Sunday, February 16, 2014

Interrogating Ground/s and Justice

By Theodora Danylevich

“From Rodney King to Trayvon Martin, from the birth of the racial republic to its late modern bio-political landscape, difficult dialogues and actions are necessary for progress— however evanescent, however staggered, and however long—to materialize.”
-- Neil Roberts, in his introduction to a special-issue Trayvon Martin symposium in Theory and Event (vol. 15, issue 3, 2012),

Wednesday February 5th would have been Trayvon Martin’s nineteenth birthday. On the evening of Wednesday January 29th, hosted by the American Studies department, the Critical Race Theory reading group held its first roundtable discussion, “On Whose Ground? Exploring the Trayvon Martin drama and the complex interplay of race and rights in America.” Sadness, anger, but not really very much shock so much as disappointment were the generally shared feelings with regard to the Zimmerman/Martin ruling that prompted the organization of this event, which was also framed by the question, “where do we go from here?” The roundtable was moderated by our department’s Dr. Jennifer James, and included as panelists Dr. Tony Lopez (English), Dr. Jennifer Christine Nash (American Studies), and Lyndsay Davis, a PhD Candidate in American Studies.

Image by  Favianna Rodriguez

Unpacking “stand your ground” laws:

Dr. Tony Lopez’s comments on the material and spatial elements that both allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder, and made Martin fundamentally unsafe set us up to consider the way in which “stand your ground” laws, especially as they are interpreted in Florida, shed light on some perhaps surprising contradictions in the ways that “public” and “private” come to signify with regard to spaces (and subjects). Both Dr. Jennifer Nash and Tony Lopez’s analyses pointed to “stand your ground” laws as a colonial technology. That is to say, a consideration of the raced and gendered bias and injustice built into the distribution of designations of “public” and “private,” and how they stand up in a court of law suggests that the “contradictions” are yet altogether logical when seen as part of a c/overtly recursive racist-colonial patriarchal structuring of the nation. Subjects that are commodified (slaves, wives) slip between private and public domains, particularly in the process of exchange. In a parallel motion, particularly in the context of excessively permissive “stand your ground” laws (where “home” extends to “home-like” spaces), questions of state power versus state actor lead to a blurring of the line between state and citizen; and by extension, between property and citizen. [As I write this synopsis/interpretation, I’m having trouble being certain that I’m laying this out properly. Comments invited.] In the context of the Zimmerman/Martin case, technological extensions of these discursive power structures include the gun, the “home-like” gated community, and the “home-like” car.

Questioning “justice,” and the fetishization of intent:

While nobody in the Zimmerman/Martin case has spent time in prison, in the context of the prison-industrial complex as a neoliberal placeholder for the commodification of subjects into state property, a young black man – particularly in a black hoody – is, as Jennifer James put it, always and only perceived to be on his way in or out of prison. Regarding a desire for justice, and the role of prison in this equation, Lindsay Davis, who works in and on prison abolition, posed the question: If one supports an agenda of prison abolition, how are we then to arrive at “justice” in the Zimmerman/Martin case, if not by imprisoning Zimmerman?

An undergraduate student brought up the slippery question of motivation or “intent” in the context of the case. This led to a very helpful explanation of what Tony Lopez called a fetishization of intent, which we should be wary of as something that the media loves to do but which is, in the final analysis, beside the point. Fetishizing intent in fact colludes with the underlying structural problems at work by creating a sensational distraction, and giving the public a target for cathexis. Tony referenced the film Fruitvale Station as an aesthetic critical response to such ideas about intention in the many scenes of Oscar Grant’s everyday life.

To further develop the problem of fetishizing intent, Dr. Melanie McAlister from American Studies noted that the vilification of Zimmerman as the exemplary horrible racist can lead to a covering-over of everyday racism, where small or unconsciously performed acts of racism can even become justified or self-justifying because, “look, how awful! I’m not like him (Zimmerman)!” This brings us back to the problem of how to achieve “justice,” then, if we are (a) seeking prison abolition and (b) seeking to avoid a covering-over of diffuse and pervasive modes of structural racism by indicting the exemplary instances of cases of lethal racist violence.

Image from :

Where do we go from here?

The question “where do we go from here?” feels at once strange and pressing. Strange because the time and place that “here” points to seems somehow so historically and legally overdetermined. Also pressing because this past year, which marked the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington not only gave us the Zimmerman/Martin ruling, but also the similarly structured and handled murders of Renisha McBride and Jonathan Ferrel, all of which bring into starkly ironic relief questions as to the nation’s progress on questions of racial and economic justice over the last half-century.

Also of importance to this question is the space and role of the academy, as a place where teaching and writing about racial violence can happen, and also a place that needs more, in terms of emotional support, and space for grief. Circling back to the feelings that prompted this roundtable, Jennifer James pointed out that we live in a culture that knows very well how to make a spectacle of suffering, but does not have ways that create space for grief, which makes the problem of having space for black grief overwhelming, because it would require so much.

If there were the beginnings of an answer to the “where do we go from here” question, it would seem that it lies with teaching about, generating awareness of, and most importantly, holding space for probing conversations that move us away from the “fetishization of intent” and toward an awareness of the embarrassing complicity with structural racism that we might participate in if we do not interrogate the terms of the rulings and assessments that our culture dishes out for us: to the point of the title of the roundtable, “On Whose Ground?”

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Helen of The Wooster Group: A Face That May or May Not Have Launched a Thousand Ships

by Susan Koenig

Archaeology has always been a tricky field, relying upon reconstructions of the past to enable us to understand our present. Sometimes events written about by ancient people become myth as they fade, evidence of their existence being buried by a variety of elemental forces. One such event was the Trojan War. Until the late 19th Century, Troy was a fictional town, existing only in Homeric tradition. Then the ruins of the nine cities were found in modern-day Turkey, and, given the similarities between the landscape and how Troy is described by Homer, the site made Troy a possible reality as opposed to entirely legend. That being said, there is still debate in the field, as there always seems to be. There are a number of sites that could possibly be Troy, but many archaeologists agree that this site is the most likely candidate. Despite these lingering questions, there are now scholars asking not whether the Trojan War was a historical event, but how the actual Trojan War differs from portrayals of it in popular literature. One of the most famous of these literary portrayals is Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida.

Recently, The Wooster Group of New York staged a version of Troilus and Cressida which they renamed Cry, Trojans! Saturday, February 1st, a group of us from GW took the five-hour bus trip to New York City to see the show. It was the most thought-provoking theatre performance I’ve seen in a very long time. I found myself sitting there during the curtain call, trying to parse out what it was I’d just witnessed. One thing that captured my imagination – and that of many others, if our discussions after the show were any indication – was the representation of the women of the play. Shakespeare wrote three complex and varied characters in Cressida, Cassandra, and Helen. All three were wonderfully portrayed, but I found myself especially drawn to the portrayal of Helen.

Scene from Cry, Trojans! by The Wooster Group
Image from:

When The Wooster Group decided to take their 2012 production of Troilus and Cressida (originally done with the Royal Shakespeare Company performing the Greeks while The Wooster Group did the Trojans) and rework it into a standalone production, they decided to cut as many of the Grecian scenes as possible. As a result, Helen only appears in one scene (III.i).

When playing the Greeks, the actors wore black masks to differentiate the Greeks from the Trojans. Helen seemed entirely out of place, her mask the only one in a sea of Trojans. Immediately, she did not belong. Given the recent conversation where the Trojans debated returning her to the Greeks, it was even more striking how different she was.

Perhaps what set her apart most was her voice. Kate Valk portrayed the physical Helen, mouthing the lines, but Scott Shepherd did her speaking voice and Andrew Schneider sang for her. The three actors were so in sync that initially it seemed Valk’s voice was being electronically manipulated.  Upon further scanning the stage, however, Shepherd and Schneider became evident.

In the original 2012 co-production with the RSC, Scott Handy played Helen (and Ulysses). Knowing this, it’s easy to see why The Wooster Group chose to replace Valk’s voice with Shepherd’s and Schneider’s. They publicly acknowledge that they are working to recreate the RSC’s performance, as they did with their 2007 Hamlet, and this is a way to take that staging from the original and make it uniquely Wooster. However, it feels like there’s much more to their performance of Helen than simply emulating the 2012 production.

I, for one, can’t help but point out how puppet-like Kate Valk’s movements were, almost as if she were a marionette being twitched about the stage by these male voices. Helen herself comes from a line of myths revolving around women being used by men. Her mother, Leda, was either raped or seduced by Zeus, depending on which version of the myth you read.  Her involvement in the myth of the Trojan War is just as muddled. Indeed, we never know if Helen went with Paris willingly. Depending on the myth, Helen left or she was kidnapped. The one consensus seems to be that she was one of the few who survived the war. Valk’s movements and the displacement of Helen’s voice draw attention to the divide in the mythological Helen.

This also becomes intriguing when we examine that fact that archaeology now believes some version of the Trojan War actually occurred. George Washington University’s very own Eric Cline told Stefan Lovgren in National Geographic, “The archaeological and textual evidence indicates that a Trojan war or wars took place, and that Homer chose to write about one or more of them by making it into a great ten-year-long saga.” Given that he already altered much of the historic war(s), Homer added in a more compelling reason for the war’s initiation: Helen of Troy. Many archaeologists speculate that the Trojan War was actually fought for economic reasons, but an irksome trade fee is less exciting than a stolen or fleeing queen. If the mythic Helen never existed, whether or not the Trojan War did, then doesn’t The Wooster Group’s portrayal of her point to her Homeric origins and Shakespearean legacy as much as it points to their production with the RSC? She is a puppet in Homer’s, and thus Shakespeare’s, Trojan War as she is a puppet for Shepherd and Schneider.

Calling attention to the complexities of the character in the source mythology also draws our attention to the complexities of Shakespeare’s Helen of Troy. She is not the face that launched a thousand ships and burned the topless towers of Ilium. Rather, she is human, as are the Shakespearean versions of all these Greek and Trojan heroes. They are about as non-Epic as it is possible to get, and it seems that The Wooster Group is highly aware of this in their performance.

Works Cited
"History of the Trojan War." History of the Trojan War. Stanford University, n.d. Web. 31 Jan.     2014.
Korfmann, Manfred. "Was There a Trojan War?" Archaeology Magazine 57.3 (2004): n. pag.        Archaeology Magazine. Archaeological Institute of America, May-June 2004. Web. 01   Feb. 2014.

Lovgren, Stefan. "Is Troy True? The Evidence Behind Movie Myth." National Geographic.          National Geographic Society, 14 May 2004. Web. 01 Feb. 2014.