My UWCSEA Learning Journey

What contextual (social/cultural/political etc) considerations* does the section you have examined engage with and how?

In ‘Everybody Speaks English’, Ang creates a dramatic monologue in the voice of an elder male teacher English teacher arguing to a young female teacher about the use of Standard English and rejection of Singlish in the classroom with reference to the historical backdrop of colonialism. The main perspective of this older English teacher sheds light on the community that believes that Singlish should be diminished and more ‘western’ English. However, this is not because western English should be idealised, but that Singaporeans portray how they have become pushed through their history of colonisation through mastering the coloniser’s language. The ways in which Ang constructs the dramatic monologue nuances our understanding of the speaker’s opinions, which gives insight into the contrasting intergenerational and intragenerational divide between how Singaporeans would like to display their patriotism on a local and international level.

Throughout the monologue, Ang creates a stylised voice of the older English teacher through heightening the register of his English and references to portray his larger social opinion through his voice. And displays how this English teacher represents a part of Singaporean population who believe that Singaporean’s should master Standard English as a way to look stronger post-colonisation. Through the use of superfluous and complicated English, using words such as ‘serf’ with the assumption that the implied listeners wouldn’t know it or and drawn out phrases like ‘benevolently pragmatic employment of the language’ which replace common words with over-complicated synonyms, we can see how this speaker wants to display how he himself has ‘mastered the language of the coloniser’ as he wishes other English teachers teach students how to ‘outwit them [colonisers] at their own game’ through helping students develop sophisticated English and put aside Singlish. This point of view showcases the approach that perhaps many elder generation Singaporeans take towards establishing patriotism post-colonialism, wherein eradicating Singlish for Standard English, ensures that they have not ‘relinquished control over English’ and ‘English’ does not ‘use’ them. However, Ang makes us question the reliability of the point of view of the speaker through developing his character as one that could seem condescending through the potentially superior light he sees himself when he asks questions like “Are you familiar with the term ‘preposition’?” or “You do not know who Macaulay is? For shame” where the demeaning nature of the questions makes us question whether his opinion is that of a larger group of elder generation Singaporeans or that of just one overly-conservative traditionalist.

Interestingly, considering this text as a larger part of the chapbook, this idea juxtaposes the ideas of other Singaporeans of this teacher’s generation which are hinted at earlier. For example, in the opening of Bang My Car, Ang shows the commonly seen ‘Uncle’s’ sense of defiance towards ‘westernised’ English used by the upper class Singaporean by phonetic representations of Singlish and allusions to cultural movements. When the local roughly comments on how the upper class Singaporean dares to “Speak Good English” with him, Ang alludes to the cultural movement in Singapore to eradicate the Singlish dialect, and through the representation of the local’s hostility towards the movement and rejects the idea of conforming to the more ‘high-class’ westernised English. Here, we are shown the intragenerational conflict between the elder generation, where one side believes patriotism can be shown as a proud usage of Singlish and the other believes patriotism is actually seen in the mastery of Standard in English. This leads us to question whether this divide is a product of different educational experiences or opportunities in Singapore following the colonisation or whether Singaporeans face a degree of an identity crisis in how best to be themselves being a relatively recently established independent country.

In a larger context, Ang uses the extended reference of Macaulay’s minute to discuss the idea of linguistic imperialism and prompt a reflection as to how far Singapore has been a pawn of linguistic imperialism. In the monologue, the teacher extensively discusses Macaulay’s minute which refers to The English Education Act which was aimed at teaching Indian locals English in colonial India.’ The Empire considered it the responsibility of the superior races to bring civility to the savage natives through teaching them their foreign cultures and languages and establish linguistic imperialism. With this explanation, the teacher compares Macaulay’s minute, and thus the language of English ‘a language of science’ in the sense that it is a ‘machine of cultural subjugation’ for previously colonised countries. This particularly philosophical, honest and sweeping statement evokes an impactful moment – to what extent is Singapore a victim of linguistic imperialism and to what extent should Singaporeans embrace the ‘language of Standard english in contrast to Singlish’? The English language that seems to permeate the interpersonal and cultural opinions formed of individuals in society.

 Linguistic imperialism is seen as a way of one nation exerting power or influence over others. It “Assumes the active promotion of the language by the dominant class as an active expression of power of the powerful over the powerless.”

Interesting Idea’s from Yuyu’s Wild Geese Response:

It was interesting to see how Ogai observed these changes instead of just promoting it, despite having his own experience overseas, and the countries atmosphere heading towards change and what they called, ‘progress.’

I realised how he is not only expressing his own thoughts but is also foreshadowing, and hinting the metaphor of the wild geese. The sentence, ‘Without any logical connection, the woman of Muenzaka came into my mind.’ from chapter 24, shows the narrator’s intention to hint the metaphor of the wild geese which could not fly as Otama. Also, with him being the narrator and a character at the same time, his thoughts as a character have more value than the other characters in a sense, since it shows the accuracy of his storytelling as well.

Ogai seems to percieve the western influence as something that we should stop and think more about, rather than just accepting everything in order to catch up with their power.

Interesing Idea’s from Anda’s Wild Geese Response:

As readers, we interpret a sense of female empowerment through Otama’s journey in resisting her role as an obedient mistress. However, this might well be the product of our time

There is almost a sense of irony when Ogai had the hero, as perceived by westerners, slice open a symbolism of western influence to save the linnets. The birds are symbolic of Otama, who could then be seen as a symbolism of Japan from her obedience to classes and duty. This is allegorical of how Japan is training their youth through western education to gain true independence and drive the western superiority out of their lands.

The storytelling’s paradoxical mix of first person narrative and omniscience raises suspicions: does the novel recount an actual love story by which Ogai was never a part of, or a fabricated event in which Ogai romanticized the outcasting of western influence?

With The Wild Geese in mind, discuss with a peer which of the concepts above are involved in understanding the creation of meaning between a text and its context? 

• The text can be seen as a representation in two ways. It is a representation of the transformation of the time period in Japan, of Mori’s life (as it moved from 1880-1912) and the values of society, as we seen in the allegorical nature of the text. It can also be seen as transformative of a reader, for those in our time period, where where understanding the deeper socio-cultural and historical contexts of the work change how we see the misleadingly ‘stagnant’ storyline.
• Furthermore, the concepts we can link together in this text with regards to Mori is that of Perspective and Identity. Mori, subtly, depicts his own strong viewpoint and perception of Japan’s society and events in the story through how his own identity that has been gained from life has shaped his perspective on Japan…

From your examination of the novel’s narrative point of view and historical context, and from your application of New Historical Theory as a critical lens, what do you think is Ogai Mori’s perspective of Japan and its relationship with the West at this time, and what aspects of the story have given you these ideas?

New Historical theory thinks about the retelling of history itself: “…questions asked by traditional historians and by new historicists are quite different…traditional historians ask, ‘What happened?’ and ‘What does the event tell us about history?’ In contrast, new historicists ask, ‘How has the event been interpreted?’ and ‘What do the interpretations tell us about the interpreters?’. New Historicism holds that we are hopelessly subjective interpreters of what we observe.

Applying a ‘New Historical’ Perspective in The Wild Geese:

The Wild Geese was written in a period of time where Japan was becoming increasingly aware of international influences and was understanding how to balance Western ideas with Japanese Culture. Ogai wrote The Wild Geese in 1912, around the time where Japan had established it’s adoption of things Western, however, this story was set in 1880, when Japan was still understanding the West. In this time, Ogai gained experiences in the East and in the West himself, where he grew to adopt the idea of resignation and antagonism towards naturalism. We can see how The Wild Geese is a culturally historical and personally historical product of this time in Japan. Culturally, this is seen in scattered references to the West, such as the Parasol Otsune sees Otama wearing which catalyses her suspicion, Suezo’s rejection of the imported canaries in preference for the native linnets, the characterisation of the scary and bad policeman’s Western Shoes.  I think the historical depiction of the timeframe is captured in Ogai’s personal implicit opinions of the Western Influence on Japan, for instance, when the novel mentions renovations to look civilized like “new boards over the ditch replacing the broken and warped ones” or a “racetrack/bicycle track created by an unusual transformation ruining the areas around a pond”, Mori seems to be skeptical as to how necessary these changes were, which would accord with the fact that Ogai became a staunch supporter of things Japanese later in his life. In the end, the author appears to be lamenting the fact that the area around a beautiful pond was sacrificed in the name of progress for what he feels was no good reason. These passages directly reflect a strong similarity between the feelings of the narrator and Ogai himself. From a new historic perspective, perhaps, the book represents the tension that Mori faced in his own life as he tried to balance the creeping influence of the West on Japan is reflected in the several instances of heightened tension in the book, for example, the dilemma between silence and communication (Otama-her father, Okada-Otama), Duty and Freedom (Okada’s education-Otama), or restraint and explicitness (Otama’s passion for Okada-her station as a mistress).

Mori’s narrative style and authorial intent:

“Mori employs embedded narrative… a convenient framework within which to tell a story, much like an oral storyteller might, by diminishing the narrator to all but essential elements, and alternating between characters within the first person perspective. The narrator is thus a nameless observer external to the events of the novel, devoid of accoutrements that add flesh to a character. As a minimalist construct that presents little to obstruct the reader from directly identifying with his experience as a voyeur, the narrator’s perspective easily draws the reader into the psychological mechanism of the novel.” (www.pacificdreams.org/)

1st person narrative, but 3rd person omniscient impersonal description for much of novel which allows the reader to forget about the person behind the voice.  However, the novel is framed by the retrospective, more personal tone of the narrator (writing 35 years after the event), and intrusive, judgmental, empathetic comments can be found scattered throughout the text.

Another way of looking at the novel then is to see it as not being about Otama, Okada and Suezo but actually about the narrator, as a character as well as storyteller, i.e. what we learn about him (despite being nameless) and how the way he tells the story reflects on his character.  For example, his explanation of how he got the information for the story does not explain his ‘knowledge’ of Suezo and Otsune’s relationship.  Clearly he uses poetic license and draws some parallels with his own life as we all do when we recount an event, but the narrator makes some huge imaginative leaps, as if creating his own Chinese style romantic story (but with a clear moralistic ending?).  This could also suggest his vicariousness, living out a fantasy through someone else’s experience (perhaps that’s what the writer is doing through the character of Okada who resembles him in some ways!)

How is Mori’s sense of authorial perspective on the influence of the West on Japan nuanced by narrative perspectives in the story?

Mori’s narrative perspective can be considered to shape the story into an allegory, which displays Mori’s authorial perspective.

Allegory, a symbolic fictional narrative that conveys a meaning not explicitly set forth in the narrative. An allegory may have meaning on two or more levels that the reader can understand only through an interpretive process.

As seen in the references to the West, we could argue that Mori told this story to elaborate on his own opinions of the relationship between Japan and the West. The allegory could be that the character of Otama is a representation of Japan, and her struggles to find her independence matched the struggle the country had to face regarding the western influence. Suezo, could be the Western ideals that trap people in it’s superficial need for grandeur and status. Mori’s ‘nameless observer’ narrative style helps to present this allegory, and his perspective, by taking an intimate but ‘bird’s eye view’ to discuss the pervasive effect of the West on Japan. An example of Mori packing his narrative perspective with some personal judgemental comments to highlight his authorial perspective. Mori’s reference to the killing of the snake, where Mori who has been well-versed in life in the East and the West, played with the connotation of a snake, which in the West is considered suspicious and sly, and in the East is considered a ‘creature that brings a divine curse’ or a ‘fresh world’ through the shedding of it’s skin. Here, we can see how Mori has subtly implied, through the perspective, how he believes that the Western influence on Japan has created a revolutionised country, however, he does not think highly of the permeance of Western ideals on how it has affected the fabric of Japanese society.

What do you think is Ogai Mori’s perspective of Japan and its relationship with the West at this time, and what aspects of the story have given you these ideas?

In summary:

•  Viewing Mori’s writing as a product (culturally to Japan & personally to Mori) of a historical period of time, as per the New Historic theory, we are shown how Mori implied his rejection of Western ideals and products, and discusses the dilemma’s faced in his society on adapting to Western behaviours or maintain their own, as seen in the inner tension in the lives of the characters.
• Through the use of narrative perspectives and points of view, Mori combines his own personal experience with the east and the west to demonstrate how he believes the West’s influence on Japan caused a rift between the common morals/ values of a Japan.