Author Archives: madison rafter

Mr. Tulliver; Why So Serious?

by

0

Hi everyone,
In response to the post “Your Favourite Novels in the Course? And Why?” I found myself discussing my initial annoyance of Maggie in her younger years. I mentioned how Maggie’s relationship with Tom reminds me of my childhood relationship with my older brother. Eliot encapsulates very accurately the despair incurred with being a kid; a subject with limited agency, born into a world that exists independently of their input. Maggie as a child, is powerless to change the world around her, and is subject to follow the rules that have been pre-established by those around her.
The topic of restricted freedom is one that I have been studying in an existentialism class, and I thought that it can be relevant in an analysis of Mr. Tulliver’s behaviour in his society (I have written my term paper on Mr. Tulliver’s inability to fully grasp the switch between the shifting economies in his world. So, his understanding of the world is fresh in my mind, though I hope others will find this as interesting as I do.).
Mr. Tulliver is living in what the existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir would describe in her book the “Ethics of Ambiguity” as a “serious-man.” The serious-man sees the world as containing objective meanings and values independently of their own perceptions. The serious-man restricts their own freedom by blinding themselves to seeing the possibility of alternative values, different from what they have arbitrarily decided to be absolute in society. Mr. Tulliver is a serious-man in that he fiercely believes the values of a gift-economy to be the values instilled in society. He limits his freedom by wholeheartedly forcing himself to live purely in accordance to gift-economy values; which emphasizes exchange sustained by positive interpersonal relations. Mr. Tulliver ignores that he is responsible for projecting his values onto the world, seeing them as existing independently of him within the society. The serious-man chooses to believe that regardless of anyone’s attitude towards it, the society’s values are born of the society itself.
De Beauvoir finds the serious-man is dissolved when they acknowledge the “world’s” values are contradicted by another set of values in the society. In this instance the serious-man is forced to recognize their own agency in the creation of the meaning and values in the world. This contradiction is precisely what happens to Mr. Tulliver, as his poor financial decisions, made by appealing to gift-economy values in capitalism leads him to perpetual failure. When faced with this contradiction, Mr. Tulliver remains steadfastly serious, maintaining his gift-economy values and simply becoming increasingly “puzzle[ed]” by his world. His destruction is brought about because he remains serious in a world that clearly contradicts his understanding of the society.
If you want to look at De Beauvoir’s book, it’s available through UBC Library!

 

Works Cited

De Beauvoir, Simone.“The Ethics of Ambiguity.” 2-19. Secaucus, N.J.Citadel Press, 1948. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 3 Apr. 2016

Paradoxes in Postmodernism

by

0

In class yesterday we looked at the paradox in postmodernism. We discussed viewing postmodernism as creating a “blurred line between fiction and fact,” which I take to mean that the ideas presented in postmodernism put readers in a state of suspension where we are never sure whether or not we necessarily should be taking what is to be presented to us at face value. For example, the racism and misogyny evident in Amis’ “Money” may call attention to these issues, or perpetuate them, depending on reader interpretation. I feel like this puts readers in a state of anxiety where we are unsure what to make of what is being presented to us, as meanings/morals are no longer evidently clear, as was the case in the pre-postmodern era (19th century), with the grand narratives with their clear meanings. Keeping this in mind, the paradox between liberation and the confines of commercialism in postmodernism  (Warhol’s portrait example) create even more confusion; ultimately it’s hard to imagine what a crazy time living through the transition to postmodernism would have been like. I’ve noticed John Self seems to live in this paradox of simultaneous liberation and confinement; he willingly spends his money on alcohol only to have himself repeatedly black out, and he allows himself to succumb to his desire for Selina only to be caught by Martina. While in the end of the novel he moves on with his life looking towards the future, he does not reconcile his past issues which foreshadow that he is likely to fall into the same patterns again. Could this be seen as mimicking and criticizing the cyclical nature of a boom-bust economy or is that a stretch?

On a separate note; I have two quick questions about the helicopter fable. Is there something tangible the metaphor of the helicopter specifically represents? Secondly, why was this seen to successfully keep the free market balanced, where the Keynesian model of the government injecting money into the economy could not?

If anyone has any suggestions about piecing this together I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Mrs. Munt: a Poor “Decision-Maker”

by

1

In class last week we discussed how Mrs. Wilcox is representative of Keynes’ “decision-maker” in “Howards End”. My experience reading the novel however had me thinking that Mrs. Munt could also be understood as a “decision-maker” among the Schlegels, albeit a much poorer one than Mrs. Wilcox.
Initially, Mrs. Munt essentially wrestles her way into her nieces’ and nephew’s life despite their repeated rejection of her. Mrs. Munt succeeds in her third attempt to enter into their lives, as she seems to have already decided she would, as “disaster was bound to come. How right she was, and how lucky to be on the spot when the disaster came” (13).
Mrs. Munt is ironically confident in her actions while simultaneously being repeatedly wrong or misinformed. Be it about Helen’s supposed engagement with Paul, or even with details as small as her accusing Charles of stating that he was his brother Paul, (18) Mrs. Munt acts with intent and confidence that she not ought necessarily do, as it never seems to resolve issues. This is emphasized when she is contrasted with Mrs. Wilcox as decision-maker for the first time. Mrs. Wilcox is equally confident in her delegating actions to Paul and Helen on the lawn, as Mrs. Munt is in her own belief in her ability to solve problems. However Mrs. Wilcox comes across much more at peace, drawing wisdom from her “ancestors,” (21) and succeeding in diffusing the tense situation. This may be seen as representative of how Keynes finds there are only certain people with the ability to properly run the government.
My question is then, why is Mrs. Wilcox represented as an efficient “decision-maker,” a member of the investment class, when Keynes’ point is partially that people of the upper-class are not necessarily well-fit to run the government? Mrs. Wilcox’s drawing wisdom from the past makes it seem less like she is an efficient leader because of her reasoning skills, but instead simply because of her family’s past.