Corporeal Ruptures in Modernist Discourses of Material Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Embodied Persistence: Corporeal Ruptures in Modernist Discourses of Material Language and Cultural Reproductive Futurity by Amilynne Johnston A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved April 2019 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Deborah Clarke, Chair Christine Holbo Maureen Goggin ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2019 ©Amilynne Johnston 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT This dissertation is an examination of a modernist desire to construct future materiality via material language, which represents a desire to overcome biology and the biological body. As such, modernist discourses of material language must be understood within their broader historical context, as these textual constructs developed against a cultural backdrop replete with eugenicist ideologies. Modernists wielded discourses of material language to determine via cultural reproduction which futures might materialize, as well as which bodies could occupy those futures and in what capacities. This dissertation argues that these modernist constructs contain their own failure in their antibiologism and their refusal to acknowledge the agency of corporeal materiality before them. Unlike language, the body expresses biopower through its material (re)productivity—its corpo-reality—which, though it can be shaped and repressed by discourse, persistently ruptures through the restraints of eugenicist ideologies and the autonomous liberal model of white masculine embodiment they uphold. This work analyses sexually marginalized bodies in texts by Mina Loy, Djuna Barnes, Nathanael West, and Ernest Hemingway that, through their insistently persistent biological materiality, disrupt modernist discourses of material language that offer no future for feminine, queer, and disabled corporeality. By exploring how intersecting issues of gender, sexuality, and disability complicate theories of language’s materiality in modern American literature, this dissertation brings attention to writers and texts that challenge broader attempts in the early decades of the twentieth century to subvert the biological body through eugenicist projects of cultural reproduction. i To Ann Bingham and Dean Johnston Thank you for caring ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would be a major shortcoming in a scholarly project focused on assemblages and caring labor not to acknowledge those who contributed to my work. I have had the good fortune to be surrounded by supportive and attentive mentors as I completed this dissertation. I am grateful to my dissertation chair, Deborah Clarke, and to my committee members, Christine Holbo and Maureen Goggin, for guiding me through this process. Without your knowledge, insight, and observant reading this project could not have materialized. Much of my thinking over the course of this dissertation progressed through critical and creative leaps, and your careful attention has helped me stick the landing. My gratitude extends to all those in Arizona State University’s Department of English who assisted me in my work. I thank Katharine C. Turner and the Department of English Scholarship and Awards Committee for granting me the financial support to carry out my research and writing. I am appreciative of the research grant that made my archival work possible and the dissertation fellowship that allowed me the time and space to fully concentrate on completing my project. My endless gratitude goes to Sheila Luna, our graduate program manager, who has all the answers, boundless patience, and who makes progress happen on a daily basis. I wish to thank Cynthia Hogue for offering me guidance and insight in the form of tarot readings. And special appreciation goes to my friends and fellow English graduate scholars whose intelligence, good humor, conversation and encouragement buoyed my labor, particularly Abby Oakley, who got me through many a reading, and Ian James and Courtney Carlisle, who provided generous feedback on early iii drafts of my work. None of this would have been nearly as good or nearly as enjoyable without you. I am grateful to all those at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library who assisted my archival research on Ernest Hemingway’s manuscripts, including Laurie Austin, Will Gregg, and Abby Malangone. Thank you for answering my questions and facilitating my labor. Finally, my loving thanks goes to my family—Ann, Melissa, David, and Alan—who support me in all ways, material and otherwise. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………vi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...…1 I. MAIMING FOR MOTHERHOOD: MATERNAL MATERIALITY IN MINA LOY’S PAROLÉ-IN-LIBERTA AND “FEMINIST MANIFESTO” (1914) ......31 II. MATERIAL GIRL: (UN)STITCHING BODIES, (UN)STITCHING WORDS IN DJUNA BARNES’S NIGHTWOOD (1936) ..……………..……….………..64 III. WORDS MADE FLESH: COERCING QUEER BODIES WITH DISCURSIVE CARE IN NATHANAEL WEST’S MISS LONELYHEARS (1933) ……………...…………………………………………………………………….93 IV: THE LIVING POSTHUMOUS TEXT: DISABILITY, GENRE, AND THE PUBLIC BODY IN ERNEST HEMINGWAY’S THE GARDEN OF EDEN (1946-1986) …………………………………………………….………………130 CODA………………………………………………………….……….………160 WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………….…….173 APPENDIX A NOTE ON IMAGES AND COPYRIGHT………………...………….…….183 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. “Beatrice Fairfax”…………….………………………………….……………..111 2. “The Hairy Chest of Hemingway” ………………………………………..……140 vi Introduction: The Thing-ness of Words and Bodies If what had happened to him for fooling with the open gate had happened to me, I never would want to see another one. I often wondered what he’d be thinking about, down there at the gate, watching the girls come home from school, trying to want something he couldn’t even remember he didn’t and couldn’t want any longer. And what he’d think when they’d be undressing him and he’d happen to take a look at himself and begin to cry like he’d do. But like I say they never did enough of that. I says I know what you need you need what they did to Ben then you’d behave. (Faulkner 297). Jason Compson’s proposal from the third chapter of William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury (1929), that castration (“what they did to Ben”) should serve as a means to remove transgressive social behavior along with the troublesome organs, appears flawed from the start, since Jason contrives it as he spies Benjy clinging to the same gate where, fifteen years earlier, he broke through to chase and grab Mr. Burgess’s daughter, the very behavior that led to his castration. The containment of Benjy’s desires through the removal of his flesh proves a failure in part because his desires are misunderstood to begin with. A developmentally disabled adult described as having been “three years old [for] thirty years” (17), Benjy’s relationship with language is as fractured and disjointed as his relationship with time, and he is unable to communicate through his “bellowing,” “moaning,” and “slobbering” that his desire for the Burgess girl is relational rather than sexual, the passing of her body by the gate in the evening recalling the past returns of his sister Caddy, now physically and nominally absent from the Compson household. The slippery yet persistent way Benjy clings to signification across bodies and time is but one of many modernist expressions through which writers aimed to represent their aesthetic navigations of ruptures in language, culture, and embodiment in a world of 1 rapid change, where “reforming, revising or inventing new linguistic paradigms became crucial to the strategies by which modernism achieved self-definition” (Thacker 41). Akin to T. S. Eliot’s shoring up of fragments against his ruins, the inexpressible loss of a sense of order and control modernists sought to convey through these experiments in language is reflected in Benjy’s impotence, making the “Great American Gelding,” as Jason christens him, a moniker for larger modernist failures and in particular a form of frustrated modern masculinity (Faulkner 310). In the same way that today’s ubiquitous chants of “Make America Great Again” voice a masculinist desire to regain the imagined control wielded by men of previous generations made to embody the ideals of liberal autonomy (and, in a sense, a futurity in which men give birth to their grandfathers), Ezra Pound’s modernist dictate to “Make it New” expresses not simply a break from the past but a desire to discover new expressions of an old power, the power of language to shape culture and thus the material future. “[N]ot only the best, but the most individual parts of [a poet’s] work,” Eliot asserts in “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” “may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously” (37). Yet the power of this tradition cannot be inherited, Eliot insists, and while the poet’s “own generation” lies “in his bones,” the dead poets’ immortality can only be “obtain[ed] by great labor.” The modernist writer’s inarticulate impotence might be reversed then not through a resurgence of genealogical biopower, but through the preservation and perpetuation of culture through language’s own materiality. The modernist desire to construct future materiality via material language is therefore a desire to overcome biology and the biological body, a project that must be 2 understood within its broader historical context, as these textual constructs were developed against a cultural backdrop replete with eugenicist ideologies. Just as Jason Compson seeks to correct and control his family’s legacy by restraining not