Surveillance, Power, and the Telescope

            As part of the tangent today, we learned that glasses, the telescope and the microscope were all invented and developed during the Elizabethan period.  This factoid couldn’t have been timelier.

            In another of my courses, Forging the Canadian Nation, we have been studying John Richardson’s discovery narrative Wacousta and Foucault’s theory of power and surveillance.  We have talked about how the structure of the fort promotes a full range of visibility and enables the British to spot and anticipate any oncoming attacks from the Native people of the woods.  Additionally, note has been made of the recurring references to “the glass,” otherwise known as the telescope, which extends visibility not only in all directions but over great distances as well.  Providing the British with a serious advantage in some cases, the telescope also seems to highlight the weaknesses of the British garrison.

            Amongst the threats of a new land, the British garrison fears their inability to control open space.  Whenever venturing outside the fort (which doesn’t happen often), soldiers must remain in tight, group formations.  This inability to freely move about the space outside the fort inhibits any advantage that the telescope offers.  At one point in the novel, soldiers in the fort can do nothing but watch, as a troop that has ventured out is ambushed in the distance.  While able to see the ambush, they have no capacity to act on their discovery.  At another point, it is revealed that a friendly ship, approaching the harbour in the nearby town, has been commandeered by the Indians and once again, those stationed in the fort can do nothing to warn the soldiers stationed at that harbour.

            It’s interesting to see how the invention of an instrument that could provide such and amazing advantage for one side is ultimately nullified by the incompetence or fear of its users.  If only the British had two cans with miles of string, they might have been able to use the telescope more effectively and warned their comrades of approaching danger…

Transcendental Signifier

In God we trust.  The motto of the United States, inscribed on every coin and paper bill.  The same phrase that saved old Kris Kringle from being deemed psychologically unfit in Miracle on 34^th Street.  How was this so?  If the American people could stand by a phrase that mentioned a being no more material than Santa Clause, how could they say that the jolly, round man didn’t exist?  The transcendental signifier at work again!

            The transcendental signifier has been a key tool in western thinking for a long time and continues to be in use today.  Essentially the transcendental signifier is an image, concept, idea, etc., which is used as leverage in an argument.  Sounds simple enough.  However, this signifier is extremely complicated in that it is always a presentation of something, which cannot be evoked into being, something we have no ability to personify, something… like God.  Usually associated with political or religious ideologies, the transcendental signifier is used to establish a natural order, to create a hierarchal relationship that suits the self-interests of its employer.  This puts the reader/listener at a disadvantage, as they become subject to the will of this irrevocable figure.  The speaker or text tells you how to read/listen and thus we are subject and controlled.

            After reading and discussing King James’s The True Law of Free Monarchies, it was slightly disturbing (or perhaps a little more than slightly) how often this tactic was deployed. As the full title suggests (The True Law of Free Monarchies: or The Reciprock and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subject… a mouthful), James’s text is looking to establish evidence to support the King’s dominance over the people.  If the seven transcendental signifiers in the title aren’t enough to disadvantage the reader, James, while also using the laws of the kingdom and of nature, builds his argument through what is found in the scriptures – the book of God. 

Michaelangelo's, "The Creation of Adam"
            (... is that James on the left? Wait, no the right?)

            There are a number of things that can be flagged as problematic in this argument.  First, and most obvious, is the fact that James is declaring his superiority has been given to him through the words of God.  Since God is a transcendental signifier, who cannot be interrogated on the matter and is purely subjective, there is no way for the reader to challenge this.  Supplementary to this, as King, James was given the privilege to be one of few to actually have the power interpret the word of God.  This being said, of course he would use the text in his favour.  After listing from the book of Samuel that the King will, “take your sons…also take your daughters…take your fields, and your vineyards and your best olive trees, and give them to his servants… he will take your manservants, and your maidservants…and your asses, and put them to his work… and ye shall be his servants” (qtd. in Fischlin and Fortier 58), James then goes on to say that Paul says (in the scripture) this is “ground no good Christian will, or dare, deny” (58).  Does it sound like the people have much of anything to use in defense?  Just to put the icing on the cake, James adds later that they should acknowledge him as “a judge by God over them, having power to judge them but to be judged only by God” (66).  Yah, that sounds fair.  Scary to think that the King James Version of the Bible is the most popular English translation of the text…

            I think it is interesting to note that Jacques Derrida, who coined the term “transcendental signifier,” also created its oppositional term “différance.”  Différance basically determined that meaning is never absolute when someone speaks it into being.  Derrida asserts that meaning is created out of difference, in a yin-yang effect and if this is true, the fact that these opposing views exist destabilizes meaning, as certain views can accept or reject various aspects of a meaning.  Take that James!

"Battle of Wills"

The Saunders Portrait (Shakespeare, 1603)

I’m troubled. 

Today in class we watched Battle of Wills, a documentary about a man, Llyod Sullivan, and a painting, the Saunders portrait.  The film documents Mr. Sullivan’s encounters with a number of experts, as he investigates whether this inherited piece of art is actually a true portrait of Shakespeare.  The documentary ended without a final verdict, except that it is the most accurate, or viable, portrait that has been found so far.  This is not what worries me.

As the lights came back on at the end of the film and the TA turned to ask if anyone had questions, a remarkable number of people seemed to share a similar line of thought – “so what?” “What if it is a true portrait of Shakespeare, then what?”  There was deep frustration over the film’s lack of purpose.  This is why I am troubled.  In a third-year English course, full of students looking to obtain a major or minor in the field, the topic of cultural value was at stake and it was quickly being buried under a mountain of criticism, claims of meaninglessness.  Are not all these students looking to graduate with a degree of some sort in literary culture?  Yet, digging for the truth about cultural artifacts is being deemed pointless, simply for the capital value, a waste of money, etc.  It has been frustrating enough spending the last three years defending my degree to “outsiders,” but now I have to fight for the importance of literary culture amongst people with the same end goal? Something just didn’t feel right.

What if it is Shakespeare? Who cares? I do.  It’s culture.  If this actually is Shakespeare, we can finally put a face to one of the most prolific and iconic writers of the English language!  It’s culture.  It’s what shapes different groups of people all around the globe and should be of particular interest for English students who been surrounded by his influences for years.  If tomorrow someone claimed they had an actual portrait of Jesus would these people be saying the same thing?  Probably not.  Why? Because it would mean the world finally had a true likeness of a religious icon who has been shaping peoples lives throughout history.  I’m not trying to say that Shakespeare and Jesus are on the same level… although, to each their own… I simply wish to question how so many people can simply discount this historical moment, or movement.

I understand that I’ve started this commonplace book on a negatively charged rant, but this needed to be said.  As a student of English I am passionate about what I study and it throws me off a little when I find others who don’t feel the same.  I understand how in some of these more history-based courses we may be learning about things that are seemingly outdated, but it is important to remember how these events, people, paintings, shape our lives.