"Sex and Death": Evolving Power and Gender Dynamics
“Across America sex and death were barely distinguishable,” (4). Other than their status as the two (nearly) unavoidable parts of any human life, sex and death are a jarring combination. What’s being implied as the connotation? Repression? Violence? - I think it’s both, and both ideas get explored more throughout the novel. The novel shows an ugly underside of American life, particularly in the realm of women’s lives, marriage, and sex, as well as the progression of feminism and shifting power dynamics, showing the first of inklings of sexual liberation and setting the stage for a more postmodern idea of sex.
I said “(nearly) unavoidable parts of any human life” earlier, but in the setting of the novel it is truly unavoidable, practically a burden for the women. Mother’s relationship with father, Evelyn Nesbit’s sexuality and relationships, the little girl’s existence in the Lower East Side, and Emma Goldman’s spelling out of the economics of marriage are all examples of the inescapable and often dark nature of sex and marriage in women’s lives at this time.
At the beginning of the novel, sex between Mother and Father is depicted as something that happens behind closed doors, a sort of obligatory/necessary part of the marriage, nothing else. At the beginning of chapter 2, the awfully scientific term “coitus” is used , and Mother is described as rather reluctant, having “fled to her garden” after the interruption by Houdini. It’s a way to “satisfy Father’s needs”. In this sense, for Mother, sex and death really are not that different; it's a bland obligation she’s reluctant to partake in.
Evelyn Nesbit is different than Mother, her sexuality more acknowledged and open. But rather than being liberation, it’s a symbol of her objectification and submission to the capitalist system. While Nesbit can practically choose whatever man she wants and acknowledges her existence as a sexual being - something scandalous in and of itself at the time - she is not liberated (as spelled out in Goldman’s monologue, another entire passage to explicate). Whether women are objectified or repressed, they are not free and most importantly, not the ones in control.
But Ragtime, even as it follows an ugly underside of America, follows the hopeful progression of evolving power dynamics. When father comes back in Chapter 14 (also the start of part II), we see how mother has changed, taken charge of the business, and has been reading Goldman’s work (an awesome history-fiction connection, again). She’s more involved, forward, and expressive sexually with father - taking control of the situation.
But also briefly, this connection between sex and violence (as a potential connotation of the combination of “sex and death”) is important, especially as we get the jarring description of Nesbit’s scars from being whipped. But while Nesbit is both sexualized and abused, there is still the passage where we get her perspective about Mother’s Younger Brother: “She loved him but she wanted someone who would treat her badly and whom she could treat badly. She longed for a challenge to her wit, she longed to have her ambitions aroused once again,” (89). But this comes after the passage about how she didn’t get the money from her divorce with Harry Thaw, and thus what does this imply about her ability to control situations, and where is she searching for control?
This passage is complicated - on one hand, maybe it is her past experience that’s made her expect this kind of treatment in her relationships, and thus this is all very anti-feminist. On the other hand, maybe there are some more radical or postmodern ideas regarding sex lingering here. Perhaps there is something violent connected with sex; obviously things like BDSM exist today for a reason, right? The whole concept essentially is again about power, feeling power over someone, submitting to power, and so on. A feminist perspective which sees this as more positive might say, well at least all genders can see how power dynamics can be shifted, and maybe what Nesbit wants is that sense of having power, but also having the power to submit without it being connotated by her actual lack of power, particularly economically, in her day-to-day life.
And now we’re really venturing into postmodern territory - rather than just being about what is the woman’s place in the world, what does sex have to do with it, etc… it’s a question of what is sex? Or violence? Power? How are they connected? Perhaps there’s a metanarrative with Nesbit’s interest in a sort of sadistic/masochistic relationship - what does the narrative of power within a sexual relationship mean given the context of the outside society? It’s also interesting - with postmodernist art, we see a departure from trust in an art “canon” and big Western-dominated theories, and into questioning what even constitutes art and who gets to decide what it is? There’s a parallel with sex - as women gain power in society, the institutions break down and it is no longer treated as a sacred/repressed part of life, but is rather acknowledged as an element of life and given more freedom to exist and be understood in its many complexities. Ultimately, it’s a breakdown of archaic rules and economic systems, allowing “free love” that Goldman discussed and complexities of the human psyche to be fully explored.
I said “(nearly) unavoidable parts of any human life” earlier, but in the setting of the novel it is truly unavoidable, practically a burden for the women. Mother’s relationship with father, Evelyn Nesbit’s sexuality and relationships, the little girl’s existence in the Lower East Side, and Emma Goldman’s spelling out of the economics of marriage are all examples of the inescapable and often dark nature of sex and marriage in women’s lives at this time.
At the beginning of the novel, sex between Mother and Father is depicted as something that happens behind closed doors, a sort of obligatory/necessary part of the marriage, nothing else. At the beginning of chapter 2, the awfully scientific term “coitus” is used , and Mother is described as rather reluctant, having “fled to her garden” after the interruption by Houdini. It’s a way to “satisfy Father’s needs”. In this sense, for Mother, sex and death really are not that different; it's a bland obligation she’s reluctant to partake in.
Evelyn Nesbit is different than Mother, her sexuality more acknowledged and open. But rather than being liberation, it’s a symbol of her objectification and submission to the capitalist system. While Nesbit can practically choose whatever man she wants and acknowledges her existence as a sexual being - something scandalous in and of itself at the time - she is not liberated (as spelled out in Goldman’s monologue, another entire passage to explicate). Whether women are objectified or repressed, they are not free and most importantly, not the ones in control.
But Ragtime, even as it follows an ugly underside of America, follows the hopeful progression of evolving power dynamics. When father comes back in Chapter 14 (also the start of part II), we see how mother has changed, taken charge of the business, and has been reading Goldman’s work (an awesome history-fiction connection, again). She’s more involved, forward, and expressive sexually with father - taking control of the situation.
But also briefly, this connection between sex and violence (as a potential connotation of the combination of “sex and death”) is important, especially as we get the jarring description of Nesbit’s scars from being whipped. But while Nesbit is both sexualized and abused, there is still the passage where we get her perspective about Mother’s Younger Brother: “She loved him but she wanted someone who would treat her badly and whom she could treat badly. She longed for a challenge to her wit, she longed to have her ambitions aroused once again,” (89). But this comes after the passage about how she didn’t get the money from her divorce with Harry Thaw, and thus what does this imply about her ability to control situations, and where is she searching for control?
This passage is complicated - on one hand, maybe it is her past experience that’s made her expect this kind of treatment in her relationships, and thus this is all very anti-feminist. On the other hand, maybe there are some more radical or postmodern ideas regarding sex lingering here. Perhaps there is something violent connected with sex; obviously things like BDSM exist today for a reason, right? The whole concept essentially is again about power, feeling power over someone, submitting to power, and so on. A feminist perspective which sees this as more positive might say, well at least all genders can see how power dynamics can be shifted, and maybe what Nesbit wants is that sense of having power, but also having the power to submit without it being connotated by her actual lack of power, particularly economically, in her day-to-day life.
And now we’re really venturing into postmodern territory - rather than just being about what is the woman’s place in the world, what does sex have to do with it, etc… it’s a question of what is sex? Or violence? Power? How are they connected? Perhaps there’s a metanarrative with Nesbit’s interest in a sort of sadistic/masochistic relationship - what does the narrative of power within a sexual relationship mean given the context of the outside society? It’s also interesting - with postmodernist art, we see a departure from trust in an art “canon” and big Western-dominated theories, and into questioning what even constitutes art and who gets to decide what it is? There’s a parallel with sex - as women gain power in society, the institutions break down and it is no longer treated as a sacred/repressed part of life, but is rather acknowledged as an element of life and given more freedom to exist and be understood in its many complexities. Ultimately, it’s a breakdown of archaic rules and economic systems, allowing “free love” that Goldman discussed and complexities of the human psyche to be fully explored.
test comment!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up the question of why Evelyn looks for more of an abusive element to her relationships which I am really intrigued by. When reading the novel, I definitely interpreted that passage as a commentary on her past abuse and how that is all she knows and has come to expect from romantic relationships. However, your point about the postmodernist approach to sex being that perhaps Evelyn is genuinely into the power dynamic provides a completely different light to the passage. What I think is inherent about Evelyn is that her story is tragic and also a good example of sex and power, particularly in popular media today. She becomes a figure in the media because she is at the center of a scandal about violence and sex that she was indoctrinated into from a young age.
ReplyDelete