In reading the primary and secondary texts for this week, I noticed a few different examples of Leonora Sansay’s Secret History occupying in-between spaces. Gretchen Woertendyke discusses at length the power of reading the text as a variation on the “secret history” genre as opposed to reading it as a novel. According to Woertendyke, understanding Secret History from this perspective better recognizes the ways that Sansay blurs the line between public and private. As I read the text I was less concerned with thoughts about genre (mostly because I’m not familiar with the secret history genre beyond what I read in Woertendyke), but I noticed connections between the revolutionary violence occurring, which is expected, and the domestic violence, which was unexpected. Sansay often talked about violence against women in the context of the revolutionary violence between the Creoles and the black rebels. The Creoles had brutally enslaved the black people, who responded cruelly in turn, and the only group who remained powerless were the women, both Creole and black. Mary laments “[her] own lack of power” in helping her fellow women who were suffering at the hands of men, in this case an “English privateer” (119). In the text women are not only caught in the middle as constant recipients of violence, but they are also traded economically, much like slaves. So much of Mary’s letters are devoted to Clara’s unjust marriage to St. Louis, to whom she had been traded like a commodity. Clara continues to serve as the object of male desire and force throughout the text. The general pursues her and at one point uses his position of power to halt trade in order to acquire her, which serves as another example of how the treatment of women intersects with power relations and economic exchange (86). Mary uses Clara as a symbol for the pervasive violence against women, saying, “I believe Clara is not the first wife that has been locked up at St. Domingo” (87).
There is one point where I think this reading might be complicated; or, I had a hard time understanding how this passage functioned. After describing several truly grisly scenes of violence inflicted upon settler women by rebels, Mary writes, “Nothing is more common than such events. They excite little attention, and are seldom enquired into. How different is this from the peaceful security of the country in which I first drew breath, and to which I so ardently, but I fear hopelessly, desire to return” (121). Is she saying that this type of violence doesn’t occur in America, only the domestic violence that Clara suffered? Or is this passage a little sarcastic? I still don’t understand how this comment fits into the discourse of violence against women that Sansay devotes so much time to in the text. Maybe my classmates can help me out!
When I was writing about this text in my thesis I was reminded again and again of the ways that women write in order to protest their orthodox position, especially when they are writing about things that are "unwomanly" or otherwise distasteful (consider her opening comments about only publishing because her friends told her she should). I read this quote as one such moment. Because Sansay has to live under the very real dangers of patriarchal society, she cannot come off as too judgmental or forward or her position will become even more tenuous. She is being very bold in even writing this violence into a letter, and especially in indicating that the violence is so prevalent that it goes uncommented and often unnoticed. In order to not entirely alienate her "dear friend," Mary/Sansay needs to flatter him (and her home country) by making a more favorable comparison. I also think that the final sentence might also be a function of nostalgia. She is isolated and confined in a violent and uncomfortable situation, at the mercy of her dependence on Clara. It is reasonable to think that in the face of these painful limits, her previous life and home may look idyllic in response. There is more that I could write about the subtle critique of French mores about women vs. the "liberty" of US ideals, but that is for another comment or another day.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking over my notes from my class and see your insight about how the analogy of slavery can used to understand Sansay's critique of gender and patriarchal dominance. Like slaves, women in the novel are treated violently and essentially reduced to commodities. This process of depersonilization--of being robbed of "personhood"--is at the basis of Sansay's transnational vision, I think. I'm kicking myself, of course, for not calling attention to your post in class because it so nicely incorporates your creative/analytical thinking and the secondary reading. I especially like how you select a key passage for developing and elucidating these ideas.
ReplyDeleteKatie,
ReplyDeleteI was really intrigued by the parallel between revolutionary violence and domestic violence in Secret History. It's interesting how you show that the revolutionaries actually gain power over their oppressors while women remain powerless. I do think Clara's successful escape from St. Louis complicates this reading, especially if Mary is the symbol for pervasive violence against women. However, at the same time I realize that Clara is merely one woman who escaped domestic violence, and by running away she can't be seen as upsetting the entire system. Your final questions are very thought-provoking. I agree with everything Rebecca said in her comment, but I also have some other ideas for what might be behind this passage. Domestic violence is probably more hidden in America than it is in the Caribbean, where it is so common and explicit that nobody cares about it. Mary may be longing for the more conservative American culture where people at least try to hide such atrocities.