Exploring concepts of representation conveyed in and by
The Help
through the phenomenological approach of reader-response theory
– A bachelor thesis by Tania Havris Lind –
first published in 2013 – revised in 2020
PART I – THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
What is representation?
In his essay Representation, W.J.T. Mitchell explains the relationship between the subjects that are represented and the objects that act as representatives. He offers a construct of four dimensions, wherein the represented and the semiotic representative are linked together through an ‘axis of representation’ that intertwines with ‘the axis of communication’, which connects the ‘Maker’ of the representation with the ‘Beholder’ of it. However, it is ‘the crossing of these axes’ that can produce a possibility for misrepresentation; the intentions of the ‘Maker’ when choosing a semiotic representative e.g. a heart to represent the notion of love, may not evoke the intended ‘thought[s] or idea[s]’ in the ‘Beholder’, whom might instead interpret the heart as an anatomical sign for life. The ‘Maker’ has to rely on a system ‘of social agreements’, when the ‘Maker represents something to the ‘Beholder’, as well as create a context in which the representation takes place. Without the context, Mitchell argues that the representative simply ‘cease to represent’6 e.g. if The Help does not exist, then neither will the representations of the African American maids that it conveys. Mitchell’s structure provides an excellent illustration of the basic dimensions and their interaction with each other in the process of representation. However from a reader-response point of view, Mitchell does not take into consideration the ‘esthetic’ process of the ‘Beholder’: even in a situation where the social agreements are followed, the context is impeccable and the subject is represented by a relatable semiotic representative, the ‘Beholder’ might recognise the representative e.g. a heart as a symbol of love, but there is still a possibility that this symbol may also evoke ideas or thoughts about for instance a lost love, thus turning, on an individual level of interpretation, the positive representation into a negative one. It is precisely this individuality of the reader’s interpretation and thus the somewhat non-authorial-controlled response, which arguably forms a fifth dimension to Mitchell structure of representation; the ‘esthetic’ dimension. In short, the additional dimension of representation must also constitute a point of examination in the exploring of The Help’s concepts of representation.
Postcolonialism and representation
From the perspective of postcolonial critics, the ‘disparate forms of representation’ constitute a range of widely debated issues; questions of how the muted subject is enabled to speak, as well as who is able or even allowed to represent the untold side of the colonial history are some of the most critical points for which final conclusions still remains to be made. In her essay Can the Subaltern Speak?, postcolonial critic Gayatri Spivak argues that the voices of ‘the subaltern women’ in India are lost forever due to the oppressing factors of colonialism, postcolonialism, religion and womanhood. In her process of producing and supporting this claim, Spivak offers both critique of the intellectuals, who try to retrieve the ‘voice of the Other’, * as well as guidelines for those who wish to try to ‘decolonise … [their] mind[s].’ Spivak argues that the intellectuals (of the Subaltern Studies Group) need to unlearn their privileges as intellectuals, as well as unlearn their ‘female privilege’. In other words, the female intellectual, who wishes to represent the voices of the silenced subaltern women, needs to understand that the mere position of being of the same gender does not constitute or secure the right to represent the Other; she must ‘suspend’ her gender and her consciousness in order to be able to allow the voices of the subaltern women to enter without being suppressed by the ‘clamor’ of her intellectualised mind. With that critique, Spivak emphasises the issue of representation that lies within the mindset; a critique that is easily related to the fifth dimension mentioned and argued for earlier. Additionally, Spivak’s essay actually offers a sixth dimension by emphasising that the intellectual or ‘the Maker’ in W.J.T. Mitchell’s context should be aware of the fact that their own state of consciousness might prove an issue in the process of representation. In brief, some of the critical points laid down in Spivak’s essay Can the Subaltern Speak? provide essential information about some of the potential critical pitfalls attached when a privileged party tries to convey ‘the voice of the Other’ , much like when the Southern Caucasian female character of The Help tries to collect the stories of the African American Southern maids or when Stockett represents Southern African American maids in The Help.
In contrast, postcolonial author Caryl Phillips provides a different approach to the concept of representation, alongside a depiction of how close to home the ‘Other’ truly is. In his essay American Tribalism, Phillips explains how he discovered that his romanticised assumption of an ‘inclusive American identity’ despite his knowledge of the United State’s ‘long history of racial conflict’ simply did not coincide with the reality that he encountered at his arrival in the U.S.; when Phillips asked a classroom full of American students who of them felt ‘one hundred per cent comfortable … describing themselves as a citizen of the United States of America’ , he found that ‘not a single non-Caucasian student raised a hand’. Phillips’ experience illustrates how Spivak’s concept of the ‘Other’ is not restricted to the subaltern women alone, but also to westernised American students. The relationship between the American non-Caucasian students and the American Caucasian students is similar to the manner in which critic Homi K. Bhabha describes the relationship between ‘mimic men’ and their colonisers: ‘almost the same, but not quite.’
A third depiction of the relationship between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is illustrated in The Help by the character Hilly Holbrook, one of the Caucasian suburban women, when she recites the Jim Crow laws : ‘separate but equal’. Despite the similarity between the position of Spivak’s ‘Other’ and the position of Phillips’ non-Caucasian American students, Phillips’ approach to the concept of representation is somewhat different from Spivak’s approach: inspired by his own diaspora identity as a coloured boy growing up in Britain, Phillips has written numerous novels and essays on the subject and is therefore deeply familiar with the act of representation from the authorial position.
In his novel Cambridge, Phillips uses a similar narration model to the one Stockett uses in The Help: in Cambridge, Phillips represents the perspectives of his two main characters: a Caucasian British woman and a coloured educated enslaved man. As a counterpart, Stockett represents the perspectives of a Caucasian Southern young female journalist and two African American Southern women, who work as maids.
In his essay Colour Me English, Phillips also elaborates implicitly on the author’s role and the act of representation. He proposes that literature should be used to create a space where everyone has a say, ‘where everybody has the right to be understood’, where the distance between people is abridged and where, as he puts it, ‘’they’ are ‘us’’. In short, Phillips argues that it is the writers and the authors, who are the reconstructors of what will eventually become the bridges over the invisible man-made colonial gap between ‘them’ and ‘us’, using literature to ease the ‘transition’ and thus slowly help to transform the world – or, as the Caucasian female main character of The Help explains it: ‘’We want to show your [e.g. the African American Southern maids’] perspective…so people might understand what it’s like from your side. We, we hope it might change some things around here’.’
The phenomenological approach of reader-response theory
The notion that a text creates a literary space in which ‘’they’’ become ‘’us’’ is a notion formulated many years prior to Phillips’ essay by the literary critic Georges Poulet. In the essay Phenomenology of Reading from 1969, Poulet writes that ‘whenever I read, I mentally pronounce an I, and yet the I which I pronounce is not myself’. It seems as if the notion that both Poulet and later Phillips want to convey is very similar to each other, if not identical; that through the reading of literature, the reader is enable to comprehend things from another perspective.
In 1972, literary critic Wolfgang Iser elaborated on Poulet’s notion in his essay The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach. In the beginning of his essay, Iser introduces ‘two poles’ that he labels the ‘artistic’ pole and the ‘esthetic’ pole; the former is ‘the text created by the author’ and the latter is ‘the realization accomplished by the reader’. Iser argues that it is from these two components that ‘the literary work’ is brought into existences and that it is the dynamic interaction between them that unfolds the true potentials of a text. Iser explains the in order for this process to occur, the author must first create a text that both intrigues and limits the imagination of the reader; the author has to create guidelines for the reader by linking every proceeding sentence to the previous, while still creating a space where the imagination of the reader can thrive, and thereby making it possible for the reader to absorb ‘these alien thoughts’ into his or her consciousness.
Throughout his essay, Iser emphasises and illustrated various aspects of the reader’s process of responding to a text, as well as the author’s role in the creation of it: many of which will be further elaborated on in Part II of my paper. Ultimately, Iser concludes that ‘the reading of literature gives us a chance to formulate the unformulated’ – or showing ‘a side that’s never been examined before,’ as the editor in The Help describes it.
________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLISHING MY REVISED BACHELOR THESIS…
I wrote my bachelor thesis in the fall of 2013. I had become a mom for the first time in the spring, and my son was just a few months old when I started writing my paper with guidance from my lector Eva Rask Knudsen.
I fell in love with postcolonialism from the first time I was introduced to the subject during the second or third semester. The whole notion of how acts of colonialism have shaped (and still shapes) the world we live in today captivated my interest instantly. The infatuation arose when I was introduced to The Theory of Knowledge on the fifth or sixth semester, and I immediately felt the need to find a way to combine my two passions in my upcoming bachelor thesis – and so I did.
I have decided to publish my bachelor thesis on my blog, because the combination and understanding of both postcolonialism and reader-response theory is still very much a part of my professional foundation when I work with communication, as well as my personal interests for how we talk about people around us – on both a national and global scale.
Much have happened since 2013 when I first handed in my bachelor thesis, so I have used some time to revise the thesis to make it more contemporary. The core is still intact – I’ve merely brushed the exterior up a bit.
I hope you will enjoy the revised version of my thesis, and please leave any constructive thoughts in the comment box below.
