Upon reading the two part lecture presented by J.M. Coetzee in his now published novel The Lives of Animals, I was able to understand why each of the critics had such a difficult time responding. I can, however, see how Coetzee’s writing develops and the patterns existent in many of his novels. One prime similarity we have seen in the novels we have read thus far, for example, is in terms of the dualistic elements presented in an attempt to both develop dual perspectives and to pose a social critique. We won’t after all understand the effectiveness or flaws on a concept or idea until we compare it with another. From similar novels we have read in class including In the Heart of the Country (slave/master discourse)and Waiting for the Barbarians (powerful/powerless and civilized and savage), we can see how the dualistic elements are either working against each other or are working in response to their binaries. In The Lives of Animals, dualistic elements are in play at different levels. As Marjorie Garber, for instance, writes, “Within the family…there is a distinction between the novelist and the philosopher, between Elizabeth [Costello]and Norma” (80). Garber then poses the question, “What is the structural relationship between…literature and philosophy” (80). Just in this short segment, we have multiple binaries. For one, Elizabeth Costello and Norma are very different characters. The only binding commonality among the two is John Bernard, son of Costello and husband of Norma. He always found himself in the middle of the two, always making an attempt to understand both. Part of the reason why they were each having such difficulties coming to terms with one another is based on their dualistic theoretic disciplines: literature vs. philosophy.
When thinking about the dualities discussed here (literature vs. philosophy), several questions come to mind. For instance, is it possible to separate literature from philosophy as two different entities or is the line too fine? To complicate this question even further, we can focus on professor of philosophy, Costica Bradatan’s question, “Is there any relationship between the literary forms philosophers [such as Plato] make use of and the specific methods through which they develop their thinking?” When developing philosophical pieces, not only is the theorizing important, but the way the theories are structured is important as well. Norma was a philosopher who thought of Costello’s perspective on the violence on animals as exaggerated, directive and at times underdeveloped. As a philosopher, Norma expected Costello too go deeper into her arguments, especially considering that was the prime focus of her lecture. As Peter Singer also adds, “I think she would go further than that. There’s a more radical egalitarianism about humans and animals running through her lecture than I would be prepared to defend” (86). Perhaps, Elizabeth Costello’s structure had to be carefully extracted to answer the philosophical questions that develop from her claims.
Bradatan, Costica. “ Syllabus.” Philosophy 100.11: Philosophy or Literature? The Literary Art of Philosophers. Web. 25 October 2011.
Coetzee, J.M. The Lives of Animals. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1999. Print.
Norma, it was so interesting to read the ideas you brought up about the relationship between Norma and Elizabeth. The terms in the duality you present (literature vs. philosophy) could easily, for me, be replaced with emotion and reason. For me, I see reason, in this book, as the principle that serves as a justification for norma and anyone else who use the concept as the central evidence of our "being" as privileged. Elizabeth appeals to our emotional nature which responds more immediately but can not, when asked, fully explain itself. Much like when, "…she Norma expected Costello too go deeper into her arguments…"
ReplyDeleteIts interesting in the dinner scene after the first lecture when the faculty and Elizabeth are gathered around discussing the merits of animal/human consciousness. You have the academia offering empirically driven rational arguments while Elizabeth counters in a more metaphysical manner. She suggests abstract qualifications such as "being" that are not completely measurable. Elizabeth discredits the value of reason and is suspicious of erudition but paradoxically her beliefs hinge upon more zealous notions that are not applicable to logic. Thus they populate a fringe area regarded with cynicism.
This creates a complex competition between two very viable and visceral approaches that we use to come to understand things. Reason and emotion can not exist exclusively they are interdependent within the human condition. Therefore the arguments in the book hover above right and wrong and have no exact closure. Much like the implications that arise from the narrative technique Coetzee uses can never, without direct authorial interference, be resolved.
-Daniel Linton
Your reference to Coetzee’s use of dualities in The Lives of Animals in terms of literature v. philosophy led me to think about it as a narrative taking up the duality of fictional v. real. I feel the complexities of the literary form and the limitations of language are what Coetzee is addressing throughout this narrative/essay. Elizabeth Costello questions the value of literature but at the same time, spurns the world of academia for its heavy reliance on reason. I agree that her rocky relationship with Norma is because of Norma’s strict reliance on logic. Costello would like to hope that literary works help change people’s attitudes towards animals, though she knows that so far it has not made readers rush out and close down the slaughterhouses. This is cause for her frustration and her haunted feelings of inadequacy. Coetzee is possibly relaying his own feelings of inadequacy and frustration about his work up to this point in his attempt to voice his concern for South Africa's inhumanity through apartheid. Again, the limits of language haunt Coetzee’s work and The Lives of Animals provides an interesting opening to his text Elizabeth Costello.
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head in your comment that Coetzee’s use of “dualistic elements” is at a completely different level in The Lives of Animals. I was considering his represented difference between philosophy and literature and then more specifically within the differences of literature alone. There is another contradiction within the ideas of poetry presented that through another kink into my assumption of this argument. While Costello presents poetry has having the possibilities, through imagination, to somewhat flatten the us/other binaries, it is interesting that the one person who does not show up for the dinner is Abraham Stern, a poet. Within his own mind, despite what he is able to do with it poetically, refuses to investigate or overcome his own bias to her Jews/cattle comparison. I am not yet sure what to make of this connection, of lack of connection, within the literary discourse itself, but it appears as though another level of dualism is presenting itself.
ReplyDelete~Kelley
Hi Norma, I just have to say that I agree with what you said and all the comments that were made before mine. Coetzee's texts overall are always about showing binaries, but I think his novels are not just about showing opposing sides, rather they are about blurring the lines between them. What I mean is that Coetzee makes his readers question if the binaries he presents can be separated from each other, while at the same time showing the ways in which they do not necessarily conflict with each other. What I mean is that, a character can at once be the "other," and the self in Coetzee's texts. I will use the same examples you brought up to illustrate my point. For example, "In the Heart of the Country" Magda is the oppressor but at the same time she is oppressed by the old male narrative that her father represented. In "Waiting for the Barbarians" the Magistrate is also at one time complicit and guilty for not standing up for injustice, but as the novel moves along he too suffers injustice. In "The Lives of Animals" I think that Coetzee presents the opposition that is mainly represented by Norma to Costello in order to show a blurring of binaries. This concept I think is not as obvious, but to me often Norma's arguments are intertwined with the hate she feels for Costello. What I mean by this is that Norma's dislike of Costello cannot be separated from her philosophical arguments and therefore we see that emotion, and not just reason creeps up even in the most logical sounding statements. We have to rely on John Bernard for these hits of dislike and hatred, because as you mention he is in the middle, and although he may not be completely reliable, he is the best we have. I also think that this idea is inverted in Costello's lectures. Costello attempts to make a philosophical argument about ethics via imagination, and trying to appeal to emotion. While there are dualistic elements, I think Coetzee is trying to blur the lines, like Joanne said, to show the limitations of language, but also I think to show those of reason and form as well. No one narrative is perfectly pure, and we cannot escape emotion or our human logic.
ReplyDeleteFrom Rolando-
ReplyDeleteI'm glad someone else wrote about the relationship (or duality) between literature (poetry to be more specific) and philosophy. My blog tries to show if there is even a point to it since they, really, are two different things. However, when looking at courses like Major Critical Theories or classes with a specific emphasis such as disabilities studies or on the Harlem Renaissance, it is not just a good idea, but you really must, incorporate and include disciplines that help answer and present information about a particular context. IN my last major critical theories class, Terry Eagleton suggests that even cave writings from the first signs of civilizations are considered literature. Like animal studies, this can both open up a new type of discussion between people and fiction while also demanding to broaden what we use in order to literary research.
Hey, so yeah I totally agree that the relationship between literature and philosophy is at the heart of the story, and that because of that the relationship between Norma and Elizabeth is central. I think it helps in a lot of ways to use John as the main point of intersection between Norma and Elizabeth (both in their family and in their arguments), and to think of what his motivations are in his own relationship with either of them. At the times when he takes Norma's side, he does so out of an obligation to maintain order within his family, essentially a functional, constructed relationship. When he defends his mother though, it rarely has anything to do with maintaining order (in fact it risks doing the opposite), it's out of the simple fact that he cares about her because she's his mom, a natural (rather than entirely constructed) relationship that has no function outside of itself. From there it helps to look at it from an Oedipal perspective, in which Norma is the signifier for John's totally irrational, unconscious desire for his mother. In this light, rationality (Norma, philosophy), is just a tool for justifying inexplicable human drives, which are themselves irrational (Elizabeth, literature). So ultimately it seems like he's saying that literature is a more appropriate method of explaining humanity, as it takes into account the irrational with the rational sides of human nature, as opposed to philosophy which is concerned only with reason.
ReplyDelete