This week, I went back and reread E. San Juan’s “Historicizing the Space of Asian America,” and “Displacing Borders of Misrecognition: On Jessica Hagedorn’s Fictions” in which he discusses the situation of Filipinos, the effects of colonization and decolonization and assimilation. The first time I read this, I felt that the theory and the issues that he was discussing went over my head, however I found that they were much more accessible to me after finishing “Dogeaters.” In addition, I felt that re-reading this article gave me a better perspective with which to approach “Dogeaters.”
One quote from “Displacing Borders of Misrecognition” made me stop and think: “[M]ost Filipinos have been so profoundly “Americanized” that the claim of an autonomous and distinctive identity sounds like a plea bargaining after summary conviction” (San Juan, 122). As we were talking about in class, this Americanization is blatantly obvious in the novel. The characters are deeply influenced by Hollywood movies and the look and the mannerisms of the actors, and are constantly barraged by brand names. Many of the characters, like Rio and Pucha, eagerly accept the Americanized images that are portrayed in the movies and the media, and their identities are definitely shaped by what they see. I must admit, when I first was reading “Dogeaters,” I recognized that these references were there, but I didn’t really think hard about the implications of the omnipresent media and the affect that these images had on the identity-formation of the characters.
I think this quote stood out to me mostly because of the language. The use of “plea bargaining” and “summary conviction” to describe the predicament of the Filipinos, made sense to me the first time I read it, but when I though about it more, it began to confuse me. I understand how E. San Juan draws connections between colonization and decolonization as a process that leaves the Filipinos in a prison-like society. However, I thought it was interesting in the way that it is phrased, it is as if the Filipinos are to blame for their predicament—as if they committed a crime as an individual and must seek a plea bargain.
E. San Juan also says that “Filipino society is a nearly successful replica of the United States” (San Juan, 122). I thought it was interesting that sometimes, there were so many American references that I could almost forget that this novel was set in the Philippines and could imagine it taking place in an American city.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
great post kim. thanks for tying this back to e. san juan.
i think you're right that e. san juan makes it sound like americanization is the filipino's fault. i think dogeaters demonstrates the ambiguity of the filipino racial formation but i don't think any group or racial formation can ever have an "autonomous and distinctive identity." tying in reading i've had to do for thesis, vijay prashad furthers the concept of polyculturalism. similar to omi and winant's definition of race, prashad argues that culture is a fluid concept, shaped by conflict and struggle, and defined by those who want to define it as such. therefore, i don't think the filipino american identity can ever truly be fully autonomous and distinctive because even if it de-americanized and de-spanishified itself, filipino history is still intertwined muslim and chinese trade histories and those have affected it. plus with some 70 something dialects and who knows how many tribes, in trying to create a nation out of so many differences it makes sense that it would be a mix of different non-Filipino influences.
Also something I found very interesting about the Americanization of the Filipinos in Dogeaters was in the A.P. Isaac article. He talks about how "Joey's first person narrator gives a tour of the slums where he lives, he plays on the reader's Frist World notions of the Third World squalor and then disrupts the priviledged voyeuristic gaze" (163) This kind of attitude reminds me of how Gallimard sees Song in M. Butterfly. However this time instead of playing on the ideals of a character Hagedorn is playing on the readers ideas about the Third and First World. She manipulates our perception of reality within the story to make us think abut "our tropical fantasies." I thought this was an interesting point that Isaac brought up and in connection with San Juan's argument does that mean that we force our ideas of what Filipinos are onto them, even through literature? or is that just what Hagedorn wants? and do we force them to be Americanized both in and out of the literature? I think that through this novel that Hagedorn is forcing us to consider how we think about Filipino stereotypes and consider whether the people or the area are actually as depicted or created by our own, media influenced ideas.
In class we discussed what post-moderninst is and whether this novel could be considered post-modern. In many ways it does fit the category; many differing perspectives, sporadic telling of stories, not connected tales, etc. However, I feel that for most of the novel, there are two dominant narrators and they both hve linear narratives, which although they are spread out do have a general flow. And although Joey is clearly an unreliable narrator Rio is much more competent and reliable (although in the end Pucha claims that Rio is lying but how reliable can she be as a voice of contradiction?) this story is very original in terms of its use of characters and narrators however it does play on the preconceived notion of what happens in the Third World and the people who live there. Through the title, we are connected directly to this derogatory stereotype/misconception of the Philippines.
Post a Comment