Churchill's Seven Jewish Children - Is This Play Anti-Semitic?- Page 3

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 8:08pm

I agree that too many generalizations are being made. Come to Wisconsin and you will hear people in their 50s ending sentences with "Ain't it?", even when the subject of the sentence is not "it."

The article linked by the Guardian mentioned that it's rather the tone of the text that makes it seem anti-Semitic; basically, they think it's bringing up tropes that are heavily linked to historical anti-Semitic views (such as blood libel and using "the Chosen People" as an excuse to do whatever they want.)

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/20/09 at 1:00am

I find the Kushner & Soloman piece a well-written read but don't particularly agree with them, and their article doesn't address any of the reasons I've criticized, or sections I've pulled from, the play here.

So Pgenre, you've challenged and I trudge onward. I will pass the Marxian stuff except to mention that many of the kibbutzes following the creation of the present State of Israel were created with Marxian concepts, but I find no allusion to this in Churchill's play. Rather it is that "iron fist" of fascism to which she alludes.

Moving on to your slipping a reference to Michael Foucault, a Frenchman, whose work I confess I don't think I've encountered, nor any other "stucturalists." I've done a slight review of his ideas and structuralism. Since Foucault covered a lot of ground and for benefit of anyone who cares to follow this discourse (be forewarned, it's going to get heady, and Pgenre, I am sensing a PhD over there so I do appreciate that you are not pounding us with those damnable made-up academic words) I will note first, that Foucault is identified with structuralism and structuralists, which came after the existentialists, with whom we are more familiar, like Camus (L'Etranger) and Sartre (No Exit). Foucault wrote a big work on the history of madness, studied and wrote about psychology, anthropology. human sexuality and also studied clinics, hospitals and prisons and wrote books.

Really simplified from Wikipedia snippets, "Structuralism is an approach to the human sciences [and other fields] that attempts to analyze a specific field (for instance, mythology) as a complex system of interrelated parts. ... Structuralism isn't only applied within literary theory. There are also structuralist theories that exist within philosophy of science, anthropology and in sociology. ... [T]here are four common ideas regarding structuralism that form an 'intellectual trend'. Firstly, the structure is what determines the position of each element of a whole. Secondly, structuralists believe that every system has a structure. Thirdly, structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. And finally structures are the 'real things' that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning." "

Now moving on from there to what I am deciphering as Pgenre's allusion regarding the Churchill play, Foucault is known for certain ideas. I'm hoping we need not address his ideas regarding the involuntary imprisonment/confinement of the mentally ill and the early horrible treatments of "aversion" therapy in which the "treatment" was just really "repeated brutality until the pattern of judgment and punishment was internalized by the patient." For certainly that discussion might be relevant to the WWII concentration camp Jews who had to perform tasks for the Nazis [including the "corpse-carriers to the guardhouse" or, described even more fully in the excerpt link, "Sonderkommando means special detail. At Auschwitz it meant a very special detail indeed--one composed of prisoners whose duties were to shepherd condemned persons into gas chambers, and then to lug their bodies out. When the job was done, the members of the Sonderkommando were themselves killed. The first duty of their successors was to dispose of their remains."]

However, we may as well discuss the Theatre of the Oppressed method of the Brazilian director Augusto Boal (who passed recently) in that regard, but let's not go there, because Pgenre you seem to be alluding more to these following ideas of Foucault from The Archaeology of Knowledge.

(continued)

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved
Excerpt from Vonnegut's Mother Night Updated On: 6/23/09 at 01:00 AM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/20/09 at 1:16am

Again, snippets are from Wikipedia on Michael (Michel) Foucault and you can go there for the full cites.

"The Archaeology of Knowledge was Foucault's main excursion into methodology... [and] ... makes references to Anglo-American analytical philosophy, particularly speech act theory.

Foucault directs his analysis toward the "statement" (énoncé), the basic unit of discourse. ...that which makes propositions, utterances, or speech acts meaningful. In contrast to classic structuralists, Foucault does not believe that the meaning of semantic elements is determined prior to their articulation. ... statements themselves are not propositions, utterances, or speech acts... [but are] ... a network of rules establishing what is meaningful, and these rules are the preconditions for propositions, utterances, or speech acts to have meaning. ... a grammatically correct sentence may still lack meaning and, inversely, a grammatically incorrect sentence may still be meaningful. Statements depend on the conditions in which they emerge and exist within a field of discourse; the meaning of a statement is reliant on the succession of statements that precede and follow it. ... Foucault aims his analysis towards a huge organised dispersion of statements, called discursive formations. ...

... Foucault not only brackets out issues of truth ... he also brackets out issues of meaning. ... Rather than looking for a deeper meaning underneath discourse or looking for the source of meaning in some transcendental subject, Foucault analyzes the discursive and practical conditions of the existence for truth and meaning. In order to show the principles of meaning and truth production in various discursive formations he details how truth claims emerge during various epochs on the basis of what was actually said and written during these periods of time. ... He strives to avoid all interpretation and to depart from the goals of hermeneutics. This does not mean that Foucault denounces truth and meaning, but just that truth and meaning depend on the historical discursive and practical means of truth and meaning production. ...

Dispensing with finding a deeper meaning behind discourse appears to lead Foucault toward structuralism. However, whereas structuralists search for homogeneity in a discursive entity, Foucault focuses on differences ... what constitutes the differences developed within it and over time. Therefore, as a historical method, he refuses to examine statements outside of their historical context: the discursive formation. The meaning of a statement depends on the general rules that characterises the discursive formation to which it belongs. A discursive formation continually generates new statements, and some of these usher in changes in the discursive formation that may or may not be adopted. Therefore, to describe a discursive formation, Foucault also focuses on expelled and forgotten discourses that never happen to change the discursive formation. Their difference to the dominant discourse also describe it. In this way one can describe specific systems that determine which types of statements emerge. In his Foucault (1986), Deleuze describes The Archaeology of Knowledge as "the most decisive step yet taken in the theory-practice of multiplicities." "

(continued)
Michel Foucault

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/20/09 at 1:52am

Okay, Foucault has a whole lot going on there. No wonder he got a lot of recognition for his work.

First let's look at the four common ideas regarding structuralism:

1) the structure determines the position of each element of a whole
2) every system has a structure
3) the interest is in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes
4) the structure is the 'real thing(s)' that lie(s) beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning

Those are our "rules."

Now, given that every play has a "structure" I think we have to overlook the play itself for right now because these "rules" I think apply better to the Israeli/Palestinian dilemma in general and here's how.

We have a structure of a divided country. This determines greatly the position/relationships of the different parties/peoples as being the "elements" to each other and to the country as a whole. Trying to figure out coexistence for these "elements" and how to set it up (i.e. the "laws") rather than just making arbitrary changes is the focus. And the structure or the "real thing(s)" under the surface is the real problem. Which in this scenario is distrust, hatred, fear, very disparate religious and cultural attitudes toward life and death, and seeing the different "people" as the "other."

(continued)

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved

Updated On: 6/23/09 at 01:52 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/20/09 at 2:22am

By the way, P, a person who knows what they're talking about never comes across as pretentious.

A person who scans Wikipedia, however, does, at least in the Foucauldian sense.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/20/09 at 2:47am

"whereas structuralists search for homogeneity in a discursive entity, Foucault focuses on differences"

Let's take a look at this to apply Foucault's difference with the structuralists. I am jumping from a basic set of definitions of the structuralists to a particular analysis regarding "discourse" of Foucault, but that may not matter. If "homogeneity" is equated to the "coexistence" of rule 3, then I see Foucault's interest regarding the Israel/Palestinian discourse to be one that is not interested in the "coexistence" of the parties/peoples involved, but in their differences, including expelled/forgotten discourses amongst these peoples over time/history and the differences to popular or evolved discourses/thought of the present as they would be part of what underlies the present, even if these don't change the discourse. They'd still inform the discourse. It expands the discourse into "multiplicities," and I gather, from Foucault's perspective, this is the interest as the structure rather than any "appearance of meaning."

I can only dance along this road so far with Foucault. Yes, acknowledging the multiplicities of discourse and insisting on looking at them within their historical context is important in evaluating a system, situation or "structure." We do it all the time. I think it also needs to be expanded out into a more universal humanist or spiritualist environment of human existence, and he's not going there. The structuralists apparently eschew that in the same way the scientific/materialists have (with some exceptions in the Physicists, interestingly enough, who are seeking to understand the physics of different planes of existence they are finding are indicated by math and science).

Finally, returning to Churchill's play, when you misrepresent facts of history and start off with a no-win twisted set-up for your play, you've created a perversion in your discourse that can't be overlooked and detracts from its value. And also has a strained effect as in a prejudice which pulls, oversimplifies and distorts it away from reality and whatever the "structure" actually is. There are enough fact-based complaints on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian situation to make a worthy play without distortion.

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 6/22/09 at 02:47 AM

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/23/09 at 11:01pm

Wow, nomdeplume... I really applaud you for your extensive research and insight into this topic. I feel like I'm back in Literary Theory 501 again! I don't know if that's a good thing, considering it's probably the hardest area of study I've encountered (as evidenced by the dense text of the articles referenced and your pretty accurate description of them) and these days I really do try to shy away from all the traps of literary theory because simplicity is really the basis of art. Sondheim taught me that, and speaking of Sondheim... there have been rumors for a year or two now that Churchill is trying to persuade him to collaborate with her on a new musical. The prospect alone literally chills me to the bone. Apparently, he is a big fan of her work (doesn't suprise me) and it is a consideration. I find the prospect of a Sondheim/Churchill musical a hell of a lot more enticing than GROUNDHOG DAY! Fun food for thought: imagine Sondheim musicalizing A NUMBER (the same melody with slight variations and completely different lyrics for each of the 3 cloned sons, and the purest most basic skeleton of said melody for the (perceived) "original" son)!

Anyway, I think most of the majorly studied theorists, particularly Foucault, are generally hypocritical and contradictory in the end once one has absorbed their canons, so while the education itself is enthralling the final result is ultimately intellectual frustration and/or apathy (which is the worst emotion as far as I'm concerned) which comes as a result of intellectual impenetrability and/or sheer boredom. And most theorists enjoy reading themselves write (aka hearing themselves speak) far too much (thus the seemingly "made-up" words used) which is the biggest problem I have had with most literary theory.

Peripatetically, Churchill breaks almost all the rules in this play and most of her others, and in startling and provacative ways giving the works a different spin when considered using the Aristotilean prism of analysis. This, along with a host of other features I simply don't have the time to delve into at the moment, is one of the many fascinating fruits one can reap delving deeply into her oeuvre: the why and how she makes Aristotle's POETICS seem antiquated and off-the-mark whereas most major post-Dark Age theatrical works follow the rules of comedy and tragedy set forth in that text.

After all the work put into these posts, I feel I should at least voice my appreciation for the time and consideration given to this topic, while I am not sure anything more can be said that wouldn't fall on mostly deaf ears.

Bottom line: screw literary theory and go with your gut because, truly, the greatest theorists give us mere jumping off points to use as a springboard for our own personal understandings of a text.

BOTTOM BOTTOM (uh... excuse me?) LINE: Peripateticism is the way to go, if you must use a specific school (and it's the school of ROCK). Aristotle is the father Literary Theory for good reason.

P

P.S. You may reap the most benefits by using a Marxist reading of this text, methinks, as that's how I have come to certain conclusions on my own regarding this text (by sheer reflex, pretty much, as I am wont to do). As Churchill is greatly influenced by Brecht and Brechtian theory (and the School of Brecht (Beckett being a huge influence on her)) that probably would be advantageouly utilized as well if you want to dive deeper.

P.P.S. Structuralism is a dead-end, but pretty f*cking fascinating nonetheless, no? The Sign and The Signifier is really the only wholly original theory that Foucault developed that holds any water in the end, I have found.

Updated On: 6/23/09 at 11:01 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 12:29am

She walks into a room and you know
She's uncommonly rare, very unique,
Peripatetic, poetic and chic.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 1:12am

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved

I'm not sure if that would actually hold up in court. Why not just use your real name on such a piece of work?

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 1:15am

I think PalJoey's brill Kleban reference describes Namo pretty precisely. (And Churchill, even moreso)

But she should be nicer to nomdeplume.

P
Updated On: 6/24/09 at 01:15 AM

[Mel089]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 12:56pm

thats what you get for creating a country where theres already one

[Ole Chum]

Posted: 6/24/09 at 1:11pm

Jews get anti-Semitism for creating a country where there already was one? so pre-1948, anti Semitism bad, but now, hey, they asked for it?

and what country was there, exactly?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/28/09 at 7:45pm

I just don't see a Marxist interpretation on the play.

Marxist would have to launch in with "religion is the opiate of the masses" at least and I don't see any of that. And to play that up on the Jewish side without a look at the suicide jihadis would be absurd. I mean, promises of 72 virgins to go kill yourself (and take out whoever else you can) is a pretty weird opiate of the future Paradise. If you weren't in the opiate of the religious moment, you might realize that the virgins would also have to be dead. 72 dead virgins; some appeal. Islamic scholars say this is a mistranslation of ancient works anyway, that it's actually like 72 white grapes.

Is there some other aspect of Marx's works that lend the belief this play is written with some sort of Marxist outlook on the dilemma?

© 2009 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 6/28/09 at 07:45 PM