I’ve been meaning to write this post after class on 1/27, but I’m just getting around to it now, so I apologize for the slightly delayed discussion. The passage we read from Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye really struck me with what I’ve interpreted to be the themes of this course to be.
The first line of the second paragraph of the excerpt reads, “There is a difference between being put out and being put outdoors. If you are put out, you go somewhere else; if you are outdoors, there is no place to go.” This seems to emphasize one of the themes of the class- the importance of having a home. Morrison is talking about what happens when you are displaced from where you are as opposed to having no where to go, also stating that, “Outdoors, we knew, was the real terror of life.” This reminded me of the documentary we watched in class, The Old Man and the Storm. Those affected by Hurricane Katrina were either “put out” or “put outdoors,” and the distinction between the two is rather heartbreaking. Those who were “put out” were displaced, to family, to friends, but they had somewhere to go. Many, however, realized soon that they were “put outdoors.” The storm revealed how many homes the victims had, whether they had a place to turn to, to take them in, or if the entire epicenter of their lives was in New Orleans. Those in the latter group were stranded.
I’m excited to explore, throughout the semester, more about the importance of home, and of having a place to be grounded in.
As a History major, I have taken extensive coursework on structural inequalities experienced by black Americans. I’d like to take the time here to share a brief summary of what I’ve learned. All of this information comes either from in-class sessions with Professors Mapes and Crosby or from Thomas Sugrue’s book “The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit,” which I would highly recommend for those looking to contextualize racial inequalities in the modern age.
Continue reading “The Origins of the Housing Crisis”
In class we have discussed King Lear’s supposed “madness”, which many of the other characters in the play seem to term him as, and wondered what might have brought on this sudden bout of madness. Although the conflict with his two daughters Goneril and Regan seems to be the driving force of his hysteria, I wondered if there were other factors that may have contributed to his madness, and what the term “mad” really meant in the 17th century, when King Lear was written. There was one quote regarding Lear’s madness that particularly interested me. In act 2 scene 4, when Lear is conversing with Kent and the Fool, after his daughters have made it clear that he is not welcome in their home, he laments “O, how this mother swells up toward my heart! Hysterica passio, down, thou climbing daughter!” (line 63) I wondered what hysterica passio, the condition that Lear claims to have, was, and why he related this condition to mothers, when the conflict he was describing was in reference to his daughters.
After researching the term hysterica passio I learned that in the 17th century, this condition of hysteria was mostly associated with women and that “its being originally applied to women thought to be suffering disturbances of the womb” (uaf.edu). This belief derives from the greek word hysterikos, which simply means “hysteria of the womb”. It is interesting, then, that Shakespeare chooses to use this feminized term hysterica passio, to describe King Lear, and that Lear uses this term when describing himself after he reflects upon how horribly his daughters have treated him. Obviously Shakespeare was not insinuating that King Lear literally had a “hysterical womb”, but perhaps he was trying to comment on Lear’s maternal role. Because King Lear was solely responsible for the upbringing of his three daughters (as there is no mother in the picture), he has a maternal relationship with them. Their betrayal of him, then, is seen not only as a threat to their family and royal status, but a threat to his masculinity as well, which contributes to his madness.
If you would like to learn more about the origins of hysterica passio: https://www.uaf.edu/files/english/people/faculty/reilly/static/NCHCproject/Psychology.htm
During class on Friday we discussed how King Lear was “obviously” egocentric. I kept thinking about what other reasons besides him being egocentric would contribute to him wanting to hear his daughters declare their love for him. One of the reasons I came up with was that King Lear is a king. As a king he always has to double guess what people say to him and that can make a person paranoid and insecure in themselves. Could King Lear have wanted to hear his daughters explain how much they loved because he thought that his own family wouldn’t lie to him. When Cordelia did not give a good enough answer he might have felt embarrassed by what she said in front of so many people and decided that she needed to be punished.
If this was a reason why he wanted to hear his daughters declare their love for him then it clearly backfired as we find out in Act I that his two oldest start plotting to remove his left over respect and power.
Do you think King Lear could have been insecure in himself, is he just an egocentric king that always wants to be flattered, or is he both?
As we watched the atrocities of The Old Man and the Storm, I thought about my presentation I did for my GOLD Leadership course last semester where we focused on crisis leadership. The crisis I studied was Hurricane Katrina. My group focused on the pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis of how the Federal, State, and local governments helped the people affected by this disaster. Continue reading “Hurricane Katrina: “A Failure of Initiative””