Ontologies of Community in Postmodernist American Fiction Malcolm Sutton Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the PhD degree in English Department of English Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Malcolm Sutton, Ottawa, Canada, 2012 ii Dissertation Abstract Ontologies of Community in Postmodernist American Fiction Using a number of structurally innovative novels from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as a basis for study, this dissertation examines the representation of communities in postmodernist American fiction. While novels have often been critically studied from the standpoint of the individual and society, here the often neglected category of community is put under scrutiny. Yet rather than considering it from a sociological point of view, which can potentially favour historical, economic or political grounds for community, this study focuses on the ontological binds formed between individual and community. On one level this study connects formal qualities of postmodernist novels to a representation of community – especially literary conventions from the past that are foregrounded in the present texts. On another level it interrogates the limits of the individual in relation to others – how we emerge from others, how we are discrete from others, how much we can actually share with others, at what cost we stay or break with the others who have most influenced us. The primary novels studied here, each of which is deeply invested in the community as a locus for ontological interrogation, are Robert Coover’s Gerald’s Party (1985) and John’s Wife (1996), Gilbert Sorrentino’s Crystal Vision (1981) and Odd Number (1985), Harry Mathews’s Cigarettes (1987), Joseph McElroy’s Women and Men (1987), and Toni Morrison’s Paradise (1997). Despite their varied representations of and attitudes toward the individual in community, these texts share a common spectre of American Romanticism that inflects how we read the possibility of community in the postmodernist period. iii CONTENTS Introduction . 4 Chapter 1 Robert Coover’s Gerald’s Party and the Perversion of Community . 30 Chapter 2 Convening in Limbo: Gilbert Sorrentino’s Crystal Vision . 55 Chapter 3 Coover’s Empty Centre: Community Structured on the Model of Ideology in John’s Wife . 76 Chapter 4 Sorrentino’s Odd Number and the Erasure of Community . 100 Chapter 5 Harry Mathews’s Cigarettes and the Chance of Community . 121 Chapter 6 Joseph McElroy’s Women and Men and the Limits of Otherness . 145 Conclusion Toni Morrison’s Paradise, Mythic Women, and the Critique of Assimilation . 170 Works Cited . 189 4 INTRODUCTION “Perhaps anyone thrown together with anyone else is community,” states the searching, seemingly lacking, male protagonist of Leonard Michaels's 1978 novel, The Men's Club (49). A loose definition, a stab at understanding, showing us just how far we are from substantial thinking on the topic. We need to head toward a less haphazard understanding of community than the state of being thrown together, as we are always in a state of having been thrown together. We need to consider to what degree we can share experience, what we oppose when we are together, and how one comes to be oneself among others. At a time in literary history – the 1970s, '80s and into the '90s – when the great innovative stylists construct layers of irony between us and transparent narrative and deploy all the other postmodernist meta's and inter's for drawing attention to the surface of fiction, how are ontological concerns – presumably those deeper, more universal and more ethical concerns – of community depicted? What do postmodernist novelists propose community to be? INDIVIDUAL AND NOVEL In The Theory of the Novel, Georg Lukács defines the individualist theme of the novel in contrast to the communal theme of epic. Our world view changed with the change of form from epic to novel, he argues, from an idealized Hellenic world of the epic, in which individuals experience immersion and unity with their surroundings, to a maligned modern world of the novel, in which they are displaced from this unity, atomized and alienated. Lukács's underlying assumption is that community allows for a completion of 5 being, and therefore that an individual on his or her own lacks something that can be attained in others. The novel's theme at its most general – the rift an individual faces with society, i.e., the alienation of the self – focalizes through the dramatic experiences of the individual, through his or her mind, where it also finds its bias. Totality with the exterior world, which we might consider as community regained, becomes the ideological goal of the novel. There are of course heroes of epic texts, but they are not individuals in any contemporary sense of the word. They are members of communities – somehow dispersed in them: The epic hero is, strictly speaking, never an individual. It is traditionally thought that one of the essential characteristics of the epic is the fact that its theme is not a personal destiny but the destiny of a community. And rightly so, for the completeness, the roundness of the value system which determines the epic cosmos creates a whole which is too organic for any part of it to become so enclosed within itself, so dependent upon itself, as to find itself as an interiority— i.e. to become a personality. (Lukács 66) For Lukács, a value system founded on the interdependence of its members prevents interiority, thus preventing that species we call the individual from emerging, from becoming a personality, a character, a rounded flesh-and-blood being in danger of walking right off the page. The hero’s destiny “connects him by indissoluble threads to the community whose fate is crystallised in his own.” (67) The atmospheric completeness of the epic world “is imminently utopian” (77) because of the organic union of the hero and his community. From this perspective, the epic is mythic, utopian, and prehistoric, 6 because it is the imagined situation from which we have fallen. Taking the epic as a measure of togetherness to look back on is similarly a major part of Jean-Luc Nancy's perspective: “Until this day history has been thought on the basis of a lost community” (9). Nancy's lost community is the ideological background against which the “problematic individual” (Lukács 78) of the novel emerges. Yet this background is often framed not as lost community, but more generally as all forces external to the individual. The external has a vague, amorphous quality, significant for its meaning anything except the atomized individual: any and all things outside the hero’s brain, any force contrary to the will of the hero (except internal contradictions). It is constituted by family, friends, business partners, bureaucratic structures, and at its most general, society. The binary that emerges as paradigmatic, as we have tried to define the novel, is individual experience on the one hand and external forces on the other. To give one example, Mikhail Bakhtin emphasizes the individual as a narrative locus of difference in relation to the world: “A crucial tension develops between the external and the internal man, and as a result the subjectivity of the individual becomes an object of experimentation and representation” (Dialogical Imagination 37). Thus the individual as novelistic focal point emerges both as that which has lost community and that which opposes forms of human organization, especially highly structured ones such as family and other institutions. Community, one would think, plays a significant role in the discussion of the individual and society. Yet it is the element that, in my mind, is most conspicuously lost, or dropped from the discussion, precisely because the individual is the primary object of representation, and structured forms such as society are so often the object of opposition. Herein lies the problem: that community which was once, at least in a mythic account, an 7 integral part of the hero, has been absorbed into the undistinguished mass of exteriority, more often than not as an element of society. One is reminded of Freud's description, in Civilization and Its Discontents, of an individual’s happiness negotiated in opposition to family, then community, then society, then civilization, as though there is no qualitative difference from one to the next. Each external form is a problem source and threatens the happiness of the individual. The aim of this dissertation is to resituate, or reinstate, community in the domain of the individual – to draw attention to community as an integral part of the individual and not simply one of the structures of opposition that range in size, proximity, and tangibility from family on up to civilization. WHAT IS COMMUNITY AND HOW IS THE WORD USED? Community is a contentious term, used and abused to a variety of ends and deeply invested in by those who perceive power in it. Conservatives and liberals alike deploy the term to gather adherents, applying it both to small-scale, grassroots pursuits and global- scale, corporate interests alike. Thus we have corporate communities, sports communities, arts communities, on-line communities, racially based communities, culturally based communities, and spatially based communities. Community is used both as opposition to powerful large-scale institutions, corporations and governments, as Jerry Varsava points out, and in the service of capitalism, as Miranda Joseph suggests. A group is christened community as though laying colonial claim, so that when used to show a common interest, the term metonymically suggests a consensus of interest that makes for easier reportage by the media and easier assimilation into forms of consumption. As Alain Badiou writes, when communities are formed around shared identity they open 8 themselves immediately to consumerist interests, such as “new products, specialized magazines, improved shopping malls, ‘free’ radio stations, targeted advertising networks, and finally, heady ‘public debates’ at peak viewing times” (Saint Paul 10).