Monica
Taylor - 4522884
Dr.
Jim Ellison
DART
4F90
March
12, 2013
Representations of ‘non-white’ cultures
in The Secret Garden
In this paper, I
will argue that Frances Hodgson’s The
Secret Garden offers a socially and historically contingent stereotypical
depiction of non-white identity. Having
established these stereotypes and the processes through which they are
constructed and continue to operate, I will argue for specific performative
strategies and/or adaptations aimed at highlighting the social and historical
factors that surrounded this depiction.
In The Secret Garden, adapted
for the stage by Jerry R. Montoya employs stereotypical representations of
non-white-ness in order to both mobilize what Lott refers to as the ‘power and
interest’ (Lott 106) of marginalized cultural practices and simultaneously to
subdue the potential danger this power represents by subordinating the
essentialized traits of Indian and Black-ness to those of the dominant (white)
culture. Through the use of manichean oppositions such as Master/Slave, black
clothing/white clothing and behaviors of white/nonwhite, Frances Hodgson’s The Secret Garden can be viewed as
supportive of the hegemonic phase of Indian and Black colonization,
contributing as it does to the interpellation of a constructed Indian and Black
identity and thus to the success of the ongoing colonial project. By reinforcing stereotypical representations of Indian and Black-ness,
The Secret Garden contributes, as
Lott suggests it will, to the ‘commodification of the native subject’ (JanMohamed
100), masking the covert colonialist goals of and assimilating non white people
into the dominant white culture with the much more benign overt goal of
colonialization. Through my suggested changes
to the play (see Appendix 1-4, and also quotations drawn from Appendix 2-4 to
support my argument), I aim to highlight the social and historical contingency
of The Secret Garden’s representation of Indian and Black-ness through costume
suggestions (that include a costume sheet and script with costume cues written
in) and dialogue change (by adding an additional character to highlight the
black-ness of the first character). By doing so, I will problematize the
stereotypes portrayed in the play and expose the contradictory messages
inherent in assumptions of the ‘flexible positional superiority’ of the
Westerner (JanMohamed 100) and the ‘colonialist discursive practices’ (JanMohamed
98) which attempt to justify the ongoing colonial project. In my analysis of these proposed changes, I
will argue that they have the specific effect of moving the message of The Secret Garden from the realm of histoire, an established, unquestioned
truth about the way things are, to that of discours,
where the presence and agency of those telling the story today is made evident, and audiences are invited to take a critical
and dialectical position on the performance they are viewing.
Ethnicity is contextualized within this
play in three central ways as outlined in the thesis. The text involves a
simultaneous production and subjection of non-white ethnicity through Mary’s
journey as she becomes a proper white girl and in turn becomes happy. These
examples from the text range from being subtle to sub textual but all reveal
author Frances Hodgson’s inability to escape racist connotations and
denotations in her writing. This play, originally created as a novel and then
closely adapted for the stage is a classic children’s story that youth and
adults have read all over the world. The racial messages written into the text
have been widely read and viewed as non-offensive as this script has remained a
classic.
Frances Hodgson, a white English female
author born in 1849 and who wrote this play/story in 1911 provided a hot bed of
cultural revelations of the time. First,
the representation of ‘other than white’ in this play is shown through the
binary contrasts between life in England and life in India. Mary’s many references
to India that will be explored in depth in this essay reveal England’s cultural
dominance over India. Secondly, Martha the housemaid is revealed as having many
“black slave” qualities to her that reveal to the audience her position of
authority (or lack thereof) in Misselthwaite Manor. Although Martha is “white”
she is characterized by coming from a less than desirable neighborhood, she
speaks in a different ‘slang’ speech pattern that Mary finds frustrating to
listen to and demands that Martha change to suit Mary’s needs. It is clear that
Hodgson used ‘black’ characteristics for Martha to convey to the audience that
Martha is inferior and subordinate to the other white characters. Finally,
there are many incidents that show Mary stripping away her Indian ‘blackness’
and godlessness to become a happy functioning young white girl that include her
clothing changes and her adoption of the Christian model of Adam and Eve’s
garden.
When Mary is introduced to the reader, she is a foul
mouthed, sour child who had adapted the behaviors of the Indian culture as her
essential characteristics. Throughout the play, Mrs. Medlock insists on ridding
Mary of her “disgusting habits” and introducing her to the proper (white
western) way of living. Mary is thrust into a hegemonic whirlwind of western
culture. When she resists the new ways of living at first, Hodgson illuminates
the anger and dislike for life that Mary has as she doesn’t want to play jump
rope, sing or bake like a “normal little girl”. As the story progresses, Mary
finds that the more she adopts the white, Christian western way of living her
life she becomes happier and full of life. Hodgson writes Mary into a classic
example of how powerful Western coercion can be as hegemony happens when “the
natives accept a version of the colonizers’ entire system of values, attitudes,
morality, institutions, and, more important, mode of production” (JanMohamed 98).
The highlighting of mode of production is an interesting point to consider as
Mrs. Medlock consistently brings up the fact that everything that Mary does
needs to be tailored to how she is going to function as an adult. How
productive will Mary be in a white Western society? Mrs. Medlock believes that
only a proper white English upbringing will be able to provide the level of
perfection and integrity needed for white adulthood, where her Indian
upbringing “just won’t do”.
It is near the end of the script that Mary is ‘coming
around’ to the proper way to live a white western life. And with this new adoption
of white values inevitably comes happiness. Her mood becomes tolerable and she
is finding pleasures in day-to-day activities that include bonding with her
white cousin who is sick. Mary finds that the more she
rids herself of her ‘blackness’ the happier and freer she feels. Many instances
Mary refers negatively about her black clothing and the dark window coverings
that are keeping her from experiencing a western life. Once Mary begins to make
these revelations she is compelled to share them with Colin (her bed ridden
cousin) and release him from the hold that the dark has on him. Throughout this
process, Mary is unaware of her attitude changes as Mrs. Medlock and the
western influence is creating a dominant
force of western internalization for Mary as “during this phase the ‘consent’
of the native is primarily passive and indirect” (JanMohamed 98). Mrs. Medlock
exercises “direct and continuous bureaucratic control and ‘military’ coercion
of the natives” in order to keep Mary in line and on track to becoming
‘civilized’ (JanMohamed 98). Mrs. Medlock uses threats such as sending her back
to India or keeping her locked up inside to keep a bureaucratic control over
Mary.
The staff members are worried when Mary arrives at the Manor
as they believe she must have some sort of ‘Indian sickness’ as her parents and
house servants has died from Cholera. It is common knowledge, as described by
the housekeepers, to the white English population that India is no place for an
English child. The script suggests that the fault for her ever-continuing
illnesses lies with India and how it is unfit for white people to live there.
The knowledge of this comes from discursive practices that perpetuate the
stereotypes that were created by white people about their experiences in India.
Drawing conclusions that illness and misfortune was the work of India itself
and creating general ‘thought to be correct’ statements that perpetuate
fabricated truths about the ‘non-white culture.
India is consistently presented as a place which breeds illness and distasteful
qualities through discourse that is being presented to the servants and staff
at Misthlewaite Manor. Colonialist
discursive practices as Foucault theorizes “are a system of statements
within which the world can be known. It is the system by which dominant groups
in society constitute the field of truth by imposing specific knowledge,
disciplines and values upon dominated groups” (Ashcroft et al).
Mrs. Medlock attempts (successfully) to rid Mary of her
Indian past in order to make her into a proper child. It is as if Mary herself
is not white by the way Mrs. Medlock wants her to assimilate to the proper
white English way of life. “Now miss
Mary” Mrs. Medlock says to Mary swiftly upon her arrival at the manner “things
will be different from India. Count yourself lucky that you are back in
England. You’ll have a maid, but you’ll have to learn to take care of yourself.
A girl your age should be able to do the simple things expected of regular
folk” (The Secret Garden 1.1. p.9). It
is stated in the play that Mary’s parents lived in India to reap the benefits
of the culture there and the job prospects. As white people, they covertly exploited the colony’s natural resources, as many other
rich White men and women did at the time during Britain’s invasion of India through
the various imperialist material practices. Mary’s father, a colonialist
businessman, was attempting to change the nature of Indian business and was so
passionate about it he never was able to spend time with Mary. Mary then, seen
as an ‘Indian project’ was taken in by Master Craven and Mrs. Medlock in
attempts to overtly “’civilize’ the
savage and to introduce him to all the benefits of Western cultures”(JanMohamed
98). It is this assumption of the necessity of Mrs. Medlock’s duty to
assimilate Mary into a proper ‘white – English’ culture that makes her
involvement in Mary’s change interesting to note as the reader watches a form
of colonization happen through the simultaneous production and subjection of
non-white ethnicity.
This play is full of forms of Manichean Allegory. The binary parallel
between many key features, characters and actions in this script addresses
Hodgson’s relation to the field of racism and imperialist colonialist
practices. There is a distinct difference between the white and ‘non white’
parallels that attribute an innate understanding of right and wrong as one side
is always seen as better than the other. JanMohamed defines the Manichean
allegory as “the dominant pattern of relations that controls the text within
the colonialist context is determined be economic and political imperatives and
changes, such as the development of slavery, that are external to the field
itself” (98). The Manichean allegory developed as the need to control and
situate white imperialist practices as correct and “better”. Hodgson paints a
strong correlation between Mary’s unhappiness and her ties with her Indian
upbringing. For example, when Mary is dressed in Black Indian styled dress she
is unhappy and is treated poorly by the White house staff of the manor. But
when Mary begins to adopt the proper white way of dressing, she is treated much
better by the staff and becomes a happier more lively child as if the
transformation was ‘magic’. Hodgson, growing up in England herself where this
story takes place, as a white privileged child may not have been aware of the
Manichean allegory presented in every day life and then transferred
unintentionally to her writing. Counsel and Wolf address this when
they speak of how “the writer is easily seduced by colonialist privilege and
profits and forced by various ideological factors to conform to the prevailing
racial and cultural preconceptions” (JanMohamed 98).
The treatment of Martha in the text is revealing of how
characters of ‘non white’ descent are commodified
by the white dominant class. Martha’s lack of education and knowledge of the
world outside of her own allows Mrs. Medlock to have complete control and
influence over Martha’s life as a servant. Although Martha is technically white
as the script says she has a thick Yorkshire accent that Mary finds hard to
understand and is frustrated that Martha cannot speak like the rest of them “I
can’t understand a word you are saying” Mary says to Martha on many occasions (The
Secret Garden 1. 1. p.10). Martha is not described by her skin color in the
play and when reading it, it is easy to assume that she is black based on
culturally defined stereotypes of how black servant women act. For example
Martha tells Mary that “Mrs. Medlock is always sayin’ how I got no sense and if
the Mistress of the house were still alive, I’d have no job at all” (The Secret
Garden. 1. 1. P.10). As well, Martha describes her poor upbringing and how she
has ten brothers and sisters. Popular productions of the play, including the on
screen adaptations have had a white woman play Martha which is interesting
based on the stereotype that her character falls under. The treatment of Martha
is a representation of the commodification of the native subject. Martha is
given little to no rights and performs her duties under the supervision of the
superior white female. Hodgson’s use of descriptors and character traits in
Martha is an example of how imperialists
“ ‘administer’ the resources of the conquered country, so colonialist discourse
‘commodifies’ the native subject into a stereotyped object and uses him as a
‘resource’ for colonialist fiction” (JanMohamed 100). Hodgson uses these ‘black
stereotypes’ to aid the reader in understanding more about Martha’s character.
Although Martha is in the script a lot, the reader isn’t given a chance to view
character development and understanding with her character as she is constantly
under direct orders from Mrs. Medlock. The white staff and Master of the house
use Martha as a commodity and pay her very little money and respect for the job
she does. Mrs. Medlock routinely reminds her that she is lucky to have a job
and it seems as if she is telling Martha that it is a privilege to be around a
proper dominant group of white people. Giving Martha these stereotypes allows
the reader to imprint a full set of characteristics and understandings that
they have learned as “typical black people” through various colonialist
discursive practices that depict black people as only acting this way.
Although the plays focus is on the
protagonist Mary, there are many incidents where the reader is seeing the
action through the eyes of the head housekeeper Mrs. Medlock. Medlock provides
the reader with a multitude of examples of the Manichean allegory that happens
with both the Indian characters mentioned (including angry Mary) and the black
character of Martha. Medlock represents a flexible
positional superiority which “puts the westerner in a whole series of
possible relationships with the [non-white] without ever losing him the
relative upper hand” (JanMohamed 100). Medlock as a representation of the
proper white side of the binary, her interactions with the concepts and
characters that represent ‘non white’ in the play demonstrate how in every
scenario white will always dominate. It is as if Hodgson (like any other
author/playwright that has elements of flexible positional superiority in their
text) is stating the Manichean allegory of the dualistic nature and then
showing how this concept happens everywhere all of the time by showing the
flexible positional superiority of the white westerner. In one instance, Mrs.
Medlock provides an example of how Mary would have been raised better if she
had more interaction with her white mother instead of always being with the
Indian maids; “perhaps if her mother has carried her pretty face and her pretty
manners often to the nursery Mary might have learned some pretty ways too” (The
Secret Garden 1. 1. P.7). Hodgson is thus creating a representational economy in her script. She is “administering the
relatively scarce resources of the Manichean opposition in order to reproduce
the native in a potentially infinite variety of images, the apparent diversity
of which is determined by the simple machinery of the Manichean allegory” (Lott
100).
This script provides the audience with a
view into a world of ‘racial integration’. Racial integration was a process
decided upon as a strategy of ‘non-white’ control when communities of
segregated ‘non-white’ people became resistant to the colonial ideologies. Mrs.
Medlock (and staff’s) distaste and opposition to the Indian culture is a
perfect example of how white supremacy
“was effectively maintained by the institutionalization of social apartheid and by creating a philosophy of racial inferiority
that would be taught to everyone” (hooks 112). This separation of geographical
space nurtured the embedded philosophy that whites and blacks are meant to be
separate. This separation
fuels the previously exposed Manichean allegory that creates the concept of a
right and wrong binary that assists the production and continuation of
colonialist ideologies. Mrs. Medlock makes it clear to Mary that it is
necessary to rid herself of her Indian attitudes, dress, language and behaviors
if she is going to have any hope of becoming a respectable young lady. This
attitude that Mrs. Medlock has is problematic for the reader as the script is
written to sympathize with the white characters, therefore seeing Mrs.
Medlock’s suggestion as valid.
Critical understanding of how this play
represents ‘otherness’ in its historical colonial representation has lead to a
deeper understanding of the issues and why they have come to be. The rest of
this paper will seek to understand two major methods of colonial representation
and displace their material to challenge their existence and necessity in
theatre discourse (and white discourse in general). The first challenge will
address Mary’s transformation from an ‘Indian savage’ to a ‘proper white lady’
through exploring changes to the script and identifying concepts of, costume
and staging of the show itself. The second challenge will address Martha’s characterization
as a black slave to expose how colonial discourse has shaped readers minds to
envision a black woman based on key textual identifiers that have been attached
to the ‘non-white/black’ stereotype.
Abrogation
will be used as a tool
and method to unpack these colonialist truths that are written and perpetuated
in the discourse of the time. Abrogation “refers to the rejection
by post-colonial writers of a normative concept of ‘correct’ or ‘standard’
English used by certain classes or groups, and of the corresponding concepts of
inferior ‘dialects’ or ‘marginal variants’ (Ashcroft et al). The Secret Garden,
first written as a children’s story was then adapted for the stage for a wide
variety of audience groups that is generally regarded as a cultural activity
(to read to/with your child and to see theatre to both educate and entertain).
The intent of challenging this material is to take a post-colonial critical
stance and abrogate central concepts of the ‘correct’ way of doing things are
re-defining the practice in a different setting or context. Abrogating these
concepts within the play will lead to explore the appropriation within this
play. Appropriation is “a term used
to describe the ways in which post-colonial societies take over these aspects
of the imperialist culture – language, forms of writing, film, theatre, even
modes of thought and argument such as rationalism, logic and analysis – that
may be of use to them in articulating their own social and cultural identities”
(Ashcroft et al).
Mary and Colin Craven progress throughout
the script into two proper, happy white children when they discover the ‘secret
magic’ that they had been missing in their life. At the beginning of the
script, Mary is portrayed as a sour dispositioned angry girl who dresses in
heavy black clothing. This notation of clothing is interesting to watch as Mary
gradually begins to dress in brighter (whiter) clothing the happier she becomes
and the more time she spends doing the activities that Mrs. Medlock suggests
and spends time outside. It is interesting to note the close relation the
children’s experience in the garden has to the Christian story of Adam and Eve.
Many references to the word ‘magic’ is used and
if some of the text was changed, one would be able to directly see the links
between Mary’s journey and that of a ‘non – white’ subject becoming colonized
into a white Christian society.
In the costume list (see Appendix One)
Mary’s clothing suggestions have been amplified to include more detail about what
she is wearing. Mary is depicted at the end of the script being depicted as a
‘classic Sunday school child’ that shows her acceptance and assimilation into
the white Christian ideal. The audience will then be able to visually see the
evolution of Mary’s acceptance of white culture. The instances where Mary
mentions that “there must be magic in the air, there is magic in the garden”
prove how Mary is unaware of exactly what is making her life so much better.
The ‘magic’ is in fact the White hegemonic and dominant power that is creating
a proper white young lady out of her previously muddled Indian upbringing. The
‘magic’ is representational of God and of the general subjugation that is
happening to Mary over the course of this play. A changed section in the script
(see Appendix Two) that pull attention to Mary’s clothing when she mentions
‘magic’ so the audience can pick up on the correlation between the two. It is
important that the audience is not fed a complete answer to the displaced
postcolonial issue as it can wash over an audience. When attempting to portray
an idea or concept to an audience it is important to engage critical thinking that
guides the audience to conclusions and questioning attitudes about the topic at
hand. It is also important to note that removing racism from The Secret Garden
would strip the play of the integrity of the plot as the plot is about Mary’s
change through her experiences. Her changes are inevitable
when there is the ever present colonizing force from Mrs. Medlock and the white
house staff and members. Making these changes maintains the integrity of the
plot but adds the necessary depth to Mary’s change that enables the audience to
see what is actually happening to her, that the magic is not coming from the
garden but from the ever pressing colonizing force.
The character of Martha, as outlined
earlier in the paper, is depicted through her use of language and stories that
describe her like a ‘typical black slave’. This is problematic on the basis
that Hodgson (who originally was writing for a white audience) uses these stereotypes
that ‘everybody knows’ to give Martha her background information without having
to ‘waste’ lines on Martha telling her story. Her story is thus implied in her
behavior, attitude and way of speaking (orality). Gilbert, in her essay
‘De-scribing Orality: Performance and the Recuperation of Voice’ speaks of how
if the dialogue is written in a way that showcases the linguistic connotations
to the speakers true self then “the results are a Brechtian defamiliarization
of language as a transparent signifier and a focus on ‘voice’ itself as a site
of contestion” (Gilbert 121). Hodgson provides an attempt at giving Martha
dialogue that is written as if she was actually a black person (see Appendix
Three for the original scene). If the scene was to entice the audience into
considering the heritage and meaning of Martha as a black character that
represented a colonized population subjected to the hegemonic imperialist
movement, the scene would have to, in my opinion, show two sides to Martha. One
Martha would be the original character with her accent written as she was
saying it to provide the reader with an
accurate depiction of the accent. This original Martha would be played by a
black woman and would be written in the script so there would be no confusion.
The second Martha would speak the exact same words but in a proper white
English tone that will be understood and provided to the audience through
orality (see Appendix Four for changes).
Martha 2 would be a white woman that,
although would be a house servant like Martha 1 she would be seen in the eyes
of the audience as proper and correct. It would be written so that Mrs.
Medlock, although subtle, sided with Martha 2 over Martha 1 based on Martha 1’s
implied heritage. Choosing a scene that allows Martha’s character to speak lots
allows the truth of the scene to be spoken, “in performance contexts, the
truth, if any, is in the telling. By offering a wide range of potential
articulations, dramatic texts amplify the splitting and hybridization of dominant
discourses” (Gilbert 120). Changing this scene to include two Martha’s provides
abrogation in the sense that the scene is rejecting a normative concept of
‘correct’ or ‘standard’ by playing devils advocate and providing both so the
audience can see and hear the binary opposition (Manichean allegory).
Abrogation in this scene provides a counter to the “theory that use of the
colonialist’s language inescapably imprisons the colonized within the
colonizer’s conceptual paradigms” (Ashcroft et al).
By analyzing the text in terms of how the
stereotypes alive in this play one can see how inevitable they had become
through the colonialization process. The processes through
which the stereotypes are constructed and continue to operate reveal social and
historical factors that influence the writer to engage with perpetuating
colonial discourse. The stereotypical representations of both Mary (as an
Indian girl at the beginning of the play) and Martha (a character depicted as
black) mobilize what Lott refers to as ‘power and interest’. Through the
analyzing of colonialist methods by defining and locating them in the text
allowed a thorough understanding of what is wrong with the text. We can
conclude that what is wrong is the use of previous imbedded knowledge of ‘what
is correct’ (dominant white) to give context to the story without having to say
anything. Hodgson is relying on the fact that her audience will be part of a
white dominant group that, of course, will understand the stereotypes as true
and valid and will not question the production. The character of Mrs. Medlock
provided insight to how the dominant white class uses; hegemony, colonialist
discursive practices, Manichean allegory, commodification of the native
subject, flexible positional superiority of the Westerner, representational
economy, white supremacy and social apartheid to control Martha and to change
Mary into a proper white girl.
Making changes to key elements of the
script has allowed exploration of appropriation and abrogation of the dialogue
and costume elements of two scenes. Making these changes addresses the issues
(as defined in the first part of the essay), answers the problem with a
solution and then responds to why and how these changes will be effective.
These changes provide the audience with insight to how The Secret Garden is historically and culturally contingent with
the colonial discourse that was being written
at the time (1911). By making these changes I am providing the audience with
the vehicle to make their own conclusions about how and why these stereotypes
have been constructed and perpetuated over time. Without ‘preaching’ to the
audience about both sides of the history of colonialization making these
changes will allow the audience to see this play in a natural light which is
the true context of the time period in which it was written. Thus giving modern
audiences the opportunity to see the specific effect of moving the message of The Secret Garden from the realm of
histoire, an established, unquestioned truth about the way things are, to that
of discours, where the presence and agency of those telling the story today is
made evident.
Works Cited
Ashcroft, Bill;
Griffiths, Gareth; Tiffin, Helen. Key
Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies.
London,
GBR: Routledge, 1998.
Gilbert, H. "De-scribing
Orality: Performance and the Recuperation of Voice’." Performance Analysis: an introductory
coursebook. Ed. Colin Counsell and Laurie
Wolf. New York: Routledge, 2001. 116-123. Print.
hooks, b. "Teaching
Resistance: The Racial Politics of Mass Media’." Performance Analysis: an introductory coursebook.
Ed. Colin Counsell and Laurie Wolf. New York:
Routledge, 2001. 111 - 116. Print.
JanMohamed A. "The
Economy of Manichean Allegory: The Function of Racial Difference in Colonialist Literature’." Performance
Analysis: an introductory coursebook.
Ed. Colin Counsell and Laurie Wolf. New
York: Routledge, 2001. 97 – 103.
Print.
Lott, E. "Love and
Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class’." Performance Analysis: an
introductory coursebook. Ed. Colin Counsell and Laurie Wolf. New York: Routledge, 2001. 104 - 110. Print.
Montoya,
J. R. The Secret Garden. 1st ed. New York: Playscripts Inc, 2008.
Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment