INTRODUCTION
In the essay, “Censorship and the Imposition of Form”, Pierre Bourdieu begins with a definition for the word ‘skewed’. He states that when used in a grammatical context, it points to phrases which first seem to introduce a particular meaning, but go on to denote an entirely different one (Bourdieu, 1991). This idea is introduced by Bourdieu so that he develops a debate regarding the potential of language to establish authority, secure a powerful position, structure prospects for emblematic profit and establish limitations within a given field.
Bourdieu writes that censorship is never quite as perfect or invisible as when each agent has nothing to say apart from what he is objectively authorized to say: in this case he does not even have to be his own censor because he is, in a way, censored once and for all, through the forms of perception and expression that he has internalized and which impose form on all his expressions (Bourdieu, 1991). He indicates that censorship should not be misinterpreted, that it is the structure of the field on its own, which governs expression by governing both its form and access to it (Bourdieu, 1991) and not a legal proceeding that is specifically put in place to repress any offence taken up from a kind of language used. There are two angles to which one can view censorship, one being the structural censorship and the other being self-censorship.
This structural censorship is implemented through a medium of sanctions of the field, operational as a market on which different expressions all form at different prices. It is imposed on all the creators of symbolic goods including whoever is authorized to speak for it, whose authoritative discourse is subject to the norms of official propriety than any other, as well those occupying dominant position to either silence, or to a rather shocking outspokenness (Bourdieu, 1991). Self-censorship, on the other hand, is often a conscious act as a response to some internal pressures, cognitive or otherwise. He therefore asserts that there is minimal distinction between how something is said and the content that is actually said, and that censorship is also the form in which the content is in, with the two, form and content, being intertwined inevitably.
The ideas generated from the text by Bourdieu are power, which comes about from the imposition of form and from truth as a form, whereby when we take into accounted the example ‘skewed; as stated in the text, the theorist has the power to skew the meaning of a word to be taken in that context, and if one tried to replace the meaning into another context then he would find it difficult, that is power, not to change the meaning of a word, but to give it an implied meaning in a specific context (Bourdieu, 1991). Another idea is warning, whose nature stems from the ability of theorist, while using the theory, to set himself in relation to the reader and at the same time conceal that relation of power by the language he uses. Language in this way is seen as an act of emblematic violence through inevitable censorship and imposition of form. The imposition of form is in itself a warning by its elevated nature, indicating its sovereign distance from all determinations, even from the ‘isms’ which reduce the irreducible unity of thought and logical class of the system (Bourdieu, 1991). The theorist by the words he uses, warns the reader about some expectations and with regard to the context in which the words were used. The final idea is subtlety, where what is said, how it is said and in retrospect what is not said, and the context of its omission all come into play. Bourdieu states that by using ordinary words in other ways, reviving subtle truths lost through routine usage, the correlation between words into the principle in which philosophical alchemy stands or fall is turned (Bourdieu, 1991).
In book one of the novel, the sun also rises by Ernest Hemingway, set in a post-war Europe, in Paris specifically, the author gives an early warning to the potential prevalence of promiscuity and alcoholism. Jacob Barnes, the narrator, begins by describing Robert Cohn, a rich Princeton- graduate Jew, with a low self-esteem and an unsuccessful marriage, who moves to Paris after swindling most of his inheritance with a woman, Frances, who is also a writer like Cohn. Jake, as the narrator is referred to, doesn’t seem to like Cohn, a supposed former Princeton middleweight boxing champion, very much, but the author puts it very subtly by stating, “I mistrust all frank and simple people, especially when their stories hold together, and I always had a suspicion that perhaps Robert Cohn had never been middleweight boxing champion, and that perhaps a horse had stepped on his face, or that maybe his mother had been frightened or seen something, or that he had, maybe, bumped into something as a young child” (Hemingway, 1926).
The subtlety continues when by omission, Hemmingway decides to refer to Georgette as a ‘girl’ that Jake picks up, until someone else refers to her as an ‘actual harlot’ (Hemingway, 1926). This is rather not surprising since as they were later to be referred to as the ‘lost generation’, Paris and Europe was at the time characterized by a lot of promiscuity and sexual adventurers by many young men and women after World War I, a warning the reader gets from the beginning of the novel itself. Jake turns out to be sick, an injury that again by omission, Hemmingway lets the readers subtly conclude on his/ her own as to what it may be but leaves him impotent, upon which he subtly turns down her sexual advances.
Jake is not so subtle about the terrible set of teeth that Georgette has, and neither is Georgette about Frances’ talkativeness when they meet. While dancing, Jake meets Brett, also known as Lady Ashley, a promiscuous two-time divorcee with whom she had a romantic relationship in the and who she has never gotten over. Hemmingway implies the power which the love that Jake has for Brett makes him cry at night just thinking about her. They seem to have been in love as Jake asks on the Taxi ride home if she loves him, and she answers, “Love you? I simply turn to jelly when you touch me”.
When Cohn asks Jake about the next day, he tries to explain that she is getting a divorce in order to marry another man upon which after getting a bit cross with Jake for telling him to “go to hell”, he admits to falling in love with her (Hemingway, 1926). Hemmingway had given a warning to the emotional state of Cohn, who had been made to feel different as a Jew at Princeton, and as a result had suffered a blow on his self-esteem, probably the reason why he got cross with Jake for something so trivial. Brett later blows off a date with Jake, after all, she had been drunk when they planned it, so fair warning to the reader, and when he later runs into Cohn at a café, Frances shows up and humiliates Cohn for wanting to leave her. Jake leaves, unable to take it (Hemingway, 1926).
Brett shows up at Jake’s house the next day with the Count, who is in love with her according to Jake, Hemingway shows the power exerted by Brett’s beauty when Cohn states “she is a remarkably attractive woman”(Hemingway, 1926). No wonder men were all after her. She tells Jake no when he asks if they can live together, saying she would ‘trooper’ him, a subtle way of telling him that he cannot due to his impotence and would, therefore, require, or need the services of other men. The power of their love though, still leads them to kiss at her door, but Brett pushes him away before going in (Hemingway, 1926).
THE BLUEST EYES
Opening in the fall of 1941, a nine year old Claudia MacTeer live with her sister Freida, and her parents in their house where they take up, as well as Mr. henry, a young black girl, Pecola Breedlove (Morrison, 1993). Pecola, a quiet young girl with a very low self-esteem, believing that white is beautiful, and white is ugly. The time, after the great depression, is a warning as to what to expect, in terms of racism and the slavery that went on in those times. The author uses this to alert the reader as to why the young girl would think that about herself. Pecola's home is turbulent with Cholly Breedlove, her father, abuses alcohol and her parents constantly fight . Morrison uses the power of truth, clearly stating that, the Breedloves did not live in a storefront due to a temporary difficulty adjusting to cutbacks at the plant where Cholly works, but because they were poor, black and because they believed they were ugly (Morrison, 1993). Cholly because he was a drunk and an “old dog”, Mrs. Breedlove due to her deformed foot, Pecola and her brother, their ugliness coming from their poor background and the relationship between their parents. Pecola thinks if she were prettier, then it would be less so, and she constantly starts praying for blue eyes, to change herself and make the world see her more beautifully. Morrison also writes that one realizes that the ugliness of the Breedloves came from conviction, their conviction. It was as though some mysterious all-knowing master had given each a cloak of ugliness to wear and they had each accepted, the master saying, “you are ugly people”, and they seeing nothing to contradict the fact had answered “Yes, master”. This truth, which is often left unsaid, is used by Morrison as a form, imposed as what should be said in order to understand the Breedloves and their state of mind.
When Cholly comes home drunk, too drunk to quarrel (Morrison, 993), the user warning as to what to expect next, stating that the fight would have to take place the next morning, lacking spontaneity, and that it would be calculated, uninspired and deadly (Morrison, 1993). This warning gives the reader an idea what is coming next, and as is explained in the subsequent lines, the fight is vicious, to an extent of Sammy screaming, “Kill Him, Kill Him”, to the surprise of Mrs. Breedlove. Mrs. Breedlove needs Cholly to keep drinking, she would not know what to do with herself if he turned out to be good, she prays but for him to succumb deeper into sin, not to be saved. At one time when he drunkenly falls into a red-hot stove, she feels her prayers have answered and screams, “Get Him, Jesus, Get Him”(Morrison, 1993). Her truth is she needs Cholly to be a drunk so that she can feel better for herself.
The women who live above the Breedloves, the whores, a term that Morrison uses bravely to describe the women, who themselves are not ashamed to be so. China, Poland, and Miss Marie are Pecola’s friends, they tell her stories of love and money, but they are not women in whores clothing, they are whores in whores clothing (Morrison, 1993). This use of such strong terms is an imposition of the form of truth that Morrison wants the reader to view. There would have been more subtle ways to put it, but the way the term is used depicts the kind of lifestyle that these women live, and how Pecola views them, also coming from the family that she comes from.
Relating the two texts, the authors of both text used censorship, in the form that they wrote in a context that the reader would have to rate to in order to understand the text. The context of writing, like the time period and the race, age and character of the characters were used in both texts to make the readers understand the character and why and how they are. In both texts, warning is used for readers to pre-empt some of the actions or happenings in the preceding paragraphs, the authors knew that by letting the reader know some details of an upcoming event, and then the following sequence of action would make sense.
In the Sun also Rises, Hemingway uses subtlety to impose the form of his writing onto the readers, like the injury to Jake is not revealed in its entirety, but just enough to deduce his impotence, or how he hides Jakes slight dislike of Cohn, and how he was not attracted to the ugly set of teeth exhibited by Georgette. This subtlety makes for the reader to make deductions on what they are as opposed to being presented with blunt truth, and therefore it seems Hemingway intended for the novel to be about morality, rather than the promiscuity exhibited by the characters. There is also some truth used by Hemingway but not as much as the subtlety, he exhibited.
the Bluest eye, Morrison uses truth, the power of truth as a form she imposes on the readers, like when she blatantly states that the Breedloves are ugly people, and how Maureen calls Pecola ugly and since these are often not things that are said blatantly, she makes the signify what they do not appear to signify.
