The Shadow Lines is a novel that defies traditional notions of narrative presentation. It is far from linear. Tangents, and long diatribes concerning side line issues occur often. Acknowledging the multiplicity of narrative viewpoints, two points may be made. Primarily, that this multiplicity of narratives presents multiple, legitimate images of home. This multiplicity may at times seems in conflict. Secondly, and further, this heterogeneity of home, or multifaceted and nuanced presentation can also be said to maintain overarching themes within these images to confidently put together a background of "home" for Ghosh and the things he finds important within these definitions. Each other view point that we receive is affected by the narrator's comments and thoughts. Even at some of the most isolating moments, when Ila becomes outraged because Robi won't allow her to dance (though this scene involves other important issues such as identity, gender, cultural views toward the family, women and so on, this scene is directly related to Ila's emotional situation in India as in contrast to Britain.
Have you gone mad? she said to Robi, spitting the words through her teeth. What did you think you were doing?
Look, Robi said. It's over now, lets just forget it.
We won't forget it, she said; she was screaming now, but with her voice very low, in that way women have. We will not forget it. Just tell me: what did you think you were doing?
List, Ila, Robi said, shaking his head. You shouldn't have done what you did. You ought to know that; girls don't behave like that here.
What the fuck do you mean? she spat at him. What do you mean 'girls' ? I'll do what I bloody well want, when I want and where.
No you won't, he said. Not if I'm around. Girls don't behave like that here.
Why not? She screamed. Why fucking well not?
You can do what you like in England, he said. But here there are certain things you cannot do. That's our culture; that's how we live.
She stared at him, wide-eyed, speechless. Then she spun around to face me. Do you see now? she cried. She bit her lip fiercely and the tears came pouring out of her brimming eyes.
I put my arms around her, and pulled her towards me. She rubbed her face into my kurta, sobbing, saying over and over again: Do you see now? Do you understand?--and I, uncomprehending, repeated after her: See what? Understand what? while trying to stop the flow of her tears with the back of my hand.
Then she pushed me away and waved at a taxi. It stopped, and she darted into it, rolled down the window, and shouted: Do you see now why I've chosen to live in London? Do you see? It's only because I want to be free.
Free of what? I said.
Free of you! she shouted back. Free of your bloody culture and free of all of you.
The taxi started moving and I began to run along with it.
You can never be free of me, I shouted through the open window. If I were to die tomorrow you would not be free of me. You cannot be free of me because I am within you ... just as you are within me.
Then the taxi picked up speed and disappeared along Chowringhee. (86-87)
Quickly, issues of identity, home as a geographic place (nation, nationality) and the interaction between these identities are all evident within this passage. As Ila shouts from the taxi that she is striving to live free of the narrator and robi's "culture," she attributes her "freedom" to her social position within Britain. This position is distinctly politicized through a history of colonialism (broadly), and Ila's personal cosmopolitan history. Again, as Ila shouts, she is referring to Robi's reaction to her desire to dance. A closer look at the club will be helpful in understanding both Robi's reaction and Ila's desire to dance:
To my relief, there was a loud roll on the drums and the leader of the band announced into the microphone: Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have Miss Jennifer here, to sing for you. Please give her a hand.
Miss Jennifer swam out of the darkness, bowing and bobbing, a paper-pale, matronly woman, in a skin-tight crimson sheath covered with silver spangles.
Hi Folks! she trilled in a thin, high voice, full of professional gaiety, Hi there! Come on now then, get yourself ready, you all, for a whole bagful of fun.
...
Yes, gasped Ila, that's it. Let's dance, that'll cheer us up.
Come on, she said, tugging at my hand. Get up, let's dance.
But I was clumsy and self-conscious on my feet at the best of times. And when I looked at the empty expanse of the dance floor, at pump Miss Jennifer swaying in the middle, and the hungry eyes of the businessmen staring at her, I knew that I would never be able to step on to that floor.
No, I said, shaking my head. I couldn't, not here.
She turned away disappointedly. Robi? she said. Wouldn't you like to dance?
I can't dance, he said, raising his head to look at her. And even if I could, I wouldn't in a place like this. I think you should sit down, for you're not going to dance either.
At first she was merely surprised.
I'm not going to dance? She said. Why not?
Because I won't let you, said Robi evenly.
Within this scene we have a juxtaposition of westernization, of gender roles within as exemplified by Miss Jennifer, Ila, Robi's expectation of Ila and finally of the businessmen. All of this creates a scene where complex identity formation is given a more concrete setting. For Ila, she seems to contradict common female roles within India. I do not think it appropriate to address the troubling of gender presentation and roles within India and Britain, but rather, I want to point attention to the fact that within this scene which centers around conflicts due to social, cultural roles evident in "homes" identity plays a large and formative role.
Indeed, within this scene Robi asserts and upholds certain cultural norms and ways of life. To break these rules seems a dangerous act: when Ila ventures over to dance with the businessmen there is an assortment of things to acknowledge. Primarily, Ila's actions are reacting toward Robi's declaration of not letting her act of her own volition. Dancing seems not to be the issue here. Rather, Ila seeks to assert her identity as a self-determining and autonomous agent. Further, the cultural boundaries upheld by Robi are contrasted by the figure of Miss Jennifer. She seems distinctly out of place within the scene. Or, at the very least, she seems to encompass trends of westernization within India. In fact, the entire scene seems to take place within a microcosm of western culture fitted into India. Though dangerous to speak in these terms (as if western culture may be completely encompassed within a club, and further that this image directly contrasts a monolithic notion of "India" or even third world countries), Ghosh sets of a scene where cultural boundaries are being encountered.
Acknowledging that the basic setting of the club, the presence of Miss Jennifer and Ila's push to establish self-agency through dancing with businessmen contribute to the establishment and clarification of a "western" world or home. In this case, the individual who defines the "western" world home claims self-agency, a more equal relation between genders (contrasting general patriarchal schemas) and social rules that govern individual interactions in a much more conservative manner.
Contrasting, the "India" world may be exemplified by Robi, who upholds certain patriarchal standards, defines autonomy in a more hierarchical and less self-determining schema: Ila's actions (and therefore women in India) are determined less by personal decisions and more so by pre-established cultural norms and standards.
Within this scene, we have an encounter between two "worlds" and the individuals who claim these worlds "home." What can be said in concern to Ghosh's presentation involves the clarification of these boundaries. Further, these boundaries impact and affect individual self-conceptions. Ila shouts and asserts her self-definition and identity by association with a geographic and historical situation: that of the UK. Additionally, she not only associates with the UK, she means to disassociate herself with the culture, history and ethos of India. This embracing and rejection of certain national historical, social situations helps establish the notion of what Ghosh mean when he is peaking of "home" within the Shadow Lands.
Home, it seems is distinctly connected to the "imaginary homeland" that is upheld by Benedict Anderson; involving peoples, histories, and further certain symbols, that are static, certain images of a collective. Additionally, the manner in which an individual situates herself to these "homes" speaks of the freedom and power that individuals within Ghosh's novel maintain. Though the 'homes' may be in conflict at points, there is no questioning in the legitimacy of her picking and choosing. What seems to produce difficulties and tensions is the process of claiming and rejecting a history that conflicts with the stereotypes and images that are pre-established due to ethnicity, race and so on. Ghosh's images of 'home' then, are distinctly modern and follow along with Bhabha's troubling of those societal establishments that seek to ground and quell the ambiguity and anxiety that exists in this determining of 'homelands.'
Though there seems to be a multitude of factors that play into Ghosh's presentation of "home" (History, geographic, politics of the self, identity, colonialism, and so on, following discussions and encounters pursued by the Subaltern Studies school), there are a few items that may be selected as primary, due to explicit-ness within the text. Primarily, history and its influence upon the idea of the nation seem to establish these "homes" at a high level within Ghosh's work. Without this notion of history, and the world-forming boundaries provided within, Ghosh's work would be distinctly mingled: a work that presented characters attempting to ground identity in geographic, historic, and personal situations that exist in a space that avoids foundations explicated within Anderson's Imagined Communities. Second, as noted above Ghosh's images of home are distinctly modern: the topic of cosmopolitanism is worthy and fruitful within Ghosh's work. Third, the role of identity and the politicizing of the self (meaning connecting the influences of colonialism upon individuals) are notable within Ghosh's text as well. Ila's outburst would be less exemplary if her statements were not grounded in the fact that individual decisions and interactions maintain a high importance within the novel.
Hopefully, the reflection above provided a good basis to consider possible issues in the presentation of 'home,' its interaction with individual identity within Ghosh's work. Soon, I'd like to offer an exploration in concern to the character of the grandmother.
No comments:
Post a Comment