Imaginary Homeelands: Literature as Freedom
Salman Rushdie’s “Imaginary Homelands” calls for freedom from a physical homeland and the restrictions that some impose on those physical space (e.g. that one must choose one, that one must adhere to the version and regulations dictated within that space by politicians for instance). Rushdie says essentially that (1) the homelands people imagine as static and pertaining to them are only imagined to be (which is limiting, but including diasporas and nation-states alike) and (2) that there is a higher status of imaginary which itself can become a freeing homeland, not attached to anything but the space in between identities and varied realities. He imagines that there is infinite possibilities that literature can provide, but often even many artists do not take advantage of the full spectrum of potential. The final image from a Bellow novel clearly puts forth this notion, with the concept of a barking dog often misinterpreted, but perhaps still clamoring in protest about the limit of his experience (21). Rushdie’s comment that “literature is self-validating”(14) goes hand in hand with this potentiality as he sees potential to reach beyond just audiences that can relate most to the experiences in the material (20), and
I remembered concepts from former classes while reading this piece. First, Politics of Africa and the Global South’s understanding of the rising divides between the physical, intellectual, and spiritual realm first described by Descartes. Second, I recalled a high school English course where we analyzed the argument Emily Style made about the ideal curriculum being a combination of “windows and mirrors.” These courses intersected in this piece for me because of Rushdie’s reference to the higher realm where humans had the ability to attain through literature combined with a new metaphor for the mirror, one of many shards.
Style used "mirror" as a way to reference material that reflected students’ own reality and identities. Rushdie talks about shards of the mirrors that reflect the individual’s experience, but can also be imprinted on (when crystallized in words for instance) for others to gain one piece of the whole reality. In some ways, Rushide using the image of an imprinted shard is like that of a window into other people’s reality according to Style, but in others, this image serves to make a different point. This difference is especially gleaned when Rushide points out that from “broken mirrors, some...fragments have been irretrievably lost” (11). Just like the history books or politician’s narratives that can irrevocably distort certain truths, some people’s stories who were never recorded, or other perspectives banned and destroyed can never be unearthed again. Of the cycling of around 7 billion people on this planet, only a fraction of lives will become “noteworthy” and the reality is that this limits future understanding of world orders and human potential. But it is only with some distance from the micro (individual) experience that broader truths and senses of reality can be gleaned (15). If enough written narratives, fictitious and historical, were written in such a way, the invisible lines would be transcended and would be able to resonate with a “redescribing a world... [to take] the necessary first step towards changing”(14). While writers are not sages (12) reproducing exact instructions or tellings of the world, they are creators of entryways (doors, windows, etc. if you will) into a larger human capacity for existence.
Comments
Post a Comment