MDDM Ch. 73 Slavery

[jbor]

Terrance wrote:

> the text asks us to consider all human relationships and endeavors
> as forms of slavery. Who is a slave? What Constitutes slavery? Does work
> or labor? Does marriage? Does government? Does war? Does civilization?

Yes, I agree with you and John on this point. Most of the characters have an
implied point of view on the topic, and what Pynchon does represent is a
spectrum of attitudes regarding slavery. See also Ch. 42 where M & D see
Austra again, and the narrator comments, rather sarcastically I think, on
"what a glamorous International Life it's proving to be for her too, so far
at least. Who says Slavery's so terrible, hey?" (427.31) But as well as
being sarcastic I think that it is an echo or reflection of Austra's pov at
this moment as well.

And of course there's Captain Zhang's perspective:

"If you think you see no Slaves in Pennsylvania, [...] why, look again. They
are not all African, nor do some of them even yet know,-- may never know,--
that they are Slaves. Slavery is very old upon these shores,-- there is no
Innocence upon the Practice anywhere, neither among the Indians nor the
Spanish nor in the behavior of the rest of Christendom, if it come to that."
                                                            (615-6)

And I think it's not just characters' perspectives which provide different
points of view about slavery. The different manifestations of slavery in the
novel, from the absolute ease and camaraderie in the relationship between GW
and Gershom at Mt Vernon through the exploitative familiarities of the
Vrooms with Austra at the Cape or Captain Dasp at Lord Lepton's, to the
brutal slave-driver in the street in Baltimore, the representation of the
way the institution was manifested in that era runs a wide gamut. The case
of Austra is interesting, and I still can't help wondering if Dixon does
meet up with her again in that Baltimore street. Even if he doesn't the
point seems to be that the "one tall woman in a brightly-strip'd Head-Cloth"
*could* be her, even if it isn't (cf. 696.27). Similarly, with Eliza Fields
we also get a whirlwind tour of different types of enslavement.

I'm not sure that characters' occupations are the key, but that's certainly
a part of it. I don't think Chas's and Jere's opinion on the subject ever
coincides even though they are almost interchangeable in many respects. They
do have differing religious povs, but more important I think is their
different personalities and temperaments, and this is also a factor, along
with occupation, nationality, class, religion etc etc.

Anyway, I agree that there is not an infinite number of perspectives "in"
the text, but I think the point is that potentially there could be
(especially once every subsequent reader's pov is factored into the
equation, and Pynchon's postmodern texts often do this quite overtly), and
that an absolute, or universally "right", perspective (an "end", as you
phrase it), whether in life or in the text, does not exist. So, while
there's no hierarchy of perspectives, which I agree with you on, there's
also no "end". Or, that there is no "end" *is* the "end".

The other point I'd make here, and I agree that Ch. 73 a wonderful chapter,
is that I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't being narrated by Wicks.

best


> These are old questions and they were big ones during the age of reason.
> No need for the quotation marks here.  What's needed, for me anyway, so
> that we don't attenuate the meaning of the word,  is a little
> philosophy. Aristotle will help me.
> 
> In M&D we have a lot of characters. Let's say that each character has
> his/her own perspective on Slavery.  Austra has her perspective on
> marriage as a form of slavery and Mason has his. They don't seem to
> agree. She thinks that English marriage is slavery for woman. Not an
> original idea, in fact she tells Mason that she has learned this from
> other women. Now,  her perspective on slavery constitutes her own
> perspective and the perspective of some English women, AND does so in a
> way that is valid for all perspectives on slavery. That's the kicker!
> 
> Mason's perspective on marriage is his. He doesn't' think Marriage is
> slavery. His perspective is a man's perspective and the perspective of
> some or most English men.
> 
> English men, had rights that English women did not.
> 
> Mason's perspective is his and the perspective of most English men at
> the time and in no way does it invalidate Austra's perspective and/or
> the perspective of some english women.
> 
> Now, this way of looking at things does not lead to an infinite number
> of perspectives or an infinite multiplicity of personal views of
> slavery. We don't get a relativistic view of slavery in M&D.
> 
> Nor does it get stuck in the bind of objectivity and emotion, that is, a
> scientific or other fact based definition of slavery and one based on
> non-cognative factors, like feelings. Mason and Dixon are often stuck in
> this bind. Mason being more scientific at times and Dixon being more
> emotional.  
> 
> Nor does it lead to a hierarchy of perspectives of slavery culminating
> in one absolute perspective on slavery. This is the kind of hierarchy of
> perspectives we get in M&D from, for example,  the religious people in
> the book. For example, on the Line: it Begins or/and Ends  with GOD, his
> division of things either from the creation and/or at the End of his
> creation. 
> 
> Every occupation has its own perspective. To an astronomer, light can be
> a form of pollution. As she wants to look into the heavens, the
> skyscrapers are exhausting their fogs of electromagnetic radiation, the
> Astronomer complains of too much light pollution.
> To the farmer, the lights burning in his greenhouses are not pollution,
> but energy for photosynthesis.
> 
> The lawyer has her view of light, as does the carpenter, the poet, the
> painter, the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker...so on....
> 
> But, we need to consider to what END all these perspective may be put or
> aimed.