Both Anzaldua and Waller write of identity and lack or loss of it. But what I found to be the most striking resemblance between the two pieces is the exploration of why Chicana feminists have trouble getting along with one another in conversational settings. Waller quotes Eve Sedgwick on her theory that feminist women become caught up in "a circuit of 'intimate denegation.'" Anzaldua touches on why this denegation happens:
"Chicana feminists often skirt around each other with suspicion and hesitation. For the longest time I couldn't figure it out. Then it dawned on me. To be close to another Chicana is like looking into the mirror. We are afraid of what we'll see there."
Because Chicanas can see themselves in other Chicanas, they become scared and defensive and begin to deny (or denegate) their relation to one another and to doubt their own identities. This whole conflict is the reason, Waller suggests, Las Comadres, once they knew each other more intimately, could no longer be wholly civil as a group. It is also, perhaps, the reason none of the Comadres were willing to address the development of the role of granddaughter/niece. Seeing themselves in a role was too dangerous to their identity to attempt to grapple with the role on more than a surface level.
The main difference I saw between Anzaldua and Waller is that Waller and the other Comadres, while generally feeling the same ambiguity and sometimes shame Anzaldua feels in regards to her language, included the language barrier in their performance piece as "a rich communication resource, allowing the story to resonate differently in relation to the different linguistic and historical background of members of the audience." While Anzaldua equates language with self and feels her whole identity is attacked when she is made to feel alienated via language, Las Comadres' piece attempted to combat this and instead employ those differences toward empowering audience members of different background at various times throughout the piece.
------
Aside from my main posting on the similarities between Anzaldua/Waller on their dealings with identity, I found the use of the press in Luis Valdez's "Zoot Suit" to be aligned with Leo Chavez's commentary on the media the excerpts we read from his book on the Latino Threat Narrative. Chavez writes of the media as turning immigrants' lives into virtual lives, objectifying Latinos (much as the "Press" as prosecutor did in the court scene in "Zoot Suit"). According to Chavez, the media has the power to create a dialogue among the people through its spectacular representation of reality. Valdez, in "Zoot Suit," further comments on this. The Press (prosecutor) gives its concluding remarks, sensationalizing the danger of gangs as a whole rather than focusing on the trial at hand. George (defense) then gives his remarks, begging the jury not to widen the reach of racism in the country, not to convict the boys based on stereotype perpetuated by the press. Of course, the jury finds the boys guilty and they are sentenced to life in prison. In the 30s and 40s, when "Zoot Suit" is set, I can imagine the media would have had such a profound influence over the public and nobody could have done much to prevent it. Now, with the Internet and countless new methods and sources, are we so bound to the portrayal by the media as then, or has the ever-growing abundance of publications desensitized us and perhaps given us more agency to develop perceptions on these events on our own?
No comments:
Post a Comment