Bhaba’s notion of mimicry surrounds a colonial society’s creation of an identity on behalf of a suppressed group in order to successfully fulfill certain submissive roles. The conqueror gets to craft the identity/role. The conquered must accept their identity as constructed by their master or suffer the consequences.
Benjamin’s notion of mimesis is that man has always been drawn to symmetry and similarities throughout history. Man’s ability to recognize and accept similarities is what compels him to take on these similar characteristics. Language is the greatest example of mimetic behavior.
I chose to close read pg. 16 of Rolling the R’s because it successfully demonstrated Bhaba’s theory of survivalist mimicry.
In this section, an entire group of young boys lies to their parents in order to attend a racy, socially unaccepted movie. The boys each give a false alibi to their parents in order to keep up the appearance that their parents want them to exhibit. Vicente tells his mother that he is going to work on a school project for extra credit. His mother allows him to go. Florante tells his mother that he is going to write a biography. His mother allows him to go. Both Vicente and Florante lie to their mothers in order to successfully “mimic” the image that their mothers want them to portray. They are good boys, good students, with good character. Vicente and Florante demonstrate this “mimicry” because they want to avoid consequences with their “conquerors”, their mothers.
Edgar, on the other hand, doesn’t lie. He tells his parents exactly what he is going to do. He is going to watch a movie about a homosexual man who breaks his silence. His parents do not accept this honesty. His father becomes extremely agitated. Edgar does not demonstrate “mimicry” even though it would be more beneficial to his survival in his father’s household.
I totally get what you're saying about the mimicry aspect of this scene: the boys lie in order to behave like their "conquers" would want. However, I think a key aspect of mimicry is missing in here. Part of Bhabha's mimicry theory is that the conquerer makes his conquered "other"; the conquered can try to construct an identity that mirrors the conquerer, but the conquer keeps that conquered society as "other." They can never fully achieve sameness. The mothers of the boys (conquers) do not "other" their children though. They are of the same race and society. The mothers want their children to actually behave just as they do, to obey societal expectations and to be the same. Mimicry implies that the other is not the same, and always somewhat different..."a difference that is almost the same, but not quite" (126). This othering effect allows the conquerer to remain powerful other its subjects, and I don't think that power dynamic exists in this scene between parent and child.
ReplyDeleteI love that you're applying the conqueror-conquered power dynamic to a parent-child relationship; it's kind of messed up to think about it that way, but it makes total sense. I would even argue that what Megan points out about the conquered having to be fundamentally different from the conqueror really does hold true in a parent-child relationship; though the child carries her/his parent's genetic structures, the child is an "other" in the household, who understands and interacts with the world in a different way than does each parent. The fact that the children in Rolling the R's lie to appease their parents, whose values and beliefs conflict with their own, holds true to the conqueror-conquered model of mimicry. They lied to "survive," in a way.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed that you used this passage to explain mimicry - it was incredibly entertaining for me because I could completely relate to wanting to sneak into a movie (such as when we wanted to go to R movies in the theater but weren't yet 17). As the others have said, you encompass parts but not all of the different aspects of mimesis in each author's essay. However, I thought you were very clear and understanding in terms of what you wrote. One thing I do disagree with you on is the end, when you mention Edgar. I believe that his mother does accept his honesty in that she slips him money to go to the movies - she may be the more accepting of the two. In addition, the other two characters may not necessarily be lying in order to appease their family, but rather to overcome the societal restriction in that they aren't allowed to go to the movie because of their age.
ReplyDelete