Spiritual Subjecthood and Institutional Legibility in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America

Spiritual Subjecthood and Institutional Legibility in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America by Molly Elizabeth Borowitz A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Hispanic Languages and Literatures and the Designated Emphases in Critical Theory and Renaissance and Early Modern Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Ivonne del Valle, Chair Professor Michael Iarocci Professor Diego Pirillo Summer 2019 1 Abstract Spiritual Subjecthood and Institutional Legibility in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America by Molly Elizabeth Borowitz Doctor of Philosophy in Hispanic Languages and Literatures with Designated Emphases in Critical Theory and Renaissance and Early Modern Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Ivonne del Valle, Chair My dissertation, “Spiritual Subjecthood and Institutional Legibility in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America,” argues that early modern subjects of the Spanish Empire respond intention- ally and strategically to institutional interpellation, representing their subjection in ways that advance their own spiritual and political agendas. The project traces subjects’ efforts to shape, limit, and exploit their legibility to spiritual and political institutions through texts by Teresa of Ávila, Ignatius of Loyola, Martín de Azpilcueta, fray Luís de Granada, and the Third Provincial Council of Lima. The concept of institutional legibility originates with James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State (Yale UP, 1998). Scott argues that institutions in early modern Europe develop “state simplifications”—shorthands by which they assimilate local variations in language, practice, or record- keeping to a state-wide standard—in order to distill from their subject populations the infor- mation they need for operations like taxation and political control. State simplifications make local activities “legible” to institutions by producing homogeneous data that reflects their interests. I invert Scott’s definition of legibility, focusing on local subject formation rather than institutional data collection. Following Althusser, I contend that the attempt to render oneself legible is a response to interpellation; it entails self-subjection to the relevant institution. However, I argue with Butler that self-subjection occurs not once, but continually; it is a constant and evolving performance, a creative act as well as a compelled response to authority. The first chapter, “Limited Legibility in Teresa de Jesús’ Las Moradas del castillo interior,” shows how Teresa promotes the suspect practice of mental prayer by establishing a shorthand for assessing the orthodoxy of practicing mystics while also obscuring the content of her own mystical encounters. She provides confessors with ready-made state simplifications to determine the provenance of a mystic’s visions, but then sidesteps the obligation to describe the content of her own visions by allegorizing her relationship to God as a spiritual marriage, recasting their encounters as moments of spousal intimacy that good Christian wives should never discuss. 2 The second chapter, “Making mystic texts: Jesuit subject formation in the Spiritual Exercises,” argues that, through the Exercises, Ignatius of Loyola teaches Jesuits not only how to make their own mystical experiences, but also how to translate those experiences into mystic “texts”—ver- bal accounts of their immediate encounters with divinity—expressed in a standard, Society-wide language. The mutual legibility of Jesuit superiors and subordinates through the creation of mystic texts fosters the organizational cohesion and hierarchical stability that each individual Jesuit’s power to make mystical experience puts at risk. The third chapter, “Sacramental confession and institutional strategy in sixteenth-century Spain and Peru,” suggests that confession works to maintain imperial hegemony by teaching penitents to police their behavior for sins that undermine the Crown’s projects of cultural homogenization and political compliance. Confessional manuals by Martín de Azpilcueta, fray Luís de Granada, and the Third Lima Council show how the sacrament controls the penitent’s conscience through the inspiration of guilt, the obligation to self-examination, and the expansion of the categories of sin to encompass social, political, and economic activities that contravene imperial interests. Constructing legibility as a process of subject formation illuminates the agency of institutional subjects. Though compulsory, legibility affords the early modern subject some room to negotiate with the institution, and can create opportunities for her to advance her individual agenda. i Acknowledgements 0 ii Introduction 001 Of state simplifications and subject formation: Toward institutional legibility Chapter 1 023 Limited legibility in Teresa de Jesús’s Las moradas del castillo interior Chapter 2 066 Making mystic texts: Jesuit subject formation in the Spiritual Exercises Chapter 3 107 Sacramental confession and institutional strategy in sixteenth-century Spain and Peru Conclusion 147 Rendirse cuenta: To give an account of oneself Works Cited 152 ii Acknowledgements First, I am immensely grateful to my committee, and especially to my chair and mentor, Ivonne del Valle, for her gentle but decisive direction. Over the past seven years, she has shown me not only how to push the theoretical, geographical, temporal, and generic limits of early modern lit- erary studies, but also what it is to be a good teacher, advisor, collaborator, colleague, leader, and scholar. Diego Pirillo has continually expanded my academic horizons by introducing me to new texts, new interlocutors, new colleagues, and new friends; by offering constant encouragement and strategic insight; by pushing me to consider different angles and different audiences; and by showing up for everything, one hundred percent. Michael Iarocci has extracted the potential from big, messy, not-quite-formed ideas as if by magic, has always cut to the heart of the matter, and has drawn the curtain back on the mysterious inner workings of the public university. Though they were not official members of the committee, I am also grateful to Ignacio Navarrete and Emilie Bergmann for their guidance. Their kindness and generosity, their vigilance in spot- ting and sharing opportunities, their endless enthusiasm for the Quijote, and their friendship with one another have been a continual inspiration. Many thanks to the Program in Critical Theory for the fellowship that supported my research in 2018-2019, and to the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and the Program in Renaissance and Early Modern Studies for funding the summer archival work that gave rise to this project. Thanks also to my phenomenal students for their humor, perspective, and affection; to the won- derful Jenny Cole for her friendship; and to the incomparable Verónica López, graduate advisor and guardian angel, for the hugs, chats, reminders, pick-me-ups, and unconditional love. Megan Briggs Magnant and Holly Jackson have been the best imaginable traveling partners for this long and bumpy journey, which would have been much longer and bumpier without their commiseration, reassurance, feedback, and critical insight and our many sanity checks, lunches, cocktail hours, and noodling sessions. Jenelle Thomas and Irina Popescu lit the lamps along the path so that we could find our way to the end. Johnathan Vaknin, Kate Driscoll, Keith Budner, David Swensen, and the extended REMS and Spanish and Portuguese graduate-student families provided essential support, encouragement, and camaraderie. Beyond Berkeley, my San Fran- cisco family—Laura Talbot, Rajiv Ayyangar, Robbie Beckman, and others—kept me going by listening when I wanted to talk about my work, and by suggesting something fun to do when I didn’t. My best friends Jordan Kisner, Chloe Angyal, and Whitney Williams Skowronski served as writing gurus, on-call therapists, and cheerleaders as needed. iii Finally, thanks to my brilliant sister and fellow academic Maggie Borowitz for the phone calls, strategy sessions, and writing retreats, and for the stellar flash of insight without which I might never have finished Chapter 2. Thanks to my parents, Stephen and Kathleen Borowitz, for asking questions, for celebrating milestones, for swapping ideas about teaching and reading and story- telling, and for passing on their love for books, languages, and learning. And, lastly, thanks to my husband, Paul Kompfner, who has overseen every step of this process. He has cooked and run errands and picked up slack; he has helped me adopt and care for our Reid, the dearest dissertation support dog there ever was; he has let me brainstorm and explain and complain and panic out loud when necessary (and often when not); and he has tied his life and his career to mine so that I can keep doing this silly and magical thing, well, indefinitely. 1 Introduction Of state simplifications and subject formation: Toward institutional legibility If … becoming a subject requires a kind of mastery indistinguishable from submission, are there perhaps political and psychic consequences to be wrought from such a founding ambivalence? The temporal paradox of the subject is such that, of necessity, we must lose the perspective of a subject already formed in order to account for our own becoming. That ‘becoming’ is no simple or continuous affair, but an uneasy practice

Load more