RÉDIGER UN COMMENTAIRE

A partir du début du texte 15 ( Going to Meet the Man, James Baldwin)

In her 1994 wall installation entitled Gone: An Historical Romance of a Civil War as It Occurred b'tween the Dusky Thighs of One Young Negress and Her Heart, Kara Walker, an African American artist, critiqued the historical narratives of slavery and the ongoing perpetuation of ethnic stereotypes. Those stereotypes had already been strictured by James Baldwin as early as 1965 in his short story Going To Meet the Man. Both artists revealed that the history of America had been built on racial and social inequalities. In this excerpt, the extradiegetic narrator tells about the violence of a white deputy sheriff on a black activist. The former wants the black protestors to stop singing.The analepsis, then triggered off by the activist, will take the reader in front of Old Julia's house a great many years before, when a first confrontation silently opposed the same characters. As the flashback comes to an end, the reader is finally brought back into the cell. We shall wonder to what extent language, literature or art for the matter can be showcased as an answer to those imprisoning oppositions, those cultural blinders. Not only shall we delve into the ways how the excerpt mimetically shows the evils of the American society but we will also pore over the importance of language to diegetically name them. We shall finally expatiate upon the role of art to indicate how showing and telling make it possible for the reader to feel and lambast such evils.

The excerpt stands as a mimetic reflection of a violent and divisive society.

The whole excerpt is permeated with a realistic register which enables the author to provide the reader with a true-to-life situation which he is invited to assess. The scene is set in an urban place, whether it be in a cell, which « was filled with a terrible odor » (L.1) or in front of Old Julia's house where everything « had been subtly and hideously displaced » (L.38). The entire description is sprinkled with a great many details to enhance verisimilitude. The precisions, for instance, which have accompanied the descriptions of the cell or Old Julia's house in the aforementioned examples bear out how gritty, ugly, disquieting it might eventually turn out to be. Far from an idealized natural landscape which could conjure up freedom, the locale is essentially an enclosed and limiting one where everyday reality does not offer escape and opportunity but conflicts and complications. Such conflicts, between the white deputy sheriff and the black activist, are explicitely expressed with the actions of the sheriff ( « he grabbed his privates » L.11) or the outcome of his violent actions (« The boy [...] with his mouth full of blood, and one eye barely open » L.14), but they are also implicitely bespoken by the discordant and disharmonious ambience which combines silence (« only silence answered him » L.34, « the boy said nothing » L.44) with screams (« he screamed again » L.4, « He yelled » L.33), immobility (« still » L.1, « still and silent » L.35) with uncontrollable movements(« his foot leapt out » L.2, « to tremble » L.52). The verisimilitude of the scene is also enhanced thanks to the characters' speeches which are vernacular or even idiomatic. The agrammaticality of the black activist's speech (« But nobody by that name live here » L.30) or the familiarity of the sheriff's (« she's gone out ? » L.43) keep the situation within the ordinary, the plausible and the identifiable. The white protagonist besides seems to be internally motivated by real-life urges like confusion, hatred and anger standing in stark contrast to idealized lofty feelings. The pettiness of human nature is therefore brought to the fore, and the distance, which the reader can get with a third-person mimesis, places him in the position of a witness able to resort to his critical mind so as to lambast that violent and divisive society.

The excerpt is fraught with manifold violence : not only is it physical it also proves to be verbal and mental. The physical violence is rampant throughout the text : this is made obvious with the physical description of the black activist who « was out » (L.5), « with his mouth full of blood » (L.14), who « looked as though he were dead » (L.50). The rage of the white deputy sheriff is deeply rooted « as though it were a weird, uncontrollable, monstrous howling rumbling up from the depths of his own belly » (L.53). That violence is also verbal with the recurrent use of abuse towards the black activist who is refered to as a « nigger » (L.4) whose « women » are regarded as « black bitches » (L.57). The verbal and physical violence paves the way to a mental one and a reification of the black activist. The latter is deprived of his human condition and is constantly dehumanized whether he be considered as « a goddamn bull » (L.4) or when one of his eyes « [is] glaring like the eye of a cat » (L.15). This dehumanization is also conveyed through the characterization of the black activist : there is no presentation of him as a whole but only a fragmented one. The reader is first told about the activist's « jaw » (L.3), his « privates » (L.12), « his mouth » (L.14), his « eye » (L.14), « his head » (L.51). A rigid distinction between the realms of mind and matter is thus kept : the black activist is here nothing but body parts devoid of any spirituality or soul despite a few religious references in the text. One can indeed notice an allusion to the trinity with the three repetitions of « You had enough ? » (L.2, L.2, L.5), but even these references are perverted : « Jesus » (L.4) turning into « goddamn » (L.4). Little wonder then that the black activist is prevented from any possible elevation : he is kept down all along the scene either on « the floor » (L.14) in the cell or « sitting in a swing » (L.24) in the flashback. A division is therefore created between the activist's spirit and matter/body as a mimesis of the division between the white man and the black man, or the oppressor and the oppressed.

Not only does the excerpt show the evils of the American society but it is also intent on telling them. The diegesis will thus hinge round oppositions in the use of language. The importance of naming shall therefore underline that silencing the other is tantamount to controlling him.

Speech reflects the oppositions which are shown all over the excerpt. The oppressor is here in control of the dialogue. Whether it be in the cell or in front of Old Julia's house he keeps on asking questions : « you hear me ? » (L.1) « You had enough ? » (L.2, L.2,L.5), « you remember Old Julia ? », « Old Julia Home ? » (L.25) « she's gone out ? » (L.43) « you want some chewing gum ? » (L.46). It is worth remarking that the ungrammatical question forms may signal the absence of real communication here. The white deputy sheriff only aims at displaying his power. Most of these questions are besides left unanswered. When they are answered, it is in the negative form (« don't no Old Julia » L.24, », « I don't want nothing you got » L.46) so as to highlight the division between the two characters. Not only does the juxtaposition of oral and written English in the narrative give it a true-to-life touch but it also accentuates the prevailing dichotomy between both characters. The ways how both resort to language also provide an account of their relation to the other or the world for the matter : The white deputy sheriff is mostly abusive (« nigger » L.4) whereas the black activist refers to him as the « white man »(L.11, L.29,L.32, L.42,L.48). The color bar is the key reason for the power in the hands of the white deputy sheriff without its being justified otherwise. The anger, pain inside them has no other ground than this outward difference which is sharpened by the importance of sight. The numerous references to sight (« he was glad no one can see it » (L.6) , « one eye barely open, glaring like the eye of a cat » (L.14), « he looked down at the boy » (L.20), « the boy looked at him » (L.26), « he watched the boy; the boy watched him » (L.31), « the black hole of the door [...] looked like the entrance » (L.40), « the eyes of the pickaninny » (L.41), « the boy looked as though... » (L.50), « he [...] stared at the boy ») somehow places the reader in the position of a witness, guided by the words and silences which punctuate the whole narrative.

The violence in the cell aims to silence the black activist. Depriving him of his words is a way for the white deputy sheriff to cut him off from his community. The songs which the white deputy sheriff endeavours to silence (« you going to make them stop singing now » L.5) are reminiscent of the Underground Railroad songs, gospel songs which bring the black community together as act of resistance against their oppression. Singing their songs is therefore regarded as an act of assertion, which the white deputy sheriff does his utmost to eradicate. A similar will could be made out in the way the white deputy sheriff names the others : refering to the black activist as a « nigger »(L.4) is a way for him to rub out the latter's humanity, refusing to call the black activist's grand-mother by her full names (« You remember Old Julia ? [...] My grand-mother's name was Mrs. Julia Blossom. Mrs Julia Blossom » L.15) is a similar way of belittling her, refusing her a social place in the American society. On the contrary, The black activist's repetition of her grand-mother's name is a claimed act of assertion : not only is she given back a family name but she is endowed with a social position, as a married woman. It is worth noticing the name chosen by the author to characterize the grand-mother :« Blossom » which refers to the state of flowering, conjures up beauty standing out against a gritty setting. The future prosperity suggested in this naming echoes the reference to the « kids »(L.17) used to mention the black activist's companions. Many of the black activist's actions are associated with the future (« you going to make » L.5, « those kids ain't going to stop singing » L.16, « we going to keep on singing » L.16) whereas those of the white deputy sheriff are often related to the past (« and suddenly remembered him » L.21. Youth, prosperity, beauty is on the black activist's side as a sharp contrast to the ugliness,and incapacitating past of the white deputy sheriff. His inability to voice his trauma leads him to resort to violence as a will to stop the emancipating movement set into motion, and throws into relief his impotence.

The mimesis and diegesis displayed in this excerpt make it possible for the reader to feel the life-giving power of language. Through the unifying function of singing evoked in the narrative, a reflection upon the role of art is also initiated. Art is then presented as a possibility of emancipating from reality and finally stands as an eye-opener.

Amidst the rampant brutal divisions, amongst the inability to communicate between both characters and communities, singing is held as the only unifying element in the narrative. However divisive it may first be with the white deputy sheriff, singing is eventually an act of assertion from the black community. In spite of these differences, made explicit with the eight occurrences of the coordinator BUT and the two occurrences of the coordinator YET, the unity of the black community is maintained thanks to their unstoppable singing. In spite of the fragmentation of the black activist, presented through fragmented parts of his body, a feeling of unity may be perceived with the eighteen occurrences of the coordinator AND. The unique « we »(L.17) in the text enhances that community-belonging feeling and restores the wholeness of the black activist, of the black community. It may also be added that the prevalent effet du réel makes it possible for the narrative to be one with reality even though the latteremancipates from the former, as if it everything « had been subtly and hideously displaced » (L.38). Being a plausible mirror to the American society, the excerpt is however a fictional version of it. James Baldwin used fiction to address reality. In this excerpt, The confrontation between a black activist and the white deputy sheriff then becomes a confrontation between one who is a generic oppressed black man « nigger » (L.4), a generic young man « the boy »(L.24,..) and another who is a generic «white man » (L.11,...), a generic experienced man («Old Julia had been on of his mail-order year », L.20), a generic oppressor who « wanted to go over to [the black activist] and pick him up and pistol whip him until the boy's head burst open like a melon » L.50). : While the black activist is not endowed with any name in this excerpt to make him epitomize the oppressed, the name « Julia Blossom » is an epitome of natural beauty, youth facing cultural pervertion and dirtiness. The first name« Jesse »(L.50) is a biblical reference enabling to transcend the constructed reality : Jesse is essentially known as David's father in the Bible, and appears in the verses regarded as prophecy of the advent of Jesus. As such, it makes the filiation, which is suggested in the excerpt with the grand mother, the child, even more meaningful, and may foretell the advent of something new : the empowerment of the African American. The excerpt combines reality and fiction, verisimilitude and metaphors together to artistically voice the inexpressible and denounce the actual failings of the American society. Through the imprisonment it imposes, the American idea, dream has become a « nightmare » (L.36,L.37).

The very structure of the excerpt calls attention to the prevalent imprisonments : the oppressed violently imprisoned by the oppressors, or even the oppressors imprisoned in their own ethnic stereotypes. The analepsis which brings the readers in front of Old Julia's house is framed by the scene(s) in the cell : the excerpt starts and ends in a prison. An obvious dichotomy is set between both scenes insofar as one is set inside whereas the other is outside. An analogy is nonetheless obvious with the impossibility for the black man to go out from the cell, and the same impossibility for the white man to go into the house. Such impossibilities are emblematic of their imprisonments. The very narrative structure of this excerpt indeed suggests that the white deputy sheriff's racism is not only irrational but also the result of repression : this repression is exemplified with the resurgence of the past (« He [...] suddenly remembered him » L.21), a past which hampers the present and imprisons the oppressor in some sort of psychological trauma. This trauma could be betrayed by the body of the white deputy sheriff who « was shaking » (L.6) « too weak to stand » (L.57) « [feeling] himself violently stiffen » (L.57) to finally « [drop] his hands » (L.59) as a sign of impotence. The relationship of oppression may then prove to be more dehumanizing to the oppressor than to the oppressed. The white deputy sheriff's anger (« rage » L.52) entrapped inside him (« weird, uncontrollable, monstrous howling rumbling up from the depths of his own belly » L.53) cannot be voiced out (« something deep in deep and deep in his memory was stirred, but whatever was in his memory eluded him » L.8) and ends up in screams (« he screamed again » L.4, « he yelled » L.33, « he howled » L.55) and brutal violence (« Jesse wanted to go over to him and pick him up and pistol whip him until the boy's head burst open like a melon » L.50). The impossibility of voicing it out is bespoken in the absence of communication between both characters (« The boy said nothing » L.44).

Not only does the excerpt mimetically show the evils of the American society but it is also intent on naming them. Hinging round oppositions in the use of language, the diegesis brings to the fore that silencing the other is tantamount to controlling him.The mimesis and diegesis displayed in this excerpt make it possible for the reader to feel the power of language, literature and art for the matter. Such power might be a way for the oppressed to enfranchise from their oppressors, and a way for the oppressors to emancipate from the shackles of their ethnic stereotypes. As Langston Hughes wrote it in one of his poems this may Let America be America again. The land that never has been yet -
And yet must be-the land where every man is free.