Here , there and everywhere

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Cerita yang memang Sedikit

Sedikit Cerita tentang Menulis

“Selamat pagi Bu Atwin, ini Bab 1 saya setelah diperbaiki dan direview lagi. Makasih bu, hope this one is better J” (dikirim pada 5 Juni 2014).

Kutipan tersebut tak hanya merupakan sebuah kalimat yang senantiasa saya kirimkan kepada ibu Aquarini Priyatna selaku pembimbing utama dalam penulisan skripsi, namun juga sebuah kalimat yang menandai proses pembelajaran mengenai menulis dengan hati dan kaitannya dengan tanggung jawab. Saya ingat betul ketika kali pertama saya bimbingan dengan Bu Atwin di hari Senin, beliau berkata bahwa 45 menit yang kami gunakan ketika itu terbuang sia-sia disebabkan oleh cara menulis saya yang begitu sulit dimengerti dan penulisan dalam Bahasa Indonesia yang juga buruk. Saya terkejut.

Di hari Kamis, saya bimbingan lagi dengan Bu Atwin di kantor beliau. Giliran pertama adalah Kak Nita, lalu Kak Fania yang sukses mendapatkan pujian dari Bu Atwin atas tulisannya. Lalu majulah saya yang ketika itu yakin bahwa tulisan saya juga tak kalah baik dari tulisan mereka berdua. Namun yang kemudian terjadi di ruangan itu adalah tulisan saya yang justru merakit mesin penenun hujan untuk kedua mata saya. Bu Atwin masih menolak, beliau berkata bahwa tak ada perbaikan yang signifikan. Saya panik. Saya harus kembali ke kursi tunggu, lalu berusaha kembali lagi ke Bu Atwin, namun ketika menghadap beliau, tak tahu mengapa koneksi internet buruk, lalu saya pasrah dan kemudian pipi saya basah.

Lucu memang jika diingat saya sampai menangis. Ketika itu saya menyadari betapa gawatnya situasi saya yang apabila menulis tidak dapat langsung menyentuh inti, tidak benar menggunakan tanda baca, dan tidak tepat menggunakan berbagai macam kata. Terlebih lagi baru Bab 1. Saya menyadari kebodohan tersebut dengan tangisan, namun kemudian Bu Atwin mengatakan sesuatu yang pada akhirnya memberikan perubahan besar bagi pola pikir saya mengenai menulis. Saya ingat beliau berkata bahwa menulis bukanlah ajang pamer. Beliau juga berkata bahwa menulislah dengan jujur sehingga makna tulisan dapat sampai kepada siapapun yang membacanya. Saya harus menulis dengan hati.

Mulai saat itu, saya berusaha lebih keras. Usaha saya di Bab 1 belum selesai karena harus menempuh proses kurang lebih 5 kali bolak-balik ke Bu Atwin. Namun pada tanggal 14 Agustus kemarin akhirnya saya berhasil mendapatkan nilai A untuk skripsi saya dan janji yang pernah saya ucapkan untuk bisa sedikit meringankan beban Bu Atwin pun terpenuhi.

Ibu Aquarini Priyatna, saya benar mensyukuri segala dukungan dan nasihat ibu, terutama ketika peristiwa menangis itu. Peristiwa itulah yang membuat saya sadar bahwa saya masih begitu egois dalam menulis. Terimakasih untuk selalu menginspirasi. Much love for you bu J.

Namun tak berhenti disini, 
saya juga ingin menyampaikan pesan rahasia ke Pak Ari Jogaiswara bahwa saya bangga dengan tulisan saya. Saya bahagia bisa membuat tulisan mengenai George Eliot sebagaimana rekomendasi bapak ketika oral test Critical Theory berlangsung. Saya bahagia karena Pak Ari lah yang pertama kali membimbing menulis skripsi sekitar 6 bulan lalu. Saya bahagia karena bulan April lalu Pak Ari mengetik nama saya berada di urutan pertama untuk maju pada SUJS. Saya mengucapkan terimakasih banyak kepada bapak dengan harapan bahwa Pak Ari tidak akan bertanya “kenapa?”. Thank you sir for always being that amazing.

Lalu untuk Pak Taufiq Hanafi, terimakasih banyak untuk nasihat dan masukan dari bapak agar saya lebih berhati-hati lagi ketika membahas posisi perempuan dalam novel. Terimakasih banyak telah membuat saya memikirkan lagi arti kata representasi yang senantiasa saya gunakan dalam skripsi saya. Terimakasih telah menunggu saya dan Ira selama dua juta tahun lamanya untuk bimbingan ketika itu. Terimakasih untuk sidang kemarin. Saya bahagia bisa dibimbing Pak Taufiq karena membuat banyak mahasiswi iri khusunya angkatan 2011 (this one is not serious). Thank you Pak Taufiq.

Begitu juga untuk Pak Sandya Maulana dan Ibu Linda Rachman yang telah menguji dan turut memberikan nilai kepada skripsi saya. Saya ingat betul ketika sidang ada satu pertanyaan tentang perbedaan metode dan metodelogi penelitian dari Bu Linda yang kemudian Pak Sandya bantu arahkan kepada saya. Thank you.   

Dan terakhir, selamat untuk teman-teman yang juga berhasil menempuh Sidang Skripsi dan terimakasih juga dukungan dan bantuannya selama ini! 

 Monicha Nelis  
     
   

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Projection and the Lower Class Body in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats which only consists of two male characters in the story, Boy and his father, Old Man. The two characters are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory presents the different treatment of representing the class distinction not only in economy but also in gender. Boy is represented inhabiting the lower economic place while the Old Man is on the higher place. Boy is also represented only as Purgatory’s hearer while Old Man is as its speaker. Boy is placed by the play as subordinate to Old Man as if woman to man. It represents Purgatory’s another treatment of class-distinct body not only in economy but also in gender. The representation is gathered in two ways, first is done by Purgatory’s process of projection of images, and second, by Purgatory’s properties of stage. 
Old Man’s head which is operated as the play’s images projector signifies his power of control. It can be seen on the play that Old Man’s voices dominate the whole plot. The story goes as well as Old Man speaks about his own story. He projects his whole body and soul not only to Purgatory’s audiences but also to Purgatory’s entire theatrical sphere (to the house, tree, and windows) which I argue as one of the aspects of discriminating “the silent Boy” as Purgatory’s lower body. It is Old Man who projects his voice to Boy who can only follow and even absorbs the voices, as writes Breen (1989) “talking and seeing, not listening, determine the father's (Old Man) relation to his son (Boy)” (51). It is indeed that Boy is also given the voices too in speaking but not for showing his independence and existence, but rather to speak for echoing the image which is projected by Old Man. In replying to Old Man’s image projection to Boy about “…come to sixteen years old my father burned down the house when drunk” (432), Boy is presented as a mimic of the Old Man in the same term of “almost the same but not quite” (Bhabha 1949). Boy tries to be the same as the Old Man by replying “but that is my age, sixteen years old,” (ibid) which signifies that the way Purgatory projecting its images supplies Old Man’s autonomy power in Purgatory.
Boy who plays the role only as an Old Man’s dark side reflection also represents how Purgatory deal with the class distinction. Old Man holds a power in projecting his father’s image to Boy by assuming that Boy will be the same as his father if he gives him the money (434). This scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money represents Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized more thoroughly by the appearance of property belong to Old Man, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Boy as the subordinate body which is presented entirely not having any kind of property, not appreciated in speaking his equal economy privilege but only to lose and still following Old Man’s muttering, identifies that Boy is placed in a lower economy class than Old Man by the way Purgatory projecting its image to Boy and audiences only through Old Man.
Old Man asks the Boy to ‘study that house’, ‘study that tree’, and ‘look at the window’ without answering Boy communicatively represents that Old Man does not hear or even see Boy equally with him. Boy is only presented to hear the Old Man and Old Man is presented to come in a monologue (not communicating with anyone beside himself) implies Purgatory’s significance in representing Boy as an image of female which produced by the male’s point of view, as Breen writes;
In a play which focuses simultaneously on the inextricability of male from female identity and the irreconcilability of upper- and lower-class voices, language does not exist so much between characters as within the ear of each (1989: 51).

Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body not only through its image projection but also through the stage and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. Knife is also economical because it represents the situation of man owning property like what I argue before. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself are one of the Purgatory’s elements of the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul through a symbol of knife. Knife is economical when it extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy Boy’s but it is also sexual when knife is used to kill Boy’s body and soul which is presented as a place of Old Man to project his sexual desire to reach an orgasm ;
“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).

That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.      

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Compartmentalized or Separated?

 A Short Response to The Projection of Images in M. Butterfly and Queen’s Garden

Hwang’s M.Butterfly presents its image projections within two ways, first directly through the voice of the character;
GALLIMARD. … This Chinese diva- this unwilling Butterfly- what did she do to make her so proud? The room was hot, and full of smoke. Wrinkled faces, old women, teeth missing – a man with a growth on his neck, like a human toad. All smiling, pipes falling from their mouths, cracking nuts between their teeth, a live chicken pecking at my foot-all looking, screaming, gawking … at her (20).
Second, the image which is projected through stage direction which is presented following character’s part above;   
(The U.S. area is suddenly hit with a harsh white light. It has become the stage for the Chinese opera performance. Two dancers enter, along with Song. Gallimard stands apart, watching. Song glides gracefully amidst the two dancers. Drums suddenly slam to a halt. Song strikes a pose, looking straight at Gallimard. Dancers exit. Light change. Pause, then Song walks right off the stage and straight up to Gallimard.) (20).
Those two images are presented separately, and continuously being projected by ‘the head’ of Gallimard as the projector of the images in M.Butterfly. Those two distinct images have been projected not only in a separation but also in a compartmentalization. Each of the projected image’s worlds is not able to affect another world’s image or even to recognize each other although they both are literary projected on the same stage. They have been compartmentalized.
Hwang’s M. Butterfly is in a bit contrast with Aoki’s The Queen’s Garden in projecting its images. In Queen’s Garden the images have not been totally compartmentalized-projected. The projected images are only separated. One of the projected images is under control by another one. The images which are constructed as Narrator’s imagination are projected somehow as similar as how it is done by Gallimard in M.Butterfly which is projected separately into parts by the ‘head’ of narrator but the Narrator in this play also takes another important role in regulating the drama’s image projection; she (as Brenda, female main character) has the privilege to regulate the story. Narrator in Aoki’s Queen’s Garden is given a very exclusive power related to that regulating role. It is possible for Narrator, if only Aoki let her be, to disturb the world of another projection outside her (Narrator). It is because she is presented to recognize everything about the story, because the image is totally constructed and projected only through her head, through her voice (Narrator’s dialogue) in the drama. Narrator’s world can be regarded as the first world while the other part is the second world. The whole play consists of two worlds where the first world, Narrator’s fantasy and imagination which is presented in the play, controlling the second world outside Narrator’s.  

Class-distinct Bodies in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats. Purgatory is a drama which only consists of two male characters, Boy and his father, Old Man. They are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body through its dialogues, stage, and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. It is economical because it represents the situation of man owning property, a knife which extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized by the appearance of another poverty belong to him, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness are presented more thoroughly in the scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money (434). Old Man is presented to have everything when Boy is nothing. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself. Old Man’s asking Boy to “study that tree” and to ”study that house” without replying or giving his attention to Boy’s following opinion are one of the Purgatory’s elements to represent the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul. Boy’s body and soul is presented as a place of Old Man to project the image of him as a sinner (he recognizes his error) and even his sexual passion also desire to reach an orgasm by killing Boy;
“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).
That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.      





Monday, June 9, 2014

A Thinking of My Family: I Try to Be Honest so I Write

I am happy I was born as the first children in my family. I am happy to have parents like mom and dad. I am happy to have one sister who is 2 years younger than me and one brother whose age is almost 17.

My father is a big man. He got a big body also a big mind. He is a strong-willed person with big ambitions. But he never knows that in this world a man could never be so right. The world often beats him down but he tells me to never lose hopes. I love my father though he told me that he has failed to be a good father for our family. I love him though his words have placed us in the cruelest trouble of world but my father still could fulfill the time with laughs at when we watch our favorite sports together at home. My father does not bring my family a good fortune but for me he is that fortune. He is the father, the pride, my superhero.

My mother is a strong woman though the tears often rolled down on her cheeks. She is a good wife and a great mother but she does not see the world as same as my father. I love her though she says that I am her wretched girl.  I love my mother though she always denies all my decisions in life but she will ask God in her day-to-night prays to give her daughter the best way in dealing with the life.  My mother is the one that I will never understand. But I love her. She is my most supporter and I will always love her with the most love a woman can give. He is my mother and my angel of the house, my pure love.

My sister is a good girl. She loves God, the family, her friends, and local singer. I love her though she is very lazy to help me cleaning up the dishes but I can be just fine when in the morning she comes and offering me a cup of coffee. I love her though she is easy to make things in the family to be messier but she’ll love to tell us a fine story which makes everything easier. I love her though she easily cries on all problems but she will come as the toughest girl who can help me facing the problem. My sister is not the sweetest but she is the best friend of mine. My sister is not the nicest girl but my world will not be the nicest one without her. My sister is the sister. She is the life, my sunflower, and my happiness.          

My brother is a hard guy. His dream is to own money. I love him though he is very lazy to wake up every morning to go to school but he can safely pick me to the bus shelter in a very early Sunday morning. I love him though he is cruel in never replying me any messages but he will sit beside me on one evening to teach me the Oasis song and will pleasantly hear my guitar plays. I love him though he does not pay attention to my advice but he will angry to the stranger who annoys me on public. I love him though he has weeds on his pocket and alcohol on his desk but he never treats girl as toy. I love him though his ignorant of the world is the most part of himself but he will frequently ask me on the afternoon, “… then, how’s about mom and dad?” My brother is not the strongest or the weakest. Not the cruelest or the kindest. He is just the human, a growing up man, a boy, my favorite firelight in the cold snow.  

We have been through the hard times, the easy too. Family is a beautiful thing, a honest too. 
We have been through the worst times, the best too. Family is a peaceful thing, a modest too. 



Monicha Nelis, 
Goodnight.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Seminar on Literature Draft

(due to the academic regulation of Skripsi, text is narrated with Bahasa Indonesia)

This is not the final draft, this document is uploaded only to give a brief description about the thesis problem as well as how it was required.
  
Draft 1

Tokoh anak perempuan bernama Maggie Tulliver di dalam novel The Mill on The Floss karya George Eliot dihadirkan sebagai tokoh yang cerdas dan gemar membaca buku. Maggie lebih mampu berhasil dalam menggunakan imajinasinya daripada melakukan suatu kegiatan yang melibatkan tubuhnya. Maggie yang cerdas dan gemar membaca buku memberikan pandangan kepada Maggie untuk mengembangkan dirinya, untuk memiliki kesempatan yang sama dalam mendapatkan pendidikan, seperti apa yang laki-laki dapatkan, dipandang sebagai hal yang bukan sepantasnya perempuan lakukan pada masa itu karena adanya dominasi laki-laki yang begitu kuat mengatur struktur hidup masyarakat, yang seolah-olah sukses melemahkan perempuan.  Penyajian tersebut akan mengawali bahasan mengenai keinginan novel dalam membentuk konsep perempuan baru, perempuan yang ingin keluar dari keterbatasannya, yaitu dengan menghadirkan tokoh perempuan yang ingin menjadi seperti laki-laki, yaitu dengan cara meniru. Proses meniru yang dihadirkan novel mengindikasikan adanya kesadaran perempuan, hasil dari dominasi laki-laki, akan keterbatasan yang dimiliki perempuan sebagai perempuan itu sendiri, bagaimana konsep tersebut dihadirkan melalui Maggie Tulliver dalam The Mill on The Floss, dan Dorothea Brooke dalam Middlemarch. Namun, tokoh perempuan yang dihadirkan meniru laki-laki, dengan berusaha menjadi sebagai subjek, justru membuat ambivalensi dalam mendefinisikan konsep perempuan itu sendiri, karena dengan meniru laki-laki, berarti perempuan telah secara tak utuh juga menjadi laki-laki, walaupun tidak mungkin bisa didefinisikan sebagai laki-laki karena perempuan juga tetap perempuan, jadi dengan bentuk meniru ini (perempuan yang menjadi seperti laki-laki), perempuan secara sadar telah melepaskan label “gender” yang ia miliki, walupun bukan secara biologis namun secara filosofis, dan terindikasi bahwa novel memunculkan paham “genderless”, yang apabila dikaitkan dengan teknik narasi novel, yaitu dimana narrator mahatahu bertindak seperti laki-laki, dimana narrator memegang “wewenang” penuh terhadap ceritanya dengan memberi instruksi, persuasi dan regulasi terhadap tiap pemikiran karakter dan alur cerita yang dinarasikan secara detail. Namun, unsur perasaan dan sensibilitas yang kuat juga ditekankan oleh pemilihan kata yang dinarasikan oleh narrator,  layaknya perempuan. Wewenang narrator yang begitu kuat dalam mengatur cerita, seakan berlaku seperti God, semakin memperkuat keambivalensian gender yang dibangun oleh novel, dimana dikutip dari Lynn Alexander yang mengutip F.W.H. Myers yang menulis mengenai George Eliot, bahwa “She… taking as her text the three words … God, Immortality, Duty,… how inconceivable was the first,…” (1988: 152), dimana novel melalui suara narrator mahatahu yang hadir seperti sosok “God” yang “inconceivable”, seperti sosok yang tak terdefinisi dalam apapun, terutama gender dalam penelitian ini. Ambivalensi gender diperkuat dengan signifikansi tokoh Silas di dalam Silas Marner, dimana Silas yang secara biologis adalah laki-laki namun dibangun memiliki konsep seperti perempuan, dan konsep ini juga tersaji dalam tokoh Phillip di The Mill on The Floss dan juga Mr. Causabon di Middlemarch.        

Draft 2
Helene Cixous dalam essaynya The Laugh of The Medusa berbicara mengenai keterbatasan perempuan dalam mendapatkan pendidikan yang setara dengan laki-laki, terdapat ketika Cixous menjelaskan permasalahan sosok perempuan yang menulis yaitu sebagai suatu hal yang menurut lingkungan sosial kala itu, tidak sesuai dilakukan karena pandangan yang muncul memandang perempuan sebagai sosok yang lemah dan menulis hanya “reserved for the great-that is, for "great men"” (1976: 876)
George Willis Cooke dalam bukunya George Eliot; A Critical Study of Her Life, Writings and Philosophy: Theory of The Novel (1884) berbicara tentang suatu konsep perempuan di dalam dunia sastra ketika ia menjabarkan beberapa point mengenai pemahamannya dalam mendefinisikan penulis perempuan berdasarkan tinjauan detailnya terhadap karya- karya George Eliot:
1.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai diri perempuan yang menulis sebagai perempuan, bukan untuk menulis sebagai laki- laki yang menulis.
2.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “literary artist” yang bertujuan “to interpret the feminine  side of life”.
3.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “new element” dalam menginterpretasikan kehidupan khususnya melalui pengalaman dan cara pandang perempuan terhadap kehidupan.
Ketidaksetaraan kedudukan antara perempuan dan laki-laki banyak disuarakan dalam bentuk pemikiran yang melawan, juga mendeskontruksi paham mengenai perempuan itu sendiri. Margareth Fuller dalam tulisannya Woman in the 19th Century, menjabarkan konsep baru mengenai perempuan dimana untuk mendapatkan kesetaraan, perempuan bukan berarti harus berusaha untuk menjadi seperti laki-laki, yaitu berusaha untuk mengambil alih subjektivitas serta dominasi dari tangan laki- laki, namun perempuan hadir sebagai subjek untuk sisi kehidupan yang  bukan “wewenang” laki-laki, atau sama halnya dengan penjabaran Cooke mengenai perempuan sebagai “new element”, dan pemahaman Fuller bahwa perempuan adalah “the heart” dan laki-laki adalah “the head”. Namun, hal tersebut memunculkan ironi, walaupun perempuan tidak berusaha untuk masuk ke dalam dunia laki-laki dan seperti memunculkan kesan bahwa perempuan memiliki dunia sendiri yang ada diluar dunia laki-laki, kehadiran perempuan sebagai “the heart” atau “new element” justru menghadirkan pandangan bahwa perempuan juga secara sadar atau tidak memiliki keinginan untuk menjadi seperti laki-laki, menjadi subjek seperti laki- laki, menjadi sebuah dominasi seperti laki-laki. Perempuan tidak mendapatkan pengalaman yang sama dengan laki-laki dalam masa tumbuh kembangnya dan hal ini yang menyebabkan ketidakmampuan perempuan hadir sebagai subjek dimana menurut Rosseau dalam penjabaran Mary Wolstencraft bahwa “the first year of youth should be employed to form the body” (179), dimana perempuan pada masa kecilnya diajarkan untuk memahami diri mereka sebagai “ornament”, seperti anak perempuan yang senang bermain boneka dan menganggap diri mereka adalah boneka tersebut, yang nantinya membangun pemahaman anak perempuan tersebut terhadap diri mereka sebagai objek (177), dimana apa yang mereka pahami tentang perempuan adalah perempuan seperti benda yang memiliki kemampuan untuk “mendekorasi” diri mereka agar terlihat cantik, dimana cantik dipandang, bagi perempuan, sama halnya dengan kelemahan, karena mereka hadir hanya sebagai objek yang memberi kesenangan kepada subjek, kepada laki-laki, dimana perlakuan yang perempuan lakukan tersebut, merupakan hal yang sangat menyenangkan bagi laki-laki (178). 

Thank you,
Monicha Nelis

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Seminar Draft

Dalam The Mill on The Floss karya George Eliot tampak disajikan:
-keterbatasan yang dialami tokoh perempuan utama dalam memenuhi keinginannya memiliki pendidikan yang sama dengan laki- laki, karena statusnya sebagai perempuan
-keterbatasan yang dialami, tidak hanya oleh para karakter, namun juga pembaca, dan alur ceritanya sendiri dikarenakan kekuasaan penuh narator yang seperti memberikan aturan, layaknya hal yang sering dilakukan laki-laki, dan hal tersebut menunjukkan adanya paham laki- laki sebagai pusat ruang gerak segala aspek kehidupan,  dan menunjukkan adanya permasalahan dimana teks seperti memiliki keinginan dalam membentuk konsep baru mengenai perempuan yang dapat bergerak tanpa berpusat dengan laki-laki. Helene Cixous dalam essaynya The Laugh of The Medusa berbicara mengenai keterbatasan perempuan dalam mendapatkan pendidikan yang setara dengan laki-laki, terdapat ketika Cixous menjelaskan permasalahan sosok perempuan yang menulis yaitu sebagai suatu hal yang menurut lingkungan sosial kala itu, tidak sesuai dilakukan karena pandangan yang muncul memandang perempuan sebagai sosok yang lemah dan menulis hanya “reserved for the great-that is, for "great
men"” (1976: 876)
George Willis Cooke dalam bukunya George Eliot; A Critical Study of Her Life, Writings and Philosophy: Theory of The Novel (1884) berbicara tentang suatu konsep perempuan di dalam dunia sastra ketika ia menjabarkan beberapa point mengenai pemahamannya dalam mendefinisikan penulis perempuan berdasarkan tinjauan detailnya terhadap karya- karya George Eliot:
1.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai diri perempuan yang menulis sebagai perempuan, bukan untuk menulis sebagai laki- laki yang menulis.
2.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “literary artist” yang bertujuan “to interpret the feminine  side of life”.
3.      Penulis perempuan hadir sebagai “new element” dalam menginterpretasikan kehidupan khususnya melalui pengalaman dan cara pandang perempuan terhadap kehidupan.

Kaitannya dengan laki-laki sebagai pusat kehidupan, sepertinya saya harus membaca tulisan Charlotte Perkins Gilman mendefinisikan sebuah paham Androsentris yang menunjukkan bahwa perempuan tidak akan pernah terlepas dari dominasi laki- laki yang sudah ada dan Simone de Beauvoir dalam The Second Sex, Lacan dalam On The Names of The Father, dan mengenai permasalahan ketidaksetaraan atau keterbatasan yang dialami wanita,  selain Cixous dalam The Laugh of The Medusa, juga merujuk kepada Virginia Woolf dalam The Room of One’s Own, Gibert & Gubart dalam The Madwoman in The Attic, dan mengenai permasalahan dominasi narator merujuk kepada Chatman dalam Story and Discourse, dan terbentuknya konsep perempuan  yang bisa saya rujuk kepada konsep penulis perempuan milik George Willis Cooke dalam analisanya terhadap George Eliot.



Saturday, January 25, 2014

Any Girl can set her Mind

Rainy day has been capably giving its anxiety to my circumstances, ah yes anxiety, the anxiety for a sense of being lazy, an emotionally thinking, a perfectly irrational minded, or even an unstably reaction in responding those much of particular things, so terrible, aren't they? So sorry if I'm making no sense but come on, it has been too long, bad weather is locked us inside. I do love rain, so effing much, but not the effect of its overloaded amount of water 'planking' on the every roads at the city. I'm getting tired and won't making any complain, but how dreadful it'll, my sympathy belongs to the people who is struggling for their life facing this flood and flood, in every year, ah Jakarta, I can only hope everything will get better very soon.

Okay, in case of making everything to be brighter, haha, I'll share one moment of happiness with friends, yes my lovely girl-friends. A short story, it has almost exactly 4 years for me and my girl-friends been together in college, but by the way, one of them, Amanda, was just recently graduated from college this week, she finally gets her Bachelor Degree of Arts! Yeay! So envy I maybe have to work very hard to go beyond her haha.

This was actually, we did a shoot, just to remember our togetherness as friend, to have a lovely photograph get printed then hang it on the wall, but well, I also take some of the photographs of my outfit during the shoot, because I think it'll be good to be posted here on the blog ;)



here they are, from left to right - Amanda, Prilly, Nissa (but we call her 'Arab' :p), Vanya, and Fimel. Ah I love these girls so much, thank you for being here there and around <3
 and here is the detail of my outfit:


Vintage lace shirt - Accent, Hairpiece and belt - unbranded, Vintage pastel skirt - thrift store, Dots printed socks - unbranded, Clogs - Adorable Projects

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The Interpretation of Literature

The determination of literature is always started with a question about its factuality, about how it is functioned and applied to the human relation, or to the very basic, about its purest definition as knowledge, as one of the fields of human study. However, many thinkers, from the classic theorist to the modernist have been very often giving their voices speaking over these regulations about literature’s formal authenticity, there is not even one has successfully made his argumentations up as a foundation underlying the every thinker’s critical perspectives about literature itself. The simplest analytical mind is certainly reasonable to be addressed to the old theorist Plato and Aristotele, as like what Mitchell says in his Representation that both of those literary theory founding fathers just “regarded literature as simply one form of representation.” Catherine Belsey makes it clearer by speaking in Constructing the Subject: Deconstructing the Text, if literature is a form of representation, then what is particular thing which is represented? She notes “literature represents the myths and imaginary versions of real social relationships...”, that in literature is just about the idea, the imagination of human’s reality, as to Althusser literature is “a system of representation concerning the real relations in which people live. But what is represented in ideology is not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live”, that literature is considered to be more ideological with only an image as a thing which is represented in it.
Mitchell goes further talking about representation and literature, that he says literature is not just that simple formation of representation of a general thing, or as a “representation of life” because of,  there will always be an ideology which is consisted, that it is indeed literature ”can never be completely divorced from political and ideological questions.” That to make a generalization, as how to make a consideration for “life” to be possibly represented through literature, is almost very unlikely to occur. Paul de Man has argued why literature will never work the generalization out, that he says in his Resistance to Theory, because literature is not a theory, it owns the normative principles which are “...cultural and ideological rather than theoretical.” If literature is a theory, the generalization may certainty be suitable, but, once it is related to what have theorists been said before, that literature is basically more ideological because it constitutes one-self’s ideology, which makes the understanding of literature as a theory, is not true.   

Monicha Nelis

Monday, January 6, 2014

An Argumentation of The Idea: The Relation between Woman-Writing In Literature

Literature, for it is either, as the never-stopped argumentative speculation in defining its meaning as a theory, of argumentations before issues of what is truth or just merely considered as either a myth or a fiction, or, about life of human being which is somehow regarded to be represented as an image ( catherine belsey ) in it as if literature is as a significant formation as what Mitchell notes “...then representation is exactly the place where “life”,...gets into the literary work.”, is truthfully considered to have its own relation as a medium or significantly a place to one’s ideology as a personal consistency as what Paul de Man argues that literature towards the integrity of a social and historical self rather than towards the impersonal consistency...”, which, that ”a social and historical self”, a “personality”, is viewed as a reasonable matter of literature in creating the identity, as to what Foucault says identity is a self-made creation depends on a person’s own “bio power”.
Oscar Wilde, a young and remarkable playwright over the era of Victorian-late has fascinatingly created a medium of expressions of what is called identity, through many of Wilde’s remarkable English playwrights. To be more significant, Oscar Wilde’s Woman of No Importance (1893) shows his particular tendency in building the identity through his work of drama, that, it is hereby viewed by the side of feminist criticism that Wilde truly makes that men domination in western be visible enough to make a disgraceful view for woman, as represented in one of its line by the character of Lady Stutfield, “Ah! The world was made for men not for woman.” (p.9) In western’s patriarchal culture, woman does not allowed to do such similar thing as what man can do, because of, the world is  represented not to made for woman. Gilbert and Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic constructs the idea of women’s incapability to present their selves to society through literature. Women lost their power of defining their selves as a subject of authority, in this case when she turned to be a writer or a poet.  “Thus the "anxiety of influence" that a male poet experiences is. felt by a female poet as an  even  more primary "anxiety of authorship"-a radical fear that she cannot create, that because she can never become a "precursor" the act of writing will isolate or destroy. “Literature in a history of western was never authorized to a ‘second sex’ – by what Mitchell calls "the inferiorized and 'alternative' (second sex) psychology of women under patriarchy.", and the literature itself was a very male-dominated. The power of men in the western literature had erased woman’s equality in writing as what Cixous’s “writing is at once too high, too great for you, it's reserved for the great-that is, for "great men" , that woman loses her right to be equally viewed as great as men in writing. 
However Wilde’s Woman of No Importance has also  been so differ about this kind of view that if writing has been so absolutely regarded as man’s signature manners, then why in such one of this 19th century’s western remarkable play, there is still a given-part to an idea of woman who writes down the letters in a piece of paper like what the character of Mrs. Arbuthnot does very gracefully under her consciousness, “She...Writes a beautiful hand, too, so large, so firm.” The play insists that this Idea of woman who does a handwritten-text shall be viewed as a very clear representation that writing is particularly done as not only an absolute matter of man’s masculinity but that “...beautiful hand...so large, so firm” is somehow responsible to be viewed as a woman’s textual form of femininity also. In Wilde’s Woman of No Importance, the argumentation grows up more arguable related to what old critics have pointed out about the relation between man’s superior power in western’s literature and their claim of writting as an absolute masculinity, that there is lied an irony represented through, “What a curious handwriting! It reminds me of the handwriting of a woman I used to know years ago” (p.20), that if writing is inappropriate to woman then how is that possible to define an inappropriate thing is fascinatingly able to reform the identity of oneself only by her handwriting?   

The difference class of sexuality, woman as what is quoted as ‘second sex’, loses the acclaim value of being the authentic writer for her authentic work referred to the dominant authority of male. However it gives a different perception here to Oscar Wilde, who have been popularly known as one of the most remarkable London’s playwrights that most of his works are done by holding that a value of femininity, represents the idea of a woman in that era of 19th century.

The literary authority has never been addressed to the female sex, as critics Gibert and Gubart give the idea of how impossible it is, “the woman writer substitutes what we have called an "anxiety of authorship," an anxiety built from complex and often only barely conscious fears of that authority which seems to the female Ilrtist .to . be by definition· inappropriate., to her sex.” It indicates that to act as a writer or to write something, woman seemed to have been mistaken herself as a woman, referring to what is inappropriate to her. However, a representation against this view is appeared again by Oscar Wilde in one of his nowadays-regarded masterpiece play, The Importance of being Ernest (1895), the character of Cecily is built as an young, admirable, fully educated girl who at her 18th ages she is so powerfully appeared to be a character of a girl who writes a diary about her everyday life. The diary is necessary used as a symbol by Wilde to represent the idea that woman has a condition of doing a right thing to have an act of writing;
ALGERNON
Do you really keep a diary? I'd give anything to look at it.
May I?
CECILY
Oh no.
(Puts her hand over it)
You see, it is simply a very young girl's record of her own
thoughts and impressions, and consequently meant for
publication. When it appears in volume form I hope you will order a copy.   

 An inappropriate manner to woman is in the 19th century, when she is likely be bounded with a creativity that to write one must have a creativity, that woman having a creativity is regarded to make her way out from woman’s nature, she is asked to be as pure as an “angel”, or if not she will be tragically regarded as “active monster” by what Gibert & Gubar notes, “It is debilitating to be any woman in a society where women are warned that if they do not behave like angels they must be monsters.” However this inequality is contrastingly represented in a very different view that in Wilde’s The Importance of being Ernest, the character of Cecily is ideally treated very well by her society, that to commit in writing a diary does not bring her into the “illness”, that the idea of her as an upper class woman who writes is even more extended to be more admirable, that to the character of Algernon, a young and wealthy man, Cecily is;

 “... the sweetest, dearest, prettiest girl in the whole world.”

 It is perhaps that Cecily ‘s characterization has constructed another point of view of men-woman’s masculine-feminine, that writing is not that whole performance only addressed to a man, not also be permanently considered as a total form of masculinity, but there is also the idea that woman has been fundamentally built to be likely committing herself for a dishonor manner while she writes, as feminist Helene Cixous on her most influential work The Laugh of the Medusa (1976), had been sexually analogized writing is equally as shameful as masturbating to woman, “...Because you punished yourself for writing, because you didn't go all the way; or because you wrote, irresistibly, as when we would masturbate in secret...” and this idea is also bounded to the character of Cecily that she does write, indeed, but her power is symbolized in a form of diary which at society, diary is generally known as “secret”, a very personal account, a secret not to get known by another person;
 CECILY
I keep a diary in order to enter the wonderful secrets of my life.

that she makes her power to be hidden, and this is responsible to be related to the idea which is noted before, the idea that writing is “it's "silly."  However if writing is as similar as “silly”, why do woman still need to do thing which has been called “silly”? In her arguments, Cixous had been pointed out so clearly that, “By writing herself, woman will return to the body.”  She needs, as a living creature, to own her power, that, for instance, not to write means not to own a power and be selfless. Not writing is defined that woman does not belong to her body, which to Judith Butler the body is, “a set of boundaries, individual, and social, politically signified and maintained”(Gender Trouble – 1990), because her body has been taken by the “great” and if not writing, woman would not experiencing to live in her “real” existence as a woman.
However, if woman needs to write to speak up her voices for taking back her existence again over the man, it is bounded with a question of how is it possible to be as simple as that while the action of writing itself has never been addressed to woman? It reminds our memory back to what Gibert & Gubar argued about the 18th-19th century woman’s “anxiety of authorship” in defining the idea of woman as a writer, that there is none of a person who deserves the title of author/writer but only to the man, as if there is woman who writes, her action will be defined as an imitation, to imitates a man, to be as what is shown by Homi Bhabha on his Of Mimicry and Man, that woman is, “almost the same, but not quite” with the man whose power is  a dominant power of the society, since the very past time of western’s literature history.      

References
1.       Manis, Jim.  A Woman of No Importance by Oscar Wilde, The Electronic Classics Series. Pennsylvania State University, 2006.
2.       Wilde, Oscar, and Alyssa Harad. The importance of being earnest and other plays. SimonandSchuster. com, 2005.
3.       Sandra, Gilbert, and Susan Gubar. "The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination." (1979): 493.
4.       Cixous, Hélène, Keith Cohen, and Paula Cohen. "The laugh of the Medusa."Signs 1.4 (1976): 875-893.
5.       De Man, Paul. "The resistance to theory." Yale French Studies 63 (1982): 3-20.
6.       Mitchell
7.       Butler, Judith. Gender trouble. routledge, 1999.
8.       Bhabha, Homi. "Of mimicry and man: the ambivalence of colonial discourse."October 28 (1984): 125-133.



Monicha Nelis