The Book of Salt: A Novel by Monique Truong, is centered around a gay, Vietnamese cook who lands in Paris and becomes the household chef for Gertrude Stein and her lover Alice B. Toklas. Although the themes and interest of the novel appear anthropocentric in nature- race, sexuality, historicism, diaspora, and postcoloniality- the presence of animals threaded and woven into the novel demonstrate a perversion of zoomorphism and anthropomorphism that contribute to broader themes within novel. At the beginning of the novel, Bihn, the protagonist, walks the reader through the moving process- from France to America- taken by his two American Mesdames in Paris, and describes the process of choosing which “cargo” to take with them and which cargo would be acceptable in America: “When my Mesdames first began preparing for the journey, they had wanted to bring Basket and Pépé along with them. The SS Champlain gladly accommodated dogs and assorted pets, just as long as they were accompanied by a first-class owner. The problem, however, was America.” Then the protagonist goes on a page later to compare himself to the poodle: “Every morning, my Mesdames insisted on washing Basket in a solution of sulfur water. . . . I could wash and dress myself, thank you. Though, like Basket, I too had a number of admirers.” These two excerpts, as well as a few others I will introduce throughout, demonstrate the protagonist’s conscientiousness (and I argue the conscientiousness of all non-white humans during that time period) towards being treated much like the house pet- where worth is tied to animal-like servitude and the “animal” is at the mercy of their human. Animals are used to illustrate the construction of subjectivity and identity in a postcolonial era.
I wish not to imply, or in any way, want to suggest that immigrants, migrants, or non-whites are animals. Instead, this analysis aims to point out that non-whites, such as Bihn, found a comfortable, safe, and intimate space within society by managing a delicate balance between human and animal in the eyes of their employers. I mentioned earlier that this is a perversion of zoomorphism- giving animal qualities to humans- and anthropomorphism- attributing human characteristics to animals-however, both and neither are taking place in the novel. The Mesdames are treating Bihn in much the same way people treat their cats and dogs. It is not that Bihn himself is an animal displaying human qualities or visa-versa, it is that his Stein and Toklas do not differentiate the treatment of Bihn from that of the dogs- well, actually, the treatment of the dogs might be better. There is a long history of non-whites being seen as animals. James Baldwin, in Stranger in the Village, imagines the first sighting of black men by Europeans and at “the promptness with which they decided that these black men were not really men but cattle.” Tejo Cole, in his article “Black Bodies: Rereading James Baldwin’s “Stranger in the Village,” remarks on words that haunt him in a 1821 essay written by William Hazlett called “The Indian Jugglers,” where he describes the men he sees as “wonderful animal[s].” Anyone reading this blog, I assume, already knows that people with brown skin were not considered human beings, but instead, commodities to be bought and sold for a profit. Although Bihn is not ‘bought and sold’ in the way slaves were, he is also not treated entirely as a full and functioning human due to his immigrant status.
Throughout the novel, Truong reveals the pet-like treatment of Bihn through microaggressions around his name, sexuality, and servitude.
The pet will be loved and adored as long as it remains in
servitude to its owner- without a voice, but always listening;
without security, but always protecting.
Early in the novel, Bihn notes that “none of them...has called me by my given name” because they don’t care- the owner/employer has already named him “Thin Bihn”; a name given to him by Gertrude Stein because she did not care to learn how to properly pronounce his real name- a name never revealed to the reader. On the surface, the act is endearing- parents name their new babies and pet owners name their pets. The act solidifies the union between the humans. It’s both ownership and belonging. A deeper look however, reveals the naming and renaming of Bihn as equal to the African American erasure of names that tied them to their culture. By giving Bihn his “American name,” as he calls it in the novel, they are removing him from his culture and ‘otherness’.
There really is no better demonstration of the interest in the animality of Bihn than when, during a trip to Bilignin, an intoxicated guest asks Bihn “Are you circumcised?” and Bihn internally asks “Why do they always ask this question?” The narrator, Bihn, goes on to say “I could only assume that their curiosity about my male member is a by-product of their close association with animal husbandry. Castrating too many sheep could make a man clinical and somewhat abrupt about such things.” Bihn’s reasoning leads him to believe that the guest, when comparing his (the guest) own humanness against another living thing, saw the same “otherness” in Bihn that he sees in sheep, and therefore, did not find it uncouth to ask about his manhood. As a matter of fact, as Bihn points out, no one seems to find it odd because he is asked on several occasions. Dog breeders also find it easy to ask about the manhood or womanhood of a dog bread and asking if an animal is “fixed” is commonplace. A question like, “Did anyone ask the animal if it wants to be fixed or discuss it?” moves me into the mindset of Jacques Derrida on the ontology of animals. Here, the reader is taken right back to Baldwin’s “men are not men but cattle” reference because people do not discuss such private, intimate details within rooms full of people; however, those people will discuss private matters out loud about animals and “others.” Bihn’s response, to look up at the harvest moon and walk away, supports Julia Kristeva’s take on the aloofness of foreigners as a defense mechanism in the book Strangers to Ourselves, in the chapter titled “Toccata and Fugue for the Foreigner”, by stating, “Indifference is the foreigner’s shield. Insensitive, aloof, he seems, deep down, beyond the reach of attacks and rejections that he nevertheless experiences with the vulnerability of a medusa. Truong further supports the theory of non-privacy for “others” in her description of the grey-city bird dying in the presence of gawking and prodding children and adults. They gather and watch the intimate act of death and mock the bird’s attempts to survive despite it’s broken wing. In “Where Have All the Natives Gone?: The Inauthentic Native”, the author describes the act of watching as “the primary agency of violence” because it creates the “passive victim on display,” , naked, which both perfectly describes people watching the helpless bird die and to people watching the public humiliation and dehumanization of Bihn with questions that leave him vulnerable and figuratively naked, or undress, in the presence of others.
There is another section of the novel that describes the way Miss Toklas inspects Bihn’s hands everyday, the way a dog owner inspects the paws and nails of a purebred animal before a show. She even affectionately calls him by his breed- her “Little Indochinese”- and the narrator points out that she most likely identifies him in this way when she is angry and mocks the possessive “her” she adds to the beginning of the name. There is also a little dig at who is the native when the narrator says “we Indochinese belong to the French. You two may live in France, but you are still Americans,” which still deems the immigrant as someone who belongs to someone. The question of nativism leads me to my last point- can the pet ever return “home?”
It is often said that a domesticated animal cannot return to its original home because it no longer knows how to survive in that environment. With that in mind, I turn to Bihn and to the American madames who are all faced with returning “home.” Home for Toklas and Stein, American, does not present as much of a conundrum because they retained so much of their “Americanness” while in France, and were known for it. On the other hand, Bihn, who was essentially kicked out of his home, does not view his childhood house as a home. “We swore we would not die under the eaves of his house” is a mantra repeated by Bihn as he reflects on the death of his beloved mother, which demonstrates that “home” is not a place he identifies with, especially since his only real connection to “home,” his mother, is gone. For some immigrants, home is a construct and home can be established wherever they choose. This seems to be the case for Bihn who describes himself as a migratory bird.
Even now, I do not know for sure if zoomorphism or anthropocentrism are the right terms to describe the relationship between Bihn and his employers, however, there is certainly a connection between their treatment and Bihn animality.
No comments:
Post a Comment