Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 8 Number 1, April 2007
___________________________________________________________________
“Home Is Where the Cart Is”: Semantic Inflections of Self and Object
By
Bergen Community College, USA
Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1997), have explored ways of knowing that include “separate knowing” and “connected knowing.” They assert that “One of the meanings of objectivity is that people do not project the contents of their own heads into the external object. Both separate and connected knowers are wary of projection, but they avoid it by different means” (Belenky et al, 1997, p.109) . The objective stance of the separate knower in relation to the object itself involves “suppressing the self”, in which “feelings and personal beliefs are rigorously excluded.” (Belenky et al point out that this kind of knowing is commonly found in science.) In contrast, the connected knower seeks “…the deliberate, imaginative extension of one’s understanding” about the once “remote” object, that comes to have deep significance over time. Thus, the knower’s connection to the object is not immediate or spontaneous, but rather involves absorbing thought as well as intuition, that leads to a symbolic bond. The three overriding metonyms described in this paper reflect different instances of characters whose sense of self is maintained or re-formed through the acquisition of connected knowledge; in other words, by having an understanding of the object that is deeply personal, individualistic, and even solipsistic.
The Object
Another meaning of objectivity is the idea of the physical. According to Harris (2000), objects (and other kinds of products such as visual images) are appealing to people (as consumers) because they possess certain concrete qualities, e.g., cuteness, cleanness, etc. These qualities (or a strong lack there of) may call one’s attention to certain physical properties of objects that possess them The following are definitions by Harrisof each of these properties. Cuteness. According to Harris, cute things have “…exaggerated textures and hues so characteristic of stuffed animals with their…luscious coats of fur, or dolls with their luxuriant profusion of hair…” (Harris, 2000, p. 7) Cleanness. According to Harris, “Dirtiness has physical characteristics but cleanness does not…Cleanness…is simply an absence of qualities, an absence of stains, tacky to the touch, an absence of pungent aromas…” (Harris, 2000, p. 233) Qaintness. According to Harris, “Quaintness focuses squarely on the physicality of Olden Times, on their creature comforts…editing out discomfort, inconvenience, misery, stench, and filth…” (Harris, 2000, p. 25)
Zaniness. According to Harris, “…Zaniness is the way…in which a conventional culture imagines deviance and marginality, which it represents through an aesthetic that transforms eccentricities into…playfulness” (Harris, 2000, pgs. 110-111) . The central objects in each of the six analyses, possess physical properties associated with the qualities above. These properties combine with various parts of the self to create figurative understandings.
The Self
Recently, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have described “the self” in terms of essence, also referred to as the Essential Self metaphor. These authors explain this metaphor as deriving from the Folk Theory of Essences whereby “every object has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.”
The Essential Self metaphor refers to any person rather than object and includes at least three cases. One, the Inner Self or who one is in private and is compatible with the Essential Self ; two, the External Real Self or who one is in public and is also compatible with the Essential Self; and three, the …e is really meant to be and may or may not reflect the current natures of the other two selves (p.282) .
One’s True Self is inextricably tied to one’s essence. The personal experience of the object by each character in the six analyses can be viewed as existing somewhere within this metaphoric triad of Inner-External Real-True selves.
Metonyms and Metaphors (of self and object)
Thus, how the self comes to know the object based initially on its particular physical properties reads to more abstract, emotional, and idiosyncratic understandings that necessarily incorporate personal experiences and private sensations. According to Gibbs (1994), figurative thought is part of everyday experience as well as of poetic and literary creations. He writes, “…human cognition is fundamentally shaped by various poetic and figurative processes. Metaphor, tetonymy, irony, and other tropes…constitute basic schemes by which people conceptualize their experience and the external world” (Gibbs, 1994, p. 1) . In addition, Barcelona (2002) has stated, “Metaphors and metonymies are often not verbalized, but can be expressed through…non-verbal communicative devices, or…motivate our behavior” (p.216) .
Thus, literary characters can actively shape figurative understandings of themselves to the extent they are portrayed as “people” with regular cognitive processes engaging in everyday life situations. Furthermore, characters and their lives can be figuratively portrayed through various literary texts including poetic verse, fictional prose, and film. Each of these kinds of texts is a vehicle that provides fertile ground for metaphors and metonyms to flourish between a character and his or her material object or thing. Gibbs (1994) states that the interpretation of poetic texts or products can be “…divided into moments corresponding to…comprehension, recognition, interpretation…” (p. 116) He describes how these processes apply to understanding figurative expressions in poetic language, but alsosuggests their presence in interpreting other kinds of texts or products, i.e., fictional prose or film. Comprehension refers to the moment-to-moment use of certain linguistic or visual processes (for example, those involved in syntax or imagery) of the reader, as well as his or her real-world knowledge. Recognition involves that the reader identify the expression as a particular kind, such as a metaphor or metonym. Interpretation means the reader generates a particular figurative understanding of that metaphor or metonym. The three literary texts discussed here all contain the elements of character development, plot, and dramatic situation from which these cognitive processes together produce metaphoric and metonymic understandings. These understandings between “the self” and “the object” may be comprehended differently based on the nature of the text, i.e., poetry requires the reader’s undivided attention to every word whereas fictional prose does not. However, the recognition of expressions as metaphoric or metonymic as well as their further interpretation, are essentially the same.
Specifically, metaphors and metonyms can be understood in terms of domain mapping in which two discrete categories merge in some essential way, (Croft, 1993; Barcelona, 2002), and domain highlighting (in the case of metonym) in which one or more sub-categories exemplify, in some essential way, a more abstract, overriding category (Croft, 1993; Barcelona, 2002) . These two patterns can be applied to understanding how “the self” and “the object” are portrayed through various literary texts. In the case of metaphor, the source and target domains are mapped onto one another in a process of semantic unfolding. This process involves a character’s personal interpretation of self in the midst of relating to the object in the here and now. In the case of metonym, the source domain contains a group of particular highlighted targets or sub-domains. Together these targets exemplify an ongoing symbolic relationship between “the self” and “the object” that appears to exist continuously. Thus, the difference here between metaphor and metonym seems to relate to the physical positioning of “the self” with “the object” in real time. This can be illustrated in the following six analyses encompassing three overriding metonymic patterns.
Three Metonyms
“Calm, Cool & Collecting”
1. This metonymic pattern involves “the collection of objects in one place that have simultaneous emotional outbursts. This intense energy would otherwise infringe upon the tempered emotional life between characters to which these emotions really belong.”
In W.B. Yeats’ poem The Dolls (1914), there is a doll-maker sitting in a chair, his wife nearby, and their baby lying in a cradle. There is also a shelf with dolls on it. According to Harris (2000), “The process of conveying cuteness…disempowers its object…making them appear ignorant or vulnerable…” (p. 6) .These dolls have been made to express strong negative emotions, such as resentment at the couple’s baby. Although their collective voice is strong they are psychologically fragile. Although they are observant of human behavior in the home, they are ignorant of the psychological function they serve between the husband and wife. The following lines convey their emotion, “A doll in the doll-maker’s house / Looks at the cradle and bawls: / ‘That is an insult to us.’ / But the oldest of the dolls, / Who had seen, being kept for show, /Generations of his sort, / Out-screams the whole shelf: ‘Although / There’s not a man can report / Evil of this place, / The man and the woman bring / Hither, to our disgrace,/ A noisy and filthy thing.” Presumably, the husband’s ongoing resentment of the baby is allegorically portrayed in the expressed emotions of the dolls. This seems to be conveyed to the wife, who appeases her husband on hearing the loudest doll scream. “She murmurs into his ear, Head upon shoulder leant: My dear, my dear, oh my dear, / It was an accident.” Thus, the emotional outburst by the dolls serves to express to the wife her husband’s anger over they having “A noisy and filthy thing.” Here, the wife implies that the baby was “an accident” while, at the same time, makes it seem as though the oldest doll was spontaneously out of control ; in doing so, she maintains peace within the home.
The True Self of this character is revealed through the emotionally tolerable situations he has created between herself and her husband the doll-maker. There is a metonymic relationship between the husband’s emotions, the wife’s emotions, and those of the dolls. These three instances do not begin as separate domains or categories, but rather appear as one integrated force whose existence is suggested from before the start of the poem. The source domain “calm, cool & collecting” contains at least four targets or sub-domains that when considered together, suggest a complex symbolic relationship. These include “a husband’s emotions,” “a wife’s emotions,” “a husband’s emotions expressed by dolls on a shelf,” and “a wife’s emotions as reactions to her husband’s emotions expressed by dolls on a shelf.” The metonymic relationship is specifically between the husband (the self) and the dolls (the object), the wife (the self) and the dolls (the object), and the husband-wife emotional dynamic (two selves combined) and the dolls (the object).
In an episode of the HBO series Six Feet Under (2004), the character Ruth is dusting around the house. She is agitated by and frustrated over her lack of knowledge about George’s (her new husband) romantic past (he’s been married eight times). She is hurt and angry that George has not been candid with her about any of it. At an earlier social function, Ruth overhears two women (one of whom is an ex-girlfriend of George) passing comment on how difficult George is to be emotionally involved with. As she dusts, suddenly a bizarre image appears in front of her, in her mind’s eye. There are several “living” heads encased in glass jars arranged in a row on one of the shelves. These heads are of George’s ex-loves. They all speak loudly at one another at once in a cacophonous manner, laughing at and shouting about Ruth and her pathetically strong need to know her husband emotionally. This image has much zaniness; it is both shocking and humorous. The heads with their synchronized emotional outbursts, represent Ruth’s emotional turmoil and neurotic fearfulness, both roused by her marriage to George. This outburst functions to keep Ruth temperate like George wants her to be. She feels ongoing pressure from him to be self-controlled in her complaints about not knowing of his cryptic romantic past, and about her expression of strong desire to know more. Ruth’s emotionally unleashed state of mind is reflected back to her in this image, once again validating to herself the explosive dynamics within her. Her self-concept is portrayed as existing in-between the Inner Self and the True Self. The self she is in private, with George, reflects her more poised and rational mind, while her True Self is motivated to lash out at him in rage.
There is a metonymic relationship between the hysteria expressed by “the heads” and Ruth’s inner turmoil. These two instances do not present themselves as separate domains or categories, but rather as one integrated force as soon as the vision of “hysterical heads” appears in the scene. The source domain” calm, cool & collecting,” contains at least three targets or sub-domains. These include “a person’s state of mind,” “Ruth’s state of mind,” and “Ruth’s state of mind as hysterically talking heads encased in glass jars.” Taken together, these targets imply an ongoing symbolic relationship between Ruth (the self) and any concrete manifestation (the object) of her “married” state of mind.
“Room”-inating
2. This metonymic pattern involves “emotional identification of the character with physical properties of an object currently in the room. These properties symbolize, in some essential way, the psychological state of the character.”
In Anne Sexton’s poem Lullaby (1960), the character is a patient in a psychiatric ward who is occupying a TV room. In the following lines, is a sense that this patient has been at the ward for some time. “ The night nurse is passing / out the evening pills.” This patient enjoys the effects of the sleeping pill when it is first taken; it eases the mind, calms the body, and psychologically separates the patient from certain tactile hallucinations of the skin. “My sleeping pill is white. / It is a splendid pearl; / it floats me out of myself, /my stung skin as alien as a loose bolt of cloth.” While falling asleep, the patient says “I am linen on a shelf” to which she soon chants “Old woollen head, /take me like a yellow moth / while the goat calls hush-a-bye.” The patient physically identifies with “linen” while, at the same time, speaks to “Old woollen head” as if the physical self is separate from it. This image may reflect a psychological state of confusion over identity due, at least in part, to mental illness. However, it also suggests the mental existence of two separate domains or categories, namely “the self” (the patient) and “the object” (linen) that conceptually merge.
According to Harris (2000), people are drawn to what is clean based upon imaginary qualities. He describes cleanness as “…a glittering mirage that makes an emphatic impression on our bodies and seduces us with its lustrous sheen…” (p. 235) . Here, the patient’s physical understanding of the object through either current visual sensations or through visual memory results in a figurative interpretation. The “linen on a shelf” seduces the character into metaphorically becoming linen; thus, the character’s True Self is revealed through desire.
The metonymic category “room”-inating is the source domain that contains the following targets or sub-domains: “the self,” “the object,” and “the psychological effects which result from the sensory qualities of the object.” To map “the linen” domain or source onto what becomes “the self” domain or target, a process of semantic unfolding takes place. In doing so, the mind of the character goes outside the conceptual boundaries of the metonymic domain “room”-inating, whereby she or he first internally acknowledges the object as a distinct physical entity (linen on a shelf), followed by making a metaphoric interpretation (“I am linen on a shelf”).
In Charlotte Stetson Gilman’s short story The Yellow Wall-Paper (1893), there is a woman in her bedroom, and her husband who occupies the room periodically. This bedroom is in a colonial mansion the couple has rented, which is not is good condition. The husband is a physician who insists to his wife that her “nervous” illness is self-induced. He enforces the idea that she must stay in their room and rest rather than engage herself in any physical activity. He also suggests that she try to keep control of her overpowering imaginative capacities, as “letting loose” might worsen her condition. While obsessing about the origins of her illness, the woman becomes increasingly distracted by the old, rotting wall-paper in the room. Here, the object is extremely salient because, among other reasons, it is so unclean. The following is some of her escription of it. “The paint and paper look as if a boys’school had used it. It is stripped off—the paper—on great patches all around the head of my bed…I never saw a worse paper in my life. One of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin. It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough to constantly irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a distance they suddenly commit suicide—plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy them-selves in unheard of contradictions.” This description implies the initial existence of two separate domains or categories, i.e., “the self” and “the bject”, that conceptual merge. As time goes on, the woman descends into what seems a delusional portrayal of herself, trapped (metaphorically, by both her husband and her mental disorder) behind the wall-paper. Thus, not only is the wall-paper unclean, but it also lacks quaintness for this character for whom it has come to symbolize her own misery and suffering in visual and tactile ways. The following lines express this dark emotion-resonating thought process that portrays her unique emotional identification with certain physical properties of the wall-paper. “There are things in that paper that nobody knows but me…It is always the same shape…And it is a woman stooping down and creeping about behind that pattern. I don’t like it a bit…The faint figure behind seemed to shake the pattern, just as if she wanted to get out.”
Eventually, the woman winds up peeling off most of the wall-paper in order to free the “woman within”. “…as soon as it was moonlight and that poor thing began to crawl and shake the pattern, I got up and ran to help her. I pulled and she shook, I shook and she pulled, and before morning we had peeled off yards of that paper. She continues, I don’t like to look out of the window—there are so many of those creeping women…I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did? I’ve got out at last…in spite of you. And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back.” Here, the female figure that was once entrapped behind the wall-paper represents the character’s new psychological state of being emotionally freed from her husband. Her self-concept is portrayed as in-between the Inner Self and the True Self. This is so since the fragile, and yielding self she is in private, with her husband, undergoes a psychological change to be strong and free.
A metaphoric relationship is developed between “the wall-paper” domain or source and what becomes “the self” domain or target, whereby the mind of the character goes beyond the conceptual boundaries of the metonymic domain “room”-inating. In doing this, a semantic unfolding process takes place in real-time in which the character first perceives the object as a physical entity (old, rotting wall-paper), followed by creating a highly personal interpretation (seeing a woman— herself—behind the wall-paper who wants to escape).
Ex-“pending”
3. This metonymic pattern involves “the appeal of the self with a certain object in the home being ‘used up’. This change works synergistically with a pending need or desire to possess some ‘thing’ different or the same thing differently.”
In Rita Dove’s poem Daystar (1986), there is a mother, her napping children, and later her husband in bed with her. The following are opening lines. “She wanted a little room for thinking; / but she saw diapers steaming from the line, / a doll slumped behind the door. / So she lugged a chair behind the garage / to sit out the children’s naps.” These words imply the identification of “self as mother” through the presence of certain objects, as well as the desire to “be as” something else. The diapers possess “cleanness” (Harris, 2000) through the emission of steam, and the doll the character notices is slumped over. Each of these images implies the initial existence of two separate domains or categories, namely “the self” and “the object”, perceived through this character’s visual sense. “Later / that night when Thomas rolled over and / lurched into her, she would open her eyes / and think of a place that was hers /for an hour—where / she was nothing, / pure nothing in the middle of the day.” These lines suggest her strong desire to “be nothing”; her identification with any physical object through role taking is being “used-up” inside her. This is also evident in the lines “she stared until she was assured / when she closed her eyes / she’d see only her own vivid blood.” Here, she expresses a need to retreat deep inside. It seems that this character wants to experience the self as an abstract entity existentially distinct from others, and imbued with private and personally sacred thought, imagery, and emotion. Her self-concept is in-between the Inner Self and the True Self. The self she is in private, with her family, reflects her identity “as mother”, while her True self desires to be free of this role and seemingly any role she might feel obligated to play. Furthermore, her desired inner vision of “her own vivid blood” conveys her deep need to detach herself from this, as well as any, encumbering role.
The metonymic category ex-“pending” is the source domain that contains the following targets or sub-domains: “the self,” “the object,” “appeal of the object by the self diminishing,” “a new object desired by the self,”and “a new interpretation of the old object desired by the self.” The image of “steaming diapers” is a metaphor for “duties of mother.” Likewise, the image of “slumped over doll” is a physical stance that metaphorically conveys the mother’s weariness of her domestic role. The mind of the character transcends the boundaries of the metonymic domain ex-“pending.” In doing this, a semantic unfolding happens in real-time whereby the character first internally acknowledges each object as a distinct physical entity (the diapers and the doll) followed by a subjectively meaningful interpretation (“steaming diapers” as her duty and “slumped over doll” as her weariness).
In Ann Beattie’s short story Janus (1986), there is a married woman named Andrea who is a real-estate agent. She owns a cream colored bowl that she always brings with her when she shows houses to potential buyers. She attributes any sale that she makes to the almost magical presence of the bowl, which she always displays in each home in the best light in the most flattering way. Potential buyers notice it and admire it. They compliment it and sometimes even want to know where they can get one.
According to Andrea, the bowl is not beautiful in the classical sense, but is always empty and shining bright, thus having the attractive quality of cleanness. Andrea’s past lover had given her the bowl. He had given her many other things that were more beautiful but she took a special liking to the bowl while she was still with him. She may have even liked the bowl in some way more than him.
The following lines express her degree of fondness for it. “He had bought her other things before this—things she like more, at first—the child’s ebony and turquoise ring that fitted her little finger; the wooden box, long and thin, beautifully dovetailed, that she used to hold paper clips; the soft gray sweater with a pouch pocket. It was his idea that when he could not be there to hold her hand she could hold her own—clasp her hand inside the lone pocket…But in time she had become more attached to the bowl than to any of his other presents.” Later on, in her marriage to a different guy, she acknowledges to herself a significant goings on - a transformation inside of herself in relation to the bowl, whereby it goes from being a cherished object to a love object (as if another person or animate creature). Thus, there is a “using up” of appeal of the self with the bowl as a physical object.
Here, there is the quality of zaniness since she seems to develop a stronger emotional attachment to this inanimate object than to her husband, whom he comes to feel as though she is cheating on. The following lines express the presence of this internal transformation. “Sometimes in the morning, she would look at him and feel guilty that she had such a constant secret. Could it be that she had some deeper connection with the bowl—a relationship of some kind?…how could she imagine such a thing, when he was a human being and it was a bowl? It was ridiculous…She was confused by these thoughts, but they remained in her mind. There was something with in her now, something real, that she could never talk about.” In the end, there is the feeling that she is becoming one-sided in her thoughts and emotions, moving towards honoring her commitment to one true love—her cream colored bowl. Andrea’s self-concept is portrayed as in-between the Inner Self and True Self, as well as between the Inner Self and the External Real Self. This is so since the selves both private (with her husband) and public (with her clients) reveal a happily married woman who owns a bowl that she values greatly. However, her True Self desires to outwardly express her love for this object as if it was a person.
There is a metonymic relationship between the bowl and the “love of her life.” These two ideas seem integrated as soon as the bowl is first mentioned. This relationship is continuous in that Andrea’s psychological attachment to the bowl gradually takes on this new emotional dimension as “love object.” The source domain ex-“pending” contains at least four target domains. These include “the person Andrea,” “the bowl,” “Andrea’s feelings about the bowl,” and “feelings about the bowl as her ‘love object’.” Taken together, as a collective semantic entity, an ongoing symbolic relationship is implied between Andrea (the self) and her bowl (the object) that transcends the here and now.
Conclusion
The characters in all six analyses have formed a connected kind of knowledge of certain physical objects at home. These objects have acquired a deep emotional importance in their lives through a considerable amount of reflective thought and vision. This quest for personal meaning from the object encompasses three overriding metonymic patterns, namely “calm, cool, & collecting”, “room”-inating, and ex-“pending.” Also, these personal quests can be understood from within the framework of the Essential Self metaphor, whereby each character’s sense or senses of self are revealed. Each character has a unique way of re-interpreting the meaning of the object as profoundly symbolic of her/his own needs, desires, and conflicts. This re-interpretation process is different depending on whether the psychological dynamics of the particular image or scene are metaphoric or metonymic. In the former, this influence is disrupted, at least to some degree, by the character’s seemingly spontaneous psychological transcending of semantic boundaries which define the overriding metonymic domain. In the latter, an overriding metonymic pattern or source retains its categorical influence over the specific self-object relation or target. In both cases, there is an attempt to merge the external, complex symbolism of language with the internal, abstract, and non-verbal domain of human experience that can exist between one’s self and a physical object.
References
Barcelona, A (1998). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and Metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In Dirven, R & Porings, R. (eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (2003, pp. 207-278) . New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beattie, A. (1986). Janus. In Parks, J. G. (Ed.), American short stories since 1945 (pp. 496-499) . New York: Oxford.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Croft, W. (1993). The Role of Domains in Interpretation of metaphors and Metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
Dove, R. (1986). Daystar. In Wanger-Martin, L & Davidson, C. N. (Eds.), The oxford book of women’s writing in the united states (pp. 300-301). New York: Oxford.
Gibbs R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, D. (2000) . The Aesthetics of Consumerism. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M (1999) . Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Sexton, A. (1960). Lullaby. In Ellmann, R. & O’Clair, R. (Eds.), The norton anthology of modern poetry (p.1197) . New York: W. W. Norton.
Six Feet Under: HBO Series, third season (2004).
Stetson Gilman, C. (1892). The yellow wall-paper. In Wanger-Martin, L & Davidson, C. N. (Eds.), The oxford book of women’s writing in the united states (pp. 41-55) . New York: Oxford.
Yeats, W. B. (1914) . The dolls. In Ellmann, R. & O’Clair, R. (Eds.), The norton anthology of modern poetry (pp.125-126) . New York: W. W. Norton.
Acknowledgment
I thank Drs. Sarah Markgraf and Ray Gibbs for their suggestions regarding the content of this paper. I thank Dr. Jackie Behn for her help with the formatting of this paper.