M.M.Bakhtin, a Russian formalist critic, has described the "carnivalesque":
Carnivalesque literature uses elements of parody, mimicry, bodily humor and
grotesque display to achieve the ends of carvival, that is to jostle "from below"
the univocal, elevated language of high art and decorous society.
Does Anand use the mode of the "carnivalesque" to critique Indian society in the 1930s?
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It seem to me there are aspects of the carnivalesque in Untouchable. The prominent aspect is, as Stallybrass and White characterize it in The Politics and Poetics of Transgression, “both a populist utopian vision of the world seen from below, and a festive critique, through the inversion of hierarchy, of the “high” culture.” Anan’s portrait of Bakha reflects this inversion: “It seemed to suit him, to give him a homogeneity, a wonderful wholeness to his body, so that you could turn around and say: “Here is a man.” That homogeneity, portrayed as a strength, is in direct contrast to the character of those above Bakha in the hierarchy who are portrayed as a heterogeneous and grotesque group cursing, swearing, and defecating in the street. Bakha, in Anan’s utopian portrayal, becomes the high of Bakhtin’s carnivalesque inversion.
Yes. Anand's book depicts the horrible reality of the heirarchical structure in Indian society where the Untouchables are treated as subhuman. The prohibitions and restrictions upon them are so severe that not only are they subjected to lives of degradation and humiliation, but they are dependent on the pity of the upper caste for food and water. Anand critiques these realistic images of society with the carnivalesque arrival of Ghandi. Bakha forgets class restrictions and "actually touches a few people" as he rushes along with the crowd, (comprised of people of all different classes, races and creeds), to hear Ghandi speak. Ghandi preaches for the elimination of untouchability and for the acceptance of the fact that "the rich and the poor are the same." After the speech, members of the crowd engage in "free and familiar" discourse without the impediments of class barriers.
In response to Ian Wolff's statement that Bakha perhaps has "a populist utopian vision of the world seen from below" (Stallybrass & White), we would have to ask how self-conscious Bakha is. Does he have a vision? Or are his actions in the novel--the "inversion"--the actions of a sweeper who tries to enjoy what he can: the morning sun, hockey, observing religious rites, smoking, being present at Gandhi's speech. Because he does these things, he resists the social codes, interrogates them. Anand uses him as a figure to critique the status quo. But what is Bakha's consciousness? Lori accurately observes Bakha's "democratic" behavior in the "carnival" of the crowd (all distinctions lost). I agree that those on the bottom, like Bakha, jostle the order "from below."
Post a Comment