again I quote Rushdie, who believes shame has no counterpart in the English language and feels he has to speak it in his cultural voice:
"This word: shame. No, I must write it in its original form, not in this peculiar language tainted by wrong concepts and the accumulated detritus of its owners' unrepented past, this Angrezi in which I am forced to write and so for ever alter what is written... "Sharam, that's the word. For which this paltry 'shame' is a whole inadequate translation. Three letters, shin rè mìm (written, naturally, from right to left); plus zabar accents indicating the short vowel sounds. A short word, but one containing encyclopaedias of nuance. It is not only shame that his mothers forbade Omar Khayyam to feel, but also embarrassment, discomfiture, decency, modesty, shyness, the sense of having an ordained place in the world and other dialects of emotion for which English has no counterparts."


I can't help but notice SHARAM has the word HARAM in it....meaning forbidden, and unlawful within Islam. Could it be that to do things which are HARAM perpetuates shame, sharam?
Clearly, in a diverse, polytheistic and atheist society different people have different definitions of shame. With regards specifically to sexuality, can a hippy attitude to sex (free love for all) ever perpetuate shame? Is there any purpose to shame?


One of the two conversations I recently had with a good friend, revealed to me my shortcomings. The friend stated an Arabic proverb to me which loosely translated as 'that which happens between two people behind closed doors, should stay in that room with them.' That is to say, confessionals and gossip columns and girly talk which leaves very little to the imagination (which I openly admit I engage in and initiate) is shameless, in the eyes of my friend. To have no shame, is equatable to being a loose woman, in my friend's opinion. Talk about your partner(s) and what you did/do with your partner(s) means you have lost the ability to filter out information and images that are in your brain and enter into everyday table conversation..... Perhaps?


Once again, I turn to Rushdie to give the gift of language to my thoughts, from his 'East,West' short stories he cannot choose between his Eastern cultural influences and his Western 'education' :  

"But I, too, have ropes around my neck, I have them to this day, pulling me this way and that, East and West the nooses tightening, commanding, choose, choose.
I buck, I snort, I whinny, I rear, I kick. Ropes, I do not choose between you, Lassoes, lariats, I choose neither of you, and both. Do you hear? I refuse to choose. "

In a similar vein, I feel the tug of my Orthodox upbringing agreeing with the Arabic proverb....Yet, surely to be quiet and to not educate your friends, and children about the joys of the bedroom is to be a prude? LOL!
To not want to educate women? It must therefore be that SHAME (with referene to sex) is simply a cultural construct seeking to oppress women? NO! Or is it YES?!

When I was about 12 years old, I read a book called 'Chandra' about an Indian girl and her arranged marriage at the age of 11 to a boy of 16. Her husband dies before they have a chance to consummate the marriage and she is slandered as a devil girl by her inlaws, and the book follows the plight of the girl and the violent beatings she took before she could escape to freedom. For the first time that I can remember, I felt indignation burn inside me for this fictional character. I felt her beatings burn on my skin, and I felt that she should have been stronger, she should have felt NO SHAME. She only felt shame, because she believed she was a devil and had caused her husband's death too! Hence shame cannot be something innate, it must be a construct of culture?

Shame does not have a truth factor to it, shame is most often felt by those who have done no wrong. Most often rape victims, stay silent because they feel shame encompassing their whole body and do not wish to taint their good name, or their families'.....This type of shame is one which is not inflicted on oneself but breeds dishonour and disgrace for others or for oneself. It is this type of shame which is need of education and modification.

But the shame which one brings upon oneself....Can we really talk of shame in an epoch of decadence? The cultural stereotypes that films like SATC purport suggest that the West is free, but the East is restricted, oppressed. Yet when the East looks on the West they see a shameless people, advocating immoral behaviour.....the West see an unecessarily shame filled location. However the world is not so black and white.....But the LAW of each respective country perhaps is more binary....thus what happens when the shameless enter into a country where shame abounds? Like the sex trials of Vince Acors who had sex on a beach in Dubai, and broke the laws of "public indecency and having unmarried sex." I guess this is what SATC was directly alluding to. 
The hypocrisy associated with the UAE however is not unique to the Eastern world....And by the hypocrisy I mean the immense sex traffic that occurs in Dubai 'the middle Eastern flesh capital' but perhaps all over the world. As one writer has written:  Dubai is "a nation that is built upon the very dichotomy that is prostitution: necessary but unwanted; illegal but desired!" (but this is not a new attitude to prostitution, after all even Augustine of Hippo writing in 4th c AD stated that prostitution is necessary in a society, as there will be men that will always will request it)
http://sexual-abuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/prostitution_in_dubai


My theory is that shame and shamelessness is not something we can geographically pinpoint and slander as emancipation/education and/or illiteracy. The hypocrisy behind shame and shamelessness is something which is integral to each individual, and the battle of ropes between East and West, that Rushdie talks of ....is simply the internal moral battle which occurs on a daily basis....


Now what of men, can men feel shame? Is it not a British ideal that ‘a gentleman will never kiss and tell’ about his adventures with ms anonymous lady the night before? Or is that a unisex trope for all Brits? Or is it something that is universal for all men? They simply don’t diverge into details, where as ladies are more than comfortable to tell their friends minute details (NO PUN intended?)


Sunday, 1 August 2010

My Very First Attempt at Writing For the WORLD WIDE WEB! Barthes, Joyce, Fat Parrots, Kermode and Trashy Novels

A scary thought, but potentially more of a marketing slogan than actually containing any 'truth'...(Let me briefly clarify, that I do not mean truth in the sense of it having a tangible reality - before any fellow bloggers, or future scientists/mathematicians wish to bite my 'virtual' head off...I simply wish to be rather cynical about any following I will have!) Nevertheless the POTENTIAL to target a large audience is quite exciting!


Before I commence (haven't you already?) I have no false illusions of becoming a published writer/poet/journalist so if any of my writing seems ...lackadaisical.....for want of a better word, it is because I am often, off with the fairies. I am most definitely not a perfectionist, and as much as I would love to pretend that I simply write as Woolf or Joyce did, by listening to the ever fluctuating thoughts of the mind, I cannot taint their names in such a way! Nevertheless, I digress...Enough of my self criticism!

Now to discuss writing itself - writing about writing.....For any fellow literature students, how many times can our lecturers suggest that Shakespeare et.al was in fact writng about the art of poetry itself? Although it is fascinating and I'm sure writers themselves do it all the time.....Just take a look at any of Joyce's work, Aristotle, or even Oscar Wilde - The Picture of Dorian Gray. I had a very interesting discussion with an ex of mine about Dorian Gray, although I am ashamed to say I never had in fact read any Wilde at the time, I did try to discuss with him (the ex - a scientifically inclined mind with a strong musical background) how often nature imitates art rather than vice versa...Can anybody give any examples? I think he beat me during that debate, although it kept his brain ticking!

So to actually put forward a point, instead of just posing questions...I wish to write in order to learn. Not about myself, but to pose questions and perhaps receive theories, arguments, discussions. If I have one goal in life it is to continually probe and question - WHY? I was, as many young teenagers, fairly stubborn and narrow minded growing up and am trying to make up for it now....If anybody can challenge or rather teach me new things, suggest new reading, explain theories to me...than you are more than welcome to this virtual friendship group :P

Now, if a writer I can call myself, it would look rather unprofessional to ask my readers what they would like to hear about. But as Barthes would have us believe 'the death of the author is the birth of the reader.' That is to say, I can do what I like with my writing as can you....you who read it, some may psychoanalyse my character through my writing, some may evade disrupting the writer's character and focus on the gaps, the omissions (yes, I am plagiarising Barthes and Lacan again!)
For those of you already familiar with Barthes, I think it is important to not forget why Barthes wrote 'Death of the Author' :

"The 1960s also saw a famous polemic, provoked by the Sorbonne professor Raymond Picard's attack on Barthes's idiosyncratic Sur Racine (1963). In Nouvelle critique ou nouvelle imposture (1965), Picard took Barthes to task for irresponsible neglect of basic standards of scholarship [see Literary History, 2]. Barthes riposted vigorously in Critique et vérité (1966), distinguishing criticism from science."


Criticism from science - what does that mean to you?

Btw do YOU find it rather demeaning or patronising when I use the second person form?

Criticism from science to me, is linked in with the idea of 'truth' that I was referring to previously. We can't really talk of truths in the same way that we would in science, but that is to state the bleeding obvious. I think if all potential students of literature at higher education just thought of 'criticism from science' before entering into a degree, there would definitely be fewer tears upon the sixth attempt of reading say Ulysses, or any modernist literature! And it would open up many eyes to the nature of CRITICISM rather than spoon feeding at schools.

This is a topic which I am sure to indignantly refer to in future blogs, and which I went as far as criticising my own A Level English teacher to his face three years later, having successfully finished my degree! (Although I was his favourite pupil!) A level study really does not prepare people for university, at least at state and grammar schools.... I still to this day, believe I am a very good parrot learner....especially when I am a spoon fed parrot learner, I grow immensely fat and my belly shines out with A* and A grades! Yet when the spoon is pulled out I shed immediate pounds, and grow gaunt and I have to teach myself to be self-critical. But how self critical I was being, rather than just being self critical for the sake of being critical, because lecturers suggested we should be self critical, remains to be seen post graduation...

I'm sure that last sentence remains unecessarily complicated, but as above, I'm really quite the opposite of a perfectionist! And very very rarely will go over my work...yes I am lazy. Please help.

Now, what have I been trying to say for the last hour, but have been distracted by my own thoughts...? Is anybody still there?
Ahhhh yes.....Now in spite of Barthes' rant about readers deciding what the author is talking about....and DESPITE being a raving feminist (well I prefer the term 'queer'....Oh, yes, darrrrling, didn't you know, the word is all the rave! Coming soon to a university near you :P) ...I have to categorise topics between female/male.
This is DEFINITELY NOT to say that all women talk about....oh I don't know....say dating and how men are the biggest pricks (ARE NOT HAVE), sex, makeup, shopping, and clothes, oh and shaving, waxing, electrolysis, laser/IPL, manicures, extensions etc! Sex in the City, and Twilight and OMG 'I think I just peed my pants' and sooooooooo many superlatives and elongated vowel sounds!
Yes, I am one of these unfortunate chicks that you probably want to slap with a wet fish and command her brain cells to start multiplying coz the solo one is growing insanely lonely! I am proud to say I have never watched either Sex in the City movies, but yes I do have two facebook albums dedicated to it...and NO I do not have a vampire fetish either! But I can admit that the lazy, girly part of me often dominates. And I wish to apologise, because I'm sure most blogs will be filled with my dating angst, and horror stories of men with girlfriends and wives that try to seduce me.....Because I know it fascinates me, it is one of my vices, trashy writing keeps me hooked! So do trashy TV shows!


Men, I wish to make clear do NOT escape the brush of trash-iness! As Mark Kermode always criticises films for having the 'phwoooarrr' factor (equating to trash), men's magazines also include superficial crap on how to look good at the gym, how to seduce several girls at once, football, beer, etc! BUUTTTT perhaps I am meeting the wrong girls, mooosttt conversations, challenging conversations I have are with men....because they dig deep on a regular basis.....Or do they?
Or am I just one of those chics, that rather naively asks herself 'Why do all girls hate me?' whilst bitching to her girl associates about the other girl that walked out with a layer of fuzz around her legs, and simultaneously believes all her guy 'friends' are just that ......'just friends?'

Errrrm yer right!

And so my writing returns to trash :P But I'm going to retain it, and let you people make of it what you will. So what's the verdict people.... Are women incapable of discussing the great philosophers over coffee (N.B. coffee and NO illegal substances mentioned) because they WANT to rather than they HAVE to? I would never suggest women are dumb, as I have met some of the most intelligent girls at university....neither do I wish to suggest just because you understand philosophy that makes you 'intelligent'.....
My question is about people that think profoundly and make it their task in life to challenge and to do so....Or is this just a trait of mine....Is it because I am lazy and unwilling to change, that I cling to this false belief that what I am doing, by always interrogating, is in fact intelligent and will serve me well in finding a career path and a future partner?!
Or do men do this on a regular basis but remain quiet and discreet about it? How often do men indulge in trashy reads? Are they fascinated by how the female mind works when it comes to dating? Or have they met enough girls that frequent clubs every weekend, in a bid to find their future hubby, only to ask why men just use and abuse them?



So no conclusion for now, just awaiting comments from you all...... :)
Love, peace and happiness to youuuuuuu beautiful people xxxxxxxxxxx