The Spectacle of Japanese American Trauma Racial Performativity and World War II 1 New Edition Emily Roxworthy PDF Download
The Spectacle of Japanese American Trauma Racial Performativity and World War II 1 New Edition Emily Roxworthy PDF Download
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-spectacle-of-japanese-
american-trauma-racial-performativity-and-world-war-ii-1-new-
edition-emily-roxworthy/
The War against the New Deal World War II and American
Democracy 1st Edition Waddell
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-war-against-the-new-deal-world-
war-ii-and-american-democracy-1st-edition-waddell/
https://ebookultra.com/download/judgment-without-trial-japanese-
american-imprisonment-during-world-war-ii-first-edition-tetsuden-
kashima/
https://ebookultra.com/download/world-war-ii-reg-grant/
https://ebookultra.com/download/from-new-deal-banking-reform-to-world-
war-ii-inflation-milton-friedman/
Infantry Mortars of World War II John Norris
https://ebookultra.com/download/infantry-mortars-of-world-war-ii-john-
norris/
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-concise-encyclopedia-of-world-war-
ii-cathal-j-nolan/
https://ebookultra.com/download/mr-truman-s-war-the-final-victories-
of-world-war-ii-and-the-birth-of-the-postwar-world-j-robert-moskin/
https://ebookultra.com/download/war-guilt-and-world-politics-after-
world-war-ii-1st-edition-thomas-u-berger/
The Spectacle of Japanese American Trauma Racial
Performativity and World War II 1 New Edition Emily
Roxworthy Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Emily Roxworthy
ISBN(s): 9780824832209, 0824832205
Edition: 1 New
File Details: PDF, 1.93 MB
Year: 2008
Language: english
The Spectacle of Japanese American Trauma
The Spectacle of
Japanese American Trauma
Racial Performativity and World War II
Emily Roxworthy
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
Staging the Trauma of Japanese American Internment
Notes 179
Bibliography 215
Index 225
v
Acknowledgments
One day over a “working lunch” at one of our usual sushi joints, my longtime
adviser, Dwight Conquergood, leaned across the table with a glimmer in his
eyes and mischievously remarked, “Emily, I had no idea you had become so
political.” He meant it as a compliment, and I took it as such. Dwight saw
me through the most formative decade of my life, from a rather self-absorbed,
apolitical undergraduate majoring in Performance Studies—en route to an act-
ing career, no doubt—to an over-serious doctoral student bent on critique and
revolution. Perhaps the transformation was not quite so dramatic, but being
Dwight’s advisee made one feel on the constant verge of greatness. I now real-
ize, since his passing, that the feeling had a good deal to do with basking in
his afterglow. Dwight died long before his time and certainly before this project
represented anything but unrealized potential, but I dedicate the book to him
nonetheless. I am one of a small army of scholars indebted to his legacy and
homesick for his friendship.
I would also like to thank many other scholars who have advised me over
the years, from my earliest graduate schooling at Cornell University to my doc-
toral studies at Northwestern University and my very welcoming first job at the
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Thank you to Jim Carmody, Tracy
Davis, Paul Edwards, Brian Edwards, Takashi Fujitani, J. Ellen Gainor, Nadine-
George Graves, Jorge Huerta, Dominick LaCapra, Lisa Lowe, Marianne McDon-
ald, Lisa Sun-Hee Park, John Rouse, Rebecca Schneider, Janet Smarr, Dorothy
Wang, and Mina Yang. I have also benefited greatly from my colleagues in
the UCSD California Cultures in Comparative Perspective research initiative,
especially from the selfless leadership of David Pellow. My graduate students
in the Theatre and Drama Joint Ph.D. Program at UCSD and UC Irvine have
constantly challenged the ideas with which I wrestle in this book, offering far
more interesting interpretations than I ever could have mustered at that stage
in my career.
I am grateful to the professional friendships I share with many, particu-
larly Suk-Young Kim, Lon Kurashige, Sheila Moeschen, Magdalena Romanska,
vii
Karen Shimakawa, Melinda Wilson, Harvey Young, Patrick Anderson, Shan-
non Steen, and the now far-flung members of the Northwestern Performance
Studies ABD writing group, including Amy Partridge, Rebecca Rossen, Ioana
Szeman, and Jason Winslade.
This book has profited from the research assistance of Tomoyuki Sasaki
and Zachary Gill and from funding by the Northwestern University Graduate
School and the Academic Senate of the University of California, San Diego.
Parts of chapters 2 and 4 previously appeared in slightly different forms in TDR
and Theatre Journal respectively, where the editorships of Richard Schechner,
Jean Graham-Jones, and David Saltz catalyzed immense growth in my thinking
on this material. For its present form, the input of Masako Ikeda at the Uni-
versity of Hawai‘i Press—as well as the two anonymous readers she selected—
proved invaluable to shaping this book’s narrative arc.
Finally, thank you to my partner in all endeavors, Philip Roxworthy, and
the astonishing little people we have made together. And I am forever grateful
to the assiduous Margaret Colborn, who instilled the joy of research and writ-
ing in me from the very youngest age.
viii Acknowledgments
Introduction
VICTOR : When I was in ’Nam? You know when I was hit by some
Viet Cong mortar fire? They wouldn’t pick me up, the medics. I was
lying there, bleeding all over, they were picking everyone else up. I
kept screaming, “I’m an American, I’m a Japanese American, I’m not
VC.” But they wouldn’t pick me up. They walked right past me.
— Philip Kan Gotanda, Fish Head Soup and Other Plays 1
A fter the closure of the World War II internment camps and the “relocation”
of former internees to new postwar homes, many observed the remarkable
silence and stoic rebounding with which most first- and second-generation
Japanese Americans (Issei and Nisei) closed that chapter of their lives. It was
this silence and stoicism that contributed in large part to their designation,
along with other Asian Americans, as the “model minority.” 3 Conservative crit-
ics claimed this apparent lack of bitterness as proof that the internment camps
were not unjust after all, that even their former inmates tacitly approved the
“military necessity” that stripped them of civil liberties and segregated them
from their fellow Americans after the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor.
Liberal scholars have mostly chalked up this stoic silence to a diasporic reten-
tion of the Japanese cultural logic of shikata ga nai, or “it can’t be helped”— a
fatalistic philosophy that negates the efficacy of resistance or other political
action. Although silence has been used to justify and minimize the impact of
the internment, outside this context the concept of silence circulates widely as
a telltale symptom of trauma. Shoshana Felman resurrects Walter Benjamin’s
1
term “expressionless” (das Ausdruckslose) in order to describe “the silence of
the persecuted, the unspeakability of the trauma of oppression” experienced by
“those whom violence has deprived of expression; those who, on the one hand,
have been historically reduced to silence, and who, on the other hand, have
been historically made faceless, deprived of their human face.” 4 This seems
an apt judgment of how historical events left Japanese Americans silent and
then the historiography of these events rendered this silence expressionless
and inhuman, as epitomized in the stereotype of the automaton-like “model
minority.” Americans have allowed the symptoms of wartime injustice to stand
as apology for the injuries themselves. So what if—instead—we reinterpret
former internees’ silence not as a culturally conditioned response to adversity
but rather as the structural outgrowth of the particular trauma of this particular
internment?
I emphasize the structure of the internees’ silence because the recent wave
of trauma scholarship makes clear that traumatized responses cannot be wholly
explained by the catalyzing event or by “a distortion of the event, achieving its
haunting power as a result of distorting personal significances attached to it.”
Rather than some inherent atrociousness adhering to the event or some inher-
ent psychosocial predisposition causing an individual or group to react in a
certain way, trauma should be understood in structural terms. The pathology
of trauma, Cathy Caruth insists, consists “solely in the structure of the experi-
ence or reception: the event is not assimilated or experienced fully at the time,
but only belatedly, in its repeated possession of the one who experiences it. To
be traumatized is precisely to be possessed by an image or event.” 5 I empha-
size the particularity of the Japanese American internment because those who
have written on the trauma of this experience have, by and large, bypassed
these structural aspects, instead comparing the internment event with other
more widely recognized atrocities such as the Nazi genocide of Jews and other
minorities, the experiences of U.S. soldiers during and after the Vietnam War,
and generalized sexual abuse against women. By accessing Japanese American
trauma through these other atrocities—none of which directly implicates the
racist domestic policies of the U.S. government as the internment does—these
“American concentration camps” inevitably find themselves subordinated once
again in hierarchies of suffering that always privilege the point of compari-
son.6 Such strategies of comparative analysis end up posing the internment as
a debased mimicry of unquestioned traumatic events.
No genocide occurred against the Japanese American “evacuees” impris-
oned in the “assembly centers” and “relocation centers,” euphemistically named
and controlled by the U.S. military’s Wartime Civilian Control Agency (WCCA)
and the U.S. government’s War Relocation Authority (WRA), so when former
internee Raymond Okamura wrote that “the linguistic deception fostered by
2 Introduction
the United States government” in regard to the internment “bears a striking
resemblance to the propaganda techniques of the Third Reich,” the comparison
might have been instructive, but Japanese American trauma inevitably paled in
comparison to the Holocaust.7 The material losses of $200 million in Japanese
American property, homes, and businesses become profane concerns when
juxtaposed with the Nazi genocide.8 Likewise, Chalsa Loo recognized the post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that plagued many former internees but only
did so by discussing “parallels” with the symptoms of trauma widely associ-
ated with Vietnam War veterans who had witnessed, perpetrated, and suffered
horrifying violence in Vietnam and returned home to find an American public
that considered them “baby killers” and did not honor their military service.9
Although violent events did occur in many of the Japanese American camps
and several internees were murdered both by U.S. soldiers guarding the camps
and by fellow internees—and despite the fact that internees also experienced
virulent prejudice and even violence when they returned to their prewar com-
munities—the scale of this emotional and physical violence cannot compete
(nor should it have to) with the PTSD of Vietnam veterans. Another com-
mon trope is the metaphoric equation of the violation inflicted upon internees
by their own government with the experience of rape; this analogizing to the
suffering of rape victims is most often voiced by male scholars of the intern-
ment and by male former internees, but the comparison also emanates from
Amy Uno Ishii’s oft-quoted statement: “Women, if they’ve been raped, don’t
go around talking about it. . . . This is exactly the kind of feeling that we
as evacuees, victims of circumstances, had at the time of evacuation.” 10 Since
sexual abuse was not a systemic part of the camps, comparing the trauma of
Japanese Americans to that of rape victims belittles the wartime internment
and renders invisible the more subtle but no less insidious violations that made
up the everyday lives of internees, such as the total lack of privacy that plagued
every aspect of camp life, including toilet facilities, and the utter degradation
resulting from assigning inmates numbers and lining them up in dehumanized
masses for every conceivable purpose.
In this book I posit the importance of understanding the structural trauma
of the internment as located in the spectacularization imposed upon Japanese
Americans by the U.S. government and mass media. Unlike the Holocaust, the
evacuation and internment of Japanese Americans was perpetrated in full view
of the public by capitalization upon the propaganda possibilities of the U.S.
“free press.” Unlike the abject treatment of Vietnam veterans, who were mostly
drafted into war, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and WRA coerced
Japanese Americans into “voluntary” participation with their abjection from
the rest of society, demanding that they cooperate with authorities and put
on a happy face for reporters and other visitors to the barbed-wire-encircled
Introduction 3
camps.11 And unlike the sexist contract of victim-shaming that protects rapists,
American politicians and pundits broadcast far and wide the violations enacted
during the mass evacuation and internment, leveraging—for an audience at
home as well as in the European and Pacific theatres of war—the supposedly
benign captivity of ethnic Japanese as absurd proof of U.S. racial tolerance
and, at the same time, melodramatically posing these “suspect” Americans as
antagonists against the many heroes and heroines of the American home front.
By thus spectacularizing the disenfranchisement and imprisonment of nearly
120,000 Japanese Americans, the U.S. government and mass media denied the
gravity of what was taking place and disavowed the psychological suffering
and material violence perpetrated against a persecuted ethnic minority. Thank-
fully, much has been written about the fictitiousness of the “military necessity”
placed around the evacuation and used to justify the internment of all West
Coast Japanese Americans, regardless of citizenship status, for the duration of
U.S. hostilities with Japan.12 But in this book I argue that an equally seductive
framing device justified the camps for the wartime American public and con-
tinues to be uncritically deployed by conservative analysts like Michelle Mal-
kin in her recent book, In Defense of Internment.13 By framing the evacuation
and internment as spectacles, the United States positioned the American public
as passive spectators to the unconstitutional treatment of their ethnic Japanese
neighbors and, simultaneously, cast the public as heroic “patriots” opposite
Japanese Americans, who were cast in one of two thankless roles: expression-
less automata or melodramatic villains.
So in the case of the internment, theories of trauma and theories of specta-
cle intersect and converge. Both trauma and spectacle are haunted by visuality,
a visual scene /seen that inscribes its image deeply within one’s psyche precisely
to the extent that it alienates the subject from any comprehension of the mate-
rial underpinnings of the transpired event.14 On the side of trauma, Shoshana
Felman finds that “the unexpectedness of the original traumatizing scene” is
replayed in the compulsive repetitions that characterize traumatic symptoms.15
On the side of spectacle, Guy Debord finds that the images offered up by com-
modity culture violently foreground the presence of the visual realm in order to
absent spectators’ awareness of their own exploitation and disenfranchisement
under advanced capitalism. In his classic book, The Society of the Spectacle,
Debord claims that “The spectacle’s function in society is the concrete manu-
facture of alienation,” and he describes the means of this alienation as precisely
visual: “Understood on its own terms, the spectacle proclaims the predomi-
nance of appearances and asserts that all human life, which is to say all social
life, is mere appearance.” For Debord, “spectacle’s essential character” consists
in “a negation of life that has invented a visual form for itself.” 16 The refuge
taken in the visual as a means to negate life leads performance theorist Diana
4 Introduction
Taylor to warn of spectacle’s potential as an arrangement of events that rewards
passive spectatorship and denies the need for active witnessing. Writing of the
terrifying political spectacles staged by the Argentine government during the
Dirty War (1976 –1983), Taylor claims that “The onlookers, like obedient spec-
tators in a theatre, were encouraged to suspend their disbelief. Terror draws on
the theatrical propensity simultaneously to bind the audience and to paralyze
it. Theatrical convention allows for splitting of mind from body, enabling the
audience to respond either emotionally or intellectually to the action it sees on
stage without responding physically.” 17 Likewise, the failure to respond physi-
cally—on the part of both the onlooker and the victim—causes psychoanalyst
Dori Laub to characterize trauma as a “collapse of witnessing.” He defines the
corrective to this visual refuge as an active listening; as Taylor points out, Laub
defines the witness as a listener rather than a see-er, if only in the post-traumatic
setting of psychoanalytic therapy or testimony-taking.18 In addition to listen-
ing, the engaged witness refuses the visual refuge of spectacle by resisting the
objectification of the other that characterizes spectacular images. As Caruth
(as well as Felman) emphasizes, the mute isolation of trauma can be redressed
only by engaging the other as a subject of address in order to witness how “his-
tory, like trauma, is never simply one’s own, that history is precisely the way we
are implicated in each other’s traumas.” 19
My theoretical intervention comes at this convergence of trauma and spec-
tacle: the spectacular structure of the Japanese American internment removed
the public-as-spectator from any participation, empathy, implication, or com-
plicity in the dramatic disenfranchisement of racialized citizens that was tak-
ing place in full view. The political spectacles staged by the U.S. government
and broadcast by the American media framed the internment event in visual
terms that objectified the Japanese American other within an economy of
Debordian “mere appearance” that was based on a racialized understanding
of Japan as a culture of artifice and surfaces.20 But the most important sense
in which the spectacle became the trauma of Japanese Americans consisted
in the demand placed on internees to comply with this spectacularization so
as to provide “proof” of their loyalty to the United States—a command per-
formance that actually prevented internees from fully processing the material
violence enacted against them by the internment policy. Whether called upon
to “voluntarily” relocate to internment camps under intense media scrutiny or,
later, asked to offer their interned bodies (and those of their sons and brothers)
up to military service on behalf of a nation that impugned their loyalty, many
Japanese Americans found that the only way to prove the internment policy’s
baselessness was to comply with the terms of its spectacularization. Caruth’s
insights into trauma as a “missed” event (missed insofar as “the event is not
assimilated or experienced fully at the time, but only belatedly”) thus illumi-
Introduction 5
nate the experience of internees.21 Japanese Americans “missed” the impact
of their forced evacuation and imprisonment after Pearl Harbor because their
persecution was staged—over and over again for the more than three years of
the Pacific War—as a series of political spectacles that denied the psychological
violence and material underpinnings of what was taking place.
Every aspect of the U.S. government’s (and its “fourth branch,” the mass
media’s) framing of these events prevented those involved from fully grasping
the injustice of what was taking place and from preparing to deal with a cata-
clysmic change. Caruth calls this aspect of trauma “the inability to fully witness
the event as it occurs,” so that the traumatic event carries within it “an inherent
forgetting.” 22 The compulsion to forget was built into the government’s over-
hasty institution of the internment policy from its first moments, as the U.S.
military posted euphemistically devastating evacuation notices throughout
West Coast communities. On these notices, “aliens and non-aliens” of Japa-
nese descent were told to report to assembly stations, taking only what they
could personally carry to the camps, sometimes with as little as forty-eight
hours’ notice. Not only were Japanese Americans rushed through the mate-
rial and psychological processing of their forced evacuation as they quickly
packed up their lives and boarded a bus or train to unknown destinations for
an indeterminate duration, but the harsh glare of media attention and political
rhetoric spectacularized the process in a way that encouraged fellow Americans
to sit back and watch in passive awe and silence. Although trauma has been
most easily associated with bodily injury, Caruth reminds us that in Freud’s
foundational Moses and Monotheism, the trauma “is first of all a trauma of leav-
ing, the trauma of verlassen.” 23 In their own forced leaving, Japanese American
“evacuees,” it should be clear, have a distinct claim on trauma.
Nearly a century before Japanese Americans were forced to leave their
communities on the West Coast, the U.S. government perpetrated the oppo-
site but complementary deception against the internees’ Japanese ancestors. In
1853, the United States came to them: with the government’s blessing, Com-
modore Matthew C. Perry led an expedition of four battleships to forcefully
but peacefully open Tokyo Bay, ending Japan’s two-century policy of national
isolation. For a Japan that had never laid eyes on such imposingly industrial-
ized steamships, these uninvited vessels of American modernity immediately
became known as “the Black Ships.” Their forced opening of Japan—what one
American historian recently called Breaking Open Japan—resulted in the pro-
verbial equal and opposite reaction, in the form of a stream of Japanese immi-
gration to the Americas that would culminate in the World War II persecu-
tion.24 But Perry’s arrival also inspired a spiritual and cultural “leaving,” even
for those who stayed, as Japanese people at large became sudden exiles from
their long-standing traditions. In addition, with Commodore Perry, spectacle
6 Introduction
became established as the mode for obscuring the psychological violence and
material underpinnings of Japanese disenfranchisement. In a self-conscious
national image constructed against the imperial histories of its fellow Western
powers, the U.S. State Department communicated to Perry that he was to be
extremely concerned to avoid any “real” violence in his mission to end Japa-
nese isolation—he was instructed, instead, “to show an imposing display of
power”—and, through his study-at-a-distance of Japanese culture he devised
in advance a strategy for manufacturing the other’s consent that centered upon
the staging of spectacle.25 Upon the mission’s victorious return to America,
Perry’s official chronicler described the commodore’s strategy for deploying
spectacle to conquer “these people of forms and ceremonies”:
Introduction 7
throughout the history of these ongoing encounters.29 As the traumatic scene
is replayed in the repetition compulsion, and the inaugural scene prepares the
ground for the restaging of familiar spectacles, the logic of Perry’s landing was
reenacted by the U.S. government and mass media in the political spectacles
staged in the wake of Japan’s 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. In chap-
ter 1, I will start with this original traumatizing scene of the Perry spectacle in
order to trace what I call a “theatricalizing discourse” constructed by the West
(particularly America) around Japanese “cultural” (racial) difference. In the
remainder of the book, I will focus on the scenario’s particular reenactment in
the events of the Japanese American internment.30
Spectacle
When I use “spectacle” in this book’s title, I mean to invoke the spectacular
mode’s propensity to disengage its audience—to render even its participants as
passive spectators. Although numerous possibilities always exist for spectacle
to be used as a tool for active, critical engagement (in the manner that Ber-
tolt Brecht and his many followers intend), for the most part spectacle can be
defined as the staging of an event and arrangement of an audience that rewards
passive consumption and deters engaged witnessing, most often through what
twenty-first-century Americans increasingly recognize as a strategy of “shock
and awe.” 31 When resistant spectacles seek to challenge their audiences’ pas-
sivity and encourage some mode of critical participation—as I will argue that
Japanese American theatrical performances in the internment camps did—the
term “spectacle” needs to be modified and qualified, not in a way that under-
mines this general definition, but instead so that the space for resistance can be
recognized as always already in negotiation with what Debord calls the society
of the spectacle’s imposition of a normative “social relationship between people
that is mediated by images.” 32
Debord’s 1960s formulation of the consumerist spectacle has different
emphases but was prefigured by the witnesses to the 1930s and ’40s political
spectacles of Italian and German fascism. Recently, Henry Giroux has identi-
fied these two moments in the formulation of spectacle as “the spectacle of fas-
cism and the spectacle of consumerism,” labeling them “two different expres-
sions of what I call the terror of the spectacle.” According to Giroux, the terror
of the spectacle inheres in its demand for “a certain mode of attentiveness
or gaze elicited through phantasmagoric practices, including various rites of
passage, parades, pageantry, advertisements, and media presentations [which]
offers the populace a collective sense of unity that serves to integrate them into
state power.” Where the spectacle of consumerism that Debord writes about
uses visuality to obscure the material underpinnings of commodity capital-
8 Introduction
ism—causing consumers to “miss” their own exploitation and disenfranchise-
ment—the spectacle of fascism uses visuality to distract the populace from
the political reality underwriting the regime’s ideology. Giroux concludes of
both twentieth-century manifestations of spectacle: “Politics and power are not
eliminated, they are simply hidden within broader appeals to solidarity.” 33
Rey Chow has identified yet another reason that fascist ideology relies so
heavily upon the visuality of spectacles. In her essay “The Fascist Longings in
Our Midst,” Chow departs from critics such as Louis Althusser and Roland
Barthes who have attempted to explain fascism’s rending of civilized internal
feelings (morality, empathy, sociability) from external manifestations of atro-
cious behavior (racial persecution, witch hunts, genocide). On the contrary,
Chow argues that fascism has no inside—or rather that under fascism the exter-
nal becomes the internal—and that fascist regimes deploy spectacle as the ideal
metaphor for a cognitive system that wholly consists of surface. She defines
fascism as “a term that indicates the production and consumption of a glossy
surface image, a crude style, for purposes of social identification even among
intellectuals.” The simultaneous ascendance of film technology and fascist ide-
ology was no coincidence for Chow; rather, in the age of film, “If individuals
are, to use Althusser’s term, ‘interpellated,’ they are interpellated not simply as
watchers of film but also as film itself. They ‘know’ themselves not only as the
subject, the audience, but as the object, the spectacle, the movie.” Under fas-
cism, then, the motto for subjectivity is “to be is to be perceived” because the
fascist spectacle positivistically proclaims that all judgments can be made based
on the interplay of surface images. Difference and danger can be seen/scene
just as certainly as unity and national security can be scene/seen.34
Although the Japanese American internment took place between these two
moments of spectacle’s formulation, it should be clear that the U.S. government
and mass media’s spectacles staged around the internment event capitalized
on the spirit and power (if not always the precise ideology) of both consum-
erism and fascism. In addition to theorizing the fascist spectacle, Rey Chow
represents an important intellectual strand within Asian diasporic studies that
emphasizes how “Asia” (as a Western-constructed conglomeration to begin
with) has been spectacularized by the West. In her essay “Where Have All the
Natives Gone?” Chow argues of Western racialization, “When that other is Asia
and the ‘Far East,’ it always seems as if the European intellectual must speak in
absolute terms, making this other an utterly incomprehensible, terrifying, and
fascinating spectacle. . . . As such, the ‘native’ is turned into an absolute entity
in the form of an image (the ‘empty’ Japanese ritual or ‘China loam’), whose
silence becomes the occasion for our speech.” Moreover, for Chow, the image
of Asian difference “is always distrusted as illusion, deception, and falsehood,”
leading to an anxious Western fixation that masks the implication of the West’s
Introduction 9
own identity. Instead, the logic of the spectacle renders East-West difference
absolute, insofar as “the production of the West’s ‘others’ depends on a logic
of visuality that bifurcates ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ into the incompatible posi-
tions of intellectuality and spectacularity.” 35 Chow’s theorization of the West’s
construction of Asian spectacularity allows us to see how “a social relation-
ship between people that is mediated by images” underwrote (and continues
to underwrite) an entire U.S. policy for containing the threat of Asian Ameri-
can difference by making the Asian other into an expressionless, dehumanized
spectacle—pure surface, all image, so of course silent—undeserving of the pro-
tection of Western intellectuality and U.S. constitutional law. While this vol-
ume focuses on the manifestation of this spectacularity within the internment
policy, spectacle is a traumatic structure potentially applicable to and resonant
with many other instances in Asian American history and cultural studies.
Trauma
As a hidden psychic injury that results from the temporal delay occasioned by
the shock and inexplicability of an atrocious event, the “trauma” of my title
requires an interdisciplinary methodology to understand its history, structure,
and ongoing repercussions.36 Caruth poses trauma’s scholarly challenge by say-
ing “it brings us to the limits of our understanding: if psychoanalysis, psychia-
try, sociology, and even literature are beginning to hear each other anew in the
study of trauma, it is because they are listening through the radical disruption
and gaps of traumatic experience.” 37 Theatre and performance studies need to
be added to this list of interdisciplines because of our intimate understanding
of the operations made possible by the spectacular structure of trauma (as a
repeated scene) and of the analytical richness of spectacle as an arrangement
that seeks to reify Western binaries (such as mind-body, subject-object, rea-
son-emotion, and actor-audience) but cannot live beyond the borderland in
between. Diana Taylor focuses on the liminal quality of spectacle’s visuality
when she writes, “seeing also goes beyond us/them boundaries; it establishes a
connection, an identification, and at times even a responsibility that one may
not want to assume.” 38 Even though spectacle is most often characterized by a
failure to assume the responsibility of seeing—a refusal to actively witness or
be personally implicated in the spectacularity—theatre and performance schol-
ars are aware of spectacle’s potential to unfold otherwise and of a lasting impact
on actors and audience alike that outlasts the apparent ephemerality of the
live event. These scholarly concerns have much to add to the interdisciplinary
conversations happening around “trauma.”
Likewise, scholars in Asian American studies have increasingly argued that
racialization is a national trauma (even when the word “trauma” is not used)
10 Introduction
whose understanding exceeds the oppressor-oppressed and perpetrator-victim
binaries. In The Melancholy of Race, Anne Anlin Cheng rejects the concept of
trauma in favor of “melancholia,” arguing that “trauma, so often associated
with discussions of racial denigration, in focusing on a structure of crisis on the
part of the victim, misses the violators’ own dynamic process at stake in such
denigration. Melancholia gets more potently at the notion of constitutive loss
that expresses itself in both violent and muted ways, producing confirmation as
well as crisis, knowledge as well as aporia. . . . It is this imbricated but denied
relationship that forms the basis of white racial melancholia.” 39 Melancholia
thus becomes an analytic through which Cheng can highlight the mournful
but compulsively repeated structure of racialization in the United States from
outside the limits of the violator-victim stratification. As compelling as Cheng’s
book is, I would argue that racial trauma can also be understood as a dynamic
national process that particularly underwrites the racialization of every “Ameri-
can,” regardless of the individual’s proximity to whiteness. For instance, Fel-
man reminds us that compulsive repetitions of “the unexpectedness of the
original traumatizing scene” are not only experienced on an individual level
but can also act as the fuel feeding the engine of history; in her reading, “Freud
thus shows how historical traumatic energy can be the motive-force of society,
of culture, of tradition, and of history itself.” 40 The spectacle of Japanese Amer-
ican internment emerged as a traumatic repetition and reenactment transmit-
ted from the “historical traumatic energy” reverberating throughout Japan-U.S.
relations since Perry’s 1853 landing at Tokyo Bay. In this “original traumatizing
scene” of coerced contact (what Taylor might call the inaugural scenario) Perry
established a transmittable energy for both spectacularizing the Asian other
and self-consciously performing white privilege across the East-West divide;
this traumatic scenario repeats itself in various moments of Asian American
encounter throughout U.S. history, including the Japanese American evacua-
tion and internment of World War II.
Racial Performativity
Introduction 11
Other documents randomly have
different content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of La donna
nella vita e nelle opere di Giacomo Leopardi
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Language: Italian
Adelaide
Antici Leopardi — Ferdinanda
Leopardi Melchiorri
Paolina Leopardi — Marianna
Brighenti — Teresa Carniani
Malvezzi — Antonietta Tommasini — Paolina
Ranieri — La
donna nella vita e nelle opere
di Giacomo Leopardi
*
* *
Non è difficile immaginare, da le notizie che se ne hanno, quale
fosse la vita dei ragazzi Leopardi: studi severissimi e faticosissimi co'
precettori, rare e patriarcali distrazioni, chiasso co' cugini o qualche
tombola giuocata ne l'orto di certi frati, pratiche religiose continue e
continua sorveglianza.
Tutti sanno come il primogenito, gracile per natura, perdesse
interamente la salute e divenisse gibboso per le soverchie fatiche
durate sui libri, e come fra lui ed i fratelli da un lato e il padre da
l'altro, sorgesse, e a poco a poco si facesse profondo, il dissidio,
perchè la stretta tutela in cui eran tenuti irritava i loro animi non
meno fantastici che appassionati, e perchè nelle idee e negli affetti
essi venivano scostandosi da Monaldo. È pure assai noto come la
disperazione di Giacomo giungesse a tal segno da risolverlo a tentar
la fuga dalla casa paterna, progetto fallito per caso. Che faceva, che
pensava intanto la contessa? Tutt'assorta nel suo compito di
amministratrice, non si accorse forse che tardi de la perduta salute e
de la deformità di Giacomo; ed è doloroso il notare come questi,
giovanetto, affettuosissimo per natura e di una sensitività esaltata,
persuaso di dover morire ben presto, mentre seduto sul letto, di
notte, al lume di una fioca lucerna, scrive, fra le lagrime, il suo
Appressamento alla morte e si duole di dover perire come infante
che parlato non abbia, senza che alcuno conosca il suo grande
spirito, Giacomo, che teneramente si rivolge alla Vergine, non ha una
parola per sua madre. Doloroso del pari è il rileggere quanto il
marchese Solari scriveva a Monaldo, dichiarandogli apertamente che
per lui la causa della tentata fuga di Giacomo doveva essere
l'eccessiva severità della contessa.
Nei dissidi fra il padre ed i figliuoli ella teneva naturalmente dal
primo, ma senza punto tentare di piegarlo a più indulgenza verso di
quelli, senza punto usar loro quelle giuste larghezze che li avrebbero
calmati, perchè non comprendeva quei cuori giovanili ed il loro
bisogno di vita e di libertà. Ed ella avrebbe potuto tutto, ella che
comandava veramente e cui tutti obbedivano. «Io a casa mia non
sono padrone che delle frittate,» soleva dire Monaldo, che si sfogava
a gridare contro le prepotenze delle mogli italiane, ma rimaneva
sempre impigliato nelle gonne della sua e non osava, nè anche per
cose lievissime, affrontare il muso di lei, come scrisse Paolina. Per
quei giovani focosi, esaltati, era un vivere senza vita, senz'anima,
senza corpo, che faceva desiderar loro ad ogni momento la morte. In
Giacomo, infelicissimo fra tutti, e nella grandezza del suo spirito
conscio di tutte le sue sventure, si spense ogni vivacità, ogni
allegrezza, e venne a mancare a poco a poco persino la speranza e
la fede: egli, dopo anni di dolore che gli parvero secoli, riuscito ad
andarsene di casa, si ricorda assai spesso di mandare i suoi saluti
alla madre, ma non le scrive quasi mai; ed ella a sua volta tarda
lunghi anni a dargli un aiuto materiale, e non lo dà finchè non è
richiesto; e pure ella doveva sapere quanto questa domanda
dovesse riuscir incresciosa a l'animo delicatissimo ed altero del
figliuolo. «Son più le volte che senza qualche soccorso di amico
sarebbe stato digiuno, che non quelle in cui avrebbe mangiato,»
asseriva G. B. Niccolini alla marchesa Lucrezia Niccolini-Monti,
andata sposa in Recanati, cui aveva chiesto se la famiglia Leopardi
navigasse in pessime acque, rimanendo stupito al sentire che no.
Certo però Adelaide non supponeva le reali strettezze di Giacomo,
perchè, come Monaldo ebbe a scrivere a questi, ella credeva le
lettere una miniera d'oro, la quale rendesse inutile ogni altro sussidio
a quel figlio che pure ella amava tenerissimamente.
Che lo amasse ne fa fede tutto l'epistolario leopardiano. Nel 1825,
quando Giacomo da Milano tornò a Bologna e scrisse a casa degli
accordi con l'editore Stella e della lezione al giovane greco, Paolina,
che in quel tempo non era certo tenera della madre, rispondeva al
fratello: «La mamma vuole che ti saluti e ti risaluti; essa quasi
piangeva dalla consolazione nel leggere la tua ultima, e si rallegra
con te e spera che sarai sempre più contento.» [5]
Anche la breve letterina, una delle due che ci rimangono, scritta da
Adelaide al figlio il 29 novembre 1822, quand'egli, per la prima volta
lontano da casa, si trovava a Roma, ha frasi affettuose, e assai più
che non dicano significano forse quelle righe: «Molto mi ha rallegrato
la vostra lettera, ma molto più quella che avete scritto al babbo da
Spoleto. Vedo che conoscete bene i vostri doveri a suo riguardo e ciò
mi è garante della vostra buona condotta in avvenire.»
Chi rammenti i dissapori profondi tra Monaldo e Giacomo deve sentir
qui il dolore che ne provava Adelaide, e un rimprovero, un consiglio
dato con una delicatezza veramente femminile e veramente
materna. «Sapete quanto io vi amo sinceramente e qual spina mi sia
stata al cuore il vedervi sempre malcontento e di malumore....
abbiatevi moltissima cura e non trattate persone indegne.... amatemi
e credete sempre all'affetto sincero della vostra affezionatissima
madre, che vi abbraccia e vi benedice.» [6]
Queste semplici frasi spirano un affetto sincero e una santa premura,
della quale nelle lettere dei parenti a Giacomo si trova traccia ben
spesso: ora è Paolina (9 dicembre 1822, pag. 47, vol. cit.) che scrive
al fratello: «Mamma non fa che lodarsi di voi e compiacersi
grandemente delle vostre lettere»; ora è Adelaide stessa che dice al
suo «carissimo ed amatissimo figlio, al suo figlio d'oro» d'esser tanto
lieta delle sue buone notizie e di aver infinita riconoscenza pei
parenti di Roma, che gli si mostrano gentili (26 gennaio 1823, pag.
82, vol. cit.); ora è Monaldo, che gli parla della grandissima
consolazione provata dalla madre, sentendo che egli non si è
piaciuto di Milano quanto in casa temevano: «Giacchè ci avrebbe
amareggiati assai, o la vostra lunga dimora costì, o il vedervene
partire con molto rammarico» (30 agosto 1825, pag. 121, vol. cit.);
ora è di nuovo Paolina, che ringrazia il fratello per parte della madre
e con viva riconoscenza della premura usatale di cercar d'una sua
antica servente e di dargliene notizie: «Mamma vuole che ti saluti
nuovamente e che ti parli del suo grande affetto per te.» (13
dicembre 1825, pag. 143-144, vol. cit.) Malgrado questo, Giacomo
non aveva altro pensiero, altro desiderio che quello di starsene
lontano da Recanati, ed è certo che non poco vi contribuiva il ricordo
della severità che la contessa metteva in tutti i particolari della vita
domestica. «Veramente ottima donna ed esemplarissima, si è fatta
delle regole di austerità assolutamente impraticabili, e si è imposti
dei doveri verso i figli, che non riescon loro punto comodi»; scriveva
Paolina (26 maggio 1830) a Marianna Brighenti; Paolina, che già
trentenne doveva farsi indirizzare le lettere dell'amica presso il suo
vecchio precettore, non permettendole la madre ch'ella facesse
amicizia con alcuno, perchè ciò, secondo lei, distoglieva da l'amore di
Dio; e non voleva veder lettere dirette a la figlia, a la figlia
trentenne, nè pure se fossero state del suo santo protettore. La
povera contessina, che desiderava conoscere di persona le sue
amiche Brighenti e sapeva di non poterle accogliere in casa, doveva
rinunziare anche al piacere di vederle in chiesa o da la finestra (esse
sarebbero andate a Recanati sol per procurarle questa gioia), perchè
in chiesa andava unicamente la festa e accompagnata, e quel ch'ella
poteva vedere da la finestra era sempre sorvegliato da sua madre, la
quale girava per tutta la casa, si trovava da per tutto e a tutte le ore.
(Vedi Lett. di Paolina ad Anna Brighenti, 4 marzo 1831). Tale severità
irritava anche la mite contessina; mentre d'altra parte Adelaide, più
che tutti gli altri di famiglia, si dava pensiero di cercare uno sposo a
quella figliuola e voleva che si tentasse di combinare, anche quando
le più gravi difficoltà eran palesi. Più duro di tutti i figli verso di lei fu
Carlo, nelle lettere del quale troviamo frasi acerbe assai; una volta
(Lett. a Giac., vol. cit., pag. 182-183) dubitando che Adelaide avesse
aperta una sua lettera a Giacomo, consegnatale perchè la francasse,
riscriveva al fratello dicendogli di questo dubbio e come la madre
avesse rifiutato ostinatamente di toglierglielo, e prorompeva contro
la curiosità donnesca e l'imperiosità insopportabile di lei;
confessando però egli stesso d'essere in un momento di rabbia
incredibile. Pare che la contessa e Monaldo aprissero infatti la
corrispondenza dei figliuoli e la intercettassero talvolta, cosa che
formava la disperazione specialmente del primogenito; nè la buona
intenzione con cui lo facevano, basta a giustificarli. Ma nella loro
severità, come ne l'inesorabile economia di Adelaide, non v'era mai
punto mal animo, e la contessa doveva amar di cuore tutti i suoi
cari, se mostrava tanto rincrescimento quando s'allontanavano da
lei, se una volta il ritorno improvviso di Monaldo la fece quasi
svenire, [7] se non seppe mai rifiutare a Giacomo i soccorsi ch'egli
chiese (modestissimi è vero e domandati in modo che niuno che
avesse cuore poteva negarli); ma li accordò anzi con parole tali da
commuover lui, che pur diceva non esser più capace di verun
sentimento; se la sua vita intiera fu consacrata a la famiglia; se
quand'ella morì, nella sua camera fu trovata la seggiolina in cui eran
stati seduti tutti i suoi figliuoli bambini, seggiolina che, con atto di
tenerezza materna, ella aveva conservata religiosamente per fanti
anni; e se infine Monaldo, pur dichiarandosi tanto discorde da lei
quanto son lontani fra loro il cielo e la terra, pur credendosi castigato
dal cielo nel suo matrimonio contrario al volere della madre, dichiara
Adelaide buona moglie, saggia, affettuosa e pia, afferma che ventisei
anni di matrimonio non smentirono un momento la condotta
irreprensibile ed ammirata da tutti di quella donna forte, intenta solo
ai doveri del suo stato, incurante d'ogni piacere od interesse che non
fosse quello della famiglia o di Dio; confessa di averle obbligazioni
innumerabili e che il suo ingresso nella famiglia Leopardi fu una vera
benedizione. Monaldo stesso nel suo testamento dichiara Adelaide la
sua amatissima consorte ed aggiunge: «Sono poi certo che i miei
figli la rispetteranno e obbediranno come loro degna e venerata
madre, rammentandosi qualmente essa, non solo è stata
l'edificazione e la benedizione della famiglia con la sua costante
religione e pietà; ma, con la sua saggia economia, prudenza e
giudizio, ha ristaurato il patrimonio domestico dalle percosse dei
tempi trascorsi; e se la casa nostra si è conservata in mezzo a tante
burrascose vicende, questo è dovuto primieramente alla misericordia
di Dio, e poi alle cure, diligenze e fatiche di questa savia,
amorosissima donna.» [8]
La sorveglianza instancabile di Adelaide, la sua durezza, dovevano
riuscir penose a lei stessa, che soffriva per sè e soffriva forse di far
soffrire; ma rimaneva inflessibile, persuasa che questo fosse il suo
dovere. A ragione il Finzi crede che una delle principali cause per cui
ella e Monaldo rifiutarono sempre di mantener lontano di casa
Giacomo, fosse la cura de l'anima di lui, che, secondo loro, lungi da
la casa paterna cedeva a malvagi amici e si perdeva.
Come il conte e la contessa non comprendevano i figli, così questi
non sempre compresero loro; e Giacomo, che ne' suoi pensieri
giudicava l'educazione moderna un formale tradimento ordito da la
vecchiezza contro la gioventù, se, com'è probabile, pensava a
l'educazione propria, si lasciava sopraffare da l'amarezza: «Non
lascia d'esser notabile che tra gli educatori, i quali, se mai persona al
mondo, fanno professione di cercare il bene dei prossimi, si trovino
tanti che cerchino di privare i loro allievi del maggior bene della vita,
che è la giovanezza. Più notabile è, che mai nè padre, nè madre,
non che altro istitutore, non sentì rimordere la coscienza di dare ai
figliuoli un'educazione, che muove da un principio così maligno. La
qual cosa farebbe più maraviglia, se già lungamente, per altre cause,
il procurare l'abolizione della gioventù, non fosse stata creduta opera
meritoria.»
È notevole il giudizio che di Adelaide dà il canonico Avoli: [9] egli la
crede donna più di mente che di cuore, di propositi virili, più che di
tenerezze materne, pensa che non possa venir giudicata se non
severamente nei nostri tempi, e che per averne criterio equo sia
«necessario trasportarsi con la memoria a circa un secolo addietro.»
Ricorda come appaia naturale che, malgrado la più sincera affezione,
l'accordo fra Adelaide e Monaldo non fosse perfetto, poichè l'uno era
splendido fino alla prodigalità, l'altra calcolatrice, economa, massaia.
In tutta la vita e in tutta l'opera di Giacomo Leopardi non vi è un
riflesso della tenerezza materna; ma in tutta quella nobile vita e in
tutto lo splendore di quell'opera risenti l'elevatezza di pensiero, cui il
poeta fu educato. Il Michelet diceva che il mondo vive la vita della
donna, la quale gli dà due elementi di civiltà, la grazia e la
delicatezza, che è un riflesso della purità. La grazia mancò alla
contessa Adelaide, alla rigida signora che, dalle fredde nebbie del
suo mistico cielo, non sapeva distoglier gli occhi, se non per curarsi
della prosperità materiale della famiglia, tanto che «il fine che si era
proposto le fece dimenticare che l'immediata felicità dei figli poteva
qualche volta anteporsi a la futura.» [10] Ma non le mancò la
purezza, la più alta dignità femminile: i figli non si sentirono attratti
da l'anima sua, videro però quell'anima sempre candida, quella vita
sempre d'una trasparenza assoluta, come d'una gemma che nulla
offusca, e ne ritrassero la morale elevazione, ammirabile in tutti e più
che mai in Giacomo.
Adelaide Antici ebbe il premio che meritavano i suoi sacrifici: vide
tornato pienamente in fiore il patrimonio dei Leopardi, e questo per
opera sua, ma quante pene le amareggiarono questa gioia! Pianse,
morti in giovane età, il suo Luigi e il suo Pier Francesco; e,
quantunque la rassegnazione, ch'ella credeva dovere di donna
cristiana, le facesse piegare umilmente il capo ai voleri della
Provvidenza, sarebbe ingiusto negare il dolore di questa madre, che
ci è dipinta inginocchiata, pregando fra le lagrime nella camera vicina
a quella dove stava per spirare l'ultimo figlio rimasto a la sua casa
(ultimo se si pensi che Carlo non ne faceva quasi più parte e di più
non aveva prole), di questa donna che a l'annunzio de la sventura,
cui non sapeva ancora credere, scoppia in violenti singhiozzi e vuol
poi prestare ella stessa colle mani tremanti gli estremi uffici al suo
caro perduto. Ella vide sola nel mondo la sua Paolina, perdette il
marito, due nipoti; e quel Giacomo, che le aveva dato pel primo il
nome di madre, fu perduto per lei più che gli altri, morto solo,
lontano e senza fede.
Il prof. Filippo Zamboni nel 1847 visitava la casa Leopardi: vide i
manoscritti del poeta ed entrò nella camera ove questi era nato:
Adelaide, maestosa nella persona, austera, coi capelli candidissimi,
era ritta in piedi dinanzi ad un gran letto. Accennando ad un ritratto
di Giacomo, il professore esclamò con entusiasmo: «Benedetta colei
che in te s'incinse!»
Ella, rimasta immobile, levò solo gli occhi al cielo, esclamando: Che
Dio gli perdoni! «Dunque la madre di Giacomo Leopardi non lo
credeva fra i beati! Non v'è giorno ch'io non ci ripensi ancora con
terrore,» scrive lo Zamboni, vinto da la sua commozione. Ma in
quella risposta c'è forse tutta l'anima della contessa, co' suoi cupi
terrori religiosi, che le amareggiarono le più pure sorgenti de gli
umani affetti, che l'agghiacciarono dinanzi a l'immagine d'un Dio di
spavento, non di misericordia. «Che Iddio gli perdoni!»; io credo che
in queste parole ci fosse un profondo dolore e un amore profondo,
un barlume de l'intima tragedia di cui il secreto fu portato nella
tomba da l'austera contessa, sdegnosa del mondo.
Ella morì il 2 agosto 1857. Carlo, passate le giovanili intemperanze,
dettava per lei una pietosa epigrafe, in cui la chiama «insigne per
pietà ed affetto coniugale, mirabile nel ristorare l'economia
domestica: con sè avara, premurosissima per la famiglia».
*
* *
La critica leopardiana si è affaticata indefessamente a discutere e a
ricercar notizie intorno ai genitori del grande Recanatese, ed avida
del vero, ha raccolto ogni minuzia, conscia che talora anche le
minuzie possono riuscir utili o gradite: tutto quel che ha potuto ha
raccolto e narrato: da le piccole malizie cui, per aver danaro ad
insaputa della moglie, ricorreva Monaldo, come il vender di nascosto
grano o vino d'accordo coi castaldi, il far creder alla contessa d'aver
comperato e di dover quindi pagare libri che prendeva invece dalla
propria biblioteca per mostrarglieli; a le rampogne di lei per la
minima spesa, fosse pur quella d'una maglia di lana, cui ella non
avesse prima consentito, ai mantelli dei ragazzi divenuti troppo corti
e allungati con due palmi di pelone. E pure molto e molto si
desidererebbe di conoscere ancora intorno a lei; quanto si sa è forse
il peggio, non il buono de l'anima sua, le esteriorità meschine de
l'esistenza, piuttosto che l'intima vita. Giacomo, il quale non ignorava
affatto come la vera padrona e quindi l'arbitra della sorte dei figli
fosse lei, Giacomo, che nella piena del suo dolore si lasciò spesso
sfuggire pungentissime parole contro il padre, tacque di Adelaide, in
cui non aveva trovato una madre secondo il suo cuore, ma sentiva
un'anima vigorosa; sentiva forse nella grandezza del proprio spirito
anche qualche cosa che gli veniva da lei.
NOTE.
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookultra.com