TYOTF vs. Harraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto”

Jonah: In the context of Year of the Flood, Donna Harraway’s  “Cyborg Manfesto” is quite relevant given the dystopic future that Atwood depicts. Harraway provides a direct critique of the God’s Gardeners through her critique of naturalism. This becomes clear when she states “The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust.” The mantra of the God’s Gardeners is a naturalist doctrine. Under this naturalist doctrine, Harraway argues that gender norms and patriarchy continue to exist. When looking into the text, Harraway is spot on. There are multiple instances where patriarchal norms are apparent within the Gardener’s community, such as the multiple acts of sexual assault on Toby, and the normalizing of it.

Sophia: Right on, Jonah. Another troublesome aspect of what you call the “naturalist doctrine” that the God’s Gardeners uphold, is its extreme reliance on a set of principles, stemming, in particular, from problematic creationist origins, the teaching of which, Harraway claims, ought to be “fought as a form of child abuse.” They fail to recognize the irony of their faith in this form, rendering their hypocrisies offensive, rather than inspiring, strategic, or methodical, which Harraway proposes as just some of the valuable untapped capabilities inherent in such an attitude. Indeed, in coming into contact with the God’s Gardeners I imagine Harraway would be deeply disappointed in their lack of respect for the blasphemous, which she believes “has always seemed to require taking things very seriously.” That is, perhaps, with the exception of Zeb, who seems to relate his membership to the Gardeners through a constant desecration of their principles, with a wink-wink and an elbow in the side of whoever might be watching.

Paired Blogging 11/21

Here’s what me and Ana discussed about The Year of the Flood through Siobhan Sommerville’s work so far:
*super long post ahead, we more or less wrote mini essays to each other…*

Vita: The piece we read by Siobhan Somerville dealt with the interdependent relationship between scientific/ pseudoscientific discourses of race and (homo)sexuality in the 19^th century. In regards to The Year of the Flood, race/ ethnicity and the spectrum of sexualities seems to be absent or downplayed (debatable?). However, a working idea that has been ruminating in my mind is a similar interdependent relationship between discourses of sexuality and economics/ capitalism in The Year of the Flood.

I argue that the general economy of this dystopia, especially the various Corporations, is saturated in sexuality in terms of influencing products and values. In turn, discourses about (hetero)sexuality of several characters are informed by economical principles. The most potent example of the first side of this relationship is the SeksMart Corp, which included the club, Scales and Tails, by the time Ren was in college. In an extreme example of an economic monopoly, pimps and street prostitution was outlawed and anyone outside of this “legitimate Corp with health benefits and a dental plan” was considered “pathetic” and even called “‘hazardous waste’” (Atwood, 2009, p. 294, 7). In addition, Toby recalls that it was typical for people to reason that even if a young woman fell into economic despair, “at least she had something of marketable value, namely her young ass…and nobody had to feel guilty,” which suited the ultimate CorpSeCorp principle of the bottom line (Atwood, 2009, p. 28).

On the other hand, in the discourses about sexuality by characters like Ren and Amanda, the economical influence is apparent. This is obvious when Ren starts working at Scales and Tails. On numerous occasions, Ren mentions doing “plank work” or talking about the “bristle work” that was done by literal expendables (not Scales girls) (Atwood, 2009, p. 130). In addition, Amanda would often use the euphemism of “doing a trade,” which was literally providing sex for an exchange of items or help from others…

Ana: I also found that gender roles and sexuality in The Year of the Flood wasn’t as important of a personal identifier than it is in our contemporary U.S. society. It can be argued that our gender and race are the most influential in establishing our identities in a public space and even how we are expected to behave in private spaces. Race and gender function as the most powerful categorical tools we utilize to differentiate ourselves and also connect to others. Perhaps, because The Year of the Flood takes place in a post-apocalyptic North America where it seems nations are defunct or never even existed in the collective memory race is almost non-existent.

To respond to Vita’s argument of the economics of sexuality, I actually found it a generous facet of the CorpSeCorps to legalize and celebrate sex workers. Our world stigmatizes any kind of sex work, even if one is only an exotic dancer! We believe them to be immoral, dirty, outliers, and above all, subhuman. They are portrayed in media as loose, godforsaken women (and sometimes trans men) and of low class. They are usually portrayed as desperate and without dignity.

Now, I’m sure the CorpSeCorps did not create the SeksMart Corp out of the generosity and open-mindedness of their hearts, but to control that sector of the entertainment economy. But still! These sex workers, as Vita mentioned, HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE! I think it’s safe to say that if the status quo persists, I will never live in a day when sex workers will have the rights to governmental health care (considering we’re having a problem now with its distribution as the healthcare sector continues to privatize).

To get back to what Somerville argues in Queering the Color Line, race and sexuality are not mutually exclusive either in The Year of the Flood. Somerville argues that historically, once the discourse of race was the hot topic of the 19^th century, talks of homosexuality also began cropping up in mainstream academia. She argues that just as the color line was established to prevent mixing between races, so did sexuality categories to prevent “experimentation out of the white, hetero norm”. In Atwood’s novel, Toby’s sexuality is almost non-existent until she undergoes a physical transformation when she begins to work at the AnooYoo Spa. Her skin tone changes to that of a darker color and her facial features change as well to what is described as a more sexually exotic looking woman than the white, lanky, and rather sexless woman she was before. She notes the changes in herself as well as the noticed difference in treatment from Zeb. After her transformation, she seems more gendered as female gathered from the behavior she “elicits” (is this implying a sort of victim-blaming mentality?, because that’s not how I meant it) from Zeb. It is impossible to talk about the birth of her sexuality without talking about the change in her physical appearance.

Vita: I forgot that example about Toby! I agree that her racialized physical appearance change corresponded with a shift in her gender performance and sexuality. I also find that Toby’s sexuality (and corresponding gender performance) throughout her life/ book to be unstable: she was a relatively “normal” college student who was sexually involved with a monogamous boyfriend; after the double tragedy of her parents, she went through a drug-fused sex run; then there is her horrific experience with Blanco; and in God’s Gardeners, she is known as the “Dry Witch” and was deemed “sexless” enough that even Lucerne isn’t paranoid that she is a rival for Zeb. Also there are tiny snippets through her narrative in which she questions her feelings about jealousy and affection surrounding love/ sexual desire. Curious…

I also interpreted Toby’s racial transformation as a subtle nod to a long line of stereotypes surrounding women of color: as you note, the exoticism and sexualization of the “other.” Atwood also brings out complications of these sexual, gendered, and racialized stereotypes in the scene where Toby meets Rebecca for the first time in SecretBurgers. Rebecca warns her about Blanco and expresses relief that she is “too black and ugly for him” even though Toby/ narrative notes that Rebecca is “beautiful in a substantial way” (Atwood, 2009, 35). I suppose this is the flipside of women of color/ other being exotically sexual is to be undesirable to “white hetero norm man” (also noting what Blanco’s name translates as) and is in sync with Sommerville’s argument of the intertwining fears of sexual desire between races and within genders in the 19^th century.

Lastly, I agree with your comments about health insurance as well as the stigmatization of sex workers in our society. Though, I think the curious thing about dystopias is that there is sort of a sugar and medicine mentality: there are the appearance of “good” and ideal things such as health insurance and care, but it is twisted in either their sincerity or their purpose. I think about what the true quality of their healthcare might be since it’s likely another Corp and we know they hold no bounds in using customers or even their own workers for their own gain such as how the rigorous healthcare Toby’s mother received ultimately cause her death.

To be continued…

The Year of the Flood Reading Response 3

Towards the end of the novel we see all the characters come through for each other. It was touching to see how the relationship these people had after 15 years still. Atwood does a really good job portraying Ren and Toby and how their characters are basically opposites of each other in a lot of aspects. Toby would be realist who thinks of what the best way to survive is and Ren would be the optimist. I think the moment Toby hesitated on whether or not to have Ren take the Death Angel showed how dire the situation was and also the core emotions someone feels when they’re deciding between life and death. There’s no doubt that Toby cares about Ren but you can really see she thinks hard on whether or not saving Ren is worth possibly shortening the chances of her own survival. Ren on the other hand is forever the optimist. Unlike Toby and Amanda, she doesn’t think about how she’ll have less food for herself if she shares. We see her gladly welcome the people she has known and how she’s the most affected when their well being is at risk. I think I was most surprised by how Amanda ended up. I don’t know why but I never imagined she would need saving throughout this whole novel and that she would be one of the characters to always be strong yet at the very end we see Amanda in such a fragile state.

I was pretty satisfied with the ending of the book. I was really confused on where this book was headed when I first started it. Atwood constantly jumps between time frames throughout the book and we always have to guess if it’s older or younger Ren or Toby telling the story. I personally think the plot could have been better. There was no real buildup for me to the catastrophe and then all of a sudden everyone was just fighting for their lives. My favorite part was when everyone basically found each other in the end. It was touching to see how being part of the Gardeners had basically built a circle of friends and family for the characters and ultimately that circle of people did mean something in the end.

The Year of the Flood Reading Response 2

As we get deeper into the book, it’s interesting to see how the  Gardeners interact with each other and also how their system is built. I really enjoy reading about how Amanda and Ren interact with each other. Their relationship with each other is really sweet, especially in a book where it seems everyone just thinks about themselves. Lucrene’s relationship with Ren on the other hand is somewhat appalling seeing how she basically just severes her relationship with Ren when convenient for her.

I find it somewhat astounding how people trust the Corps even though they seem to do nothing to help the people and instead kill those who don’t agree with what they do. The idea of  the Painball system existing in the future somewhat horrifies me. It reminds me of the Hunger Games and how people basically hunt each other and the strongest will survive and eventually be let out. In our current society we would basically be putting serial killers together and letting them kill each other off. It’s kind of horrifying to think that the worst serial killer would eventually be let out into society. It makes no sense to me why we would let the strongest of the criminals out.

I feel like the book needs to expand more on the goal of God’s Garderner and what they hope to achieve in more detail. The book starts off really slow for me because there is no real idea of what these people are trying to achieve or if they’re actually achieving anything as time goes on. It seems as if I’m just reading about their daily lives which isn’t bad but the plot could be better.

Reading Response – 11/14

On Thursday, Professor Brundage posed the question, “Is Year of the Flood a feminist novel?” While I don’t believe that the characters themselves would be labeled as feminist, the novel itself may be labeled as such due to its evident eco-feminism. While reading YOTF, the God’s Gardeners reminded me of this article, “To Be Feminist is to Be Vegan.” The God’s Gardeners do not believe that animals should be killed for most reasons (not even an ant should be crushed) and when animals are used for food production (i.e. Pilar’s bees), they are to be humanely treated. Eco-feminist vegans believe that animal meat and food production is vis-a-vis to female struggle for bodily self-control, as “the female of the species often experiences more prolonged abuse, including an ongoing cycle of forceful artificial insemination (mechanical or manual rape), physical abuse of her mammary glands, and invariably being separated from her young.” It is similar to how patriarchal forces control reproduction through availability (or lack there of) of various reproductive services. While I believe that animals used for food production should be treated more humanely, I do not believe that veganism is needed to be called a feminist as this article calls for.

BlyssPluss

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s . . . (drumrollllllll)
IT’S EVEN BETTER!
It’s the supersex pill of YOUR dreams!
Place your order for BlyssPluss pills today!

Year of the Flood: Second Response

Two  recurring motifs in Year of the Flood are the environment and women. On face value these two might seem like two completely separate issues, but in reality they are actually very interrelated. Many feminist theorist argue that women inherently share a closer bond to nature than men. This is both defined by their physiology and their psychology. Rosser touched upon this in her piece that we read earlier in the year, stating that women live life with a more symbiotic, mutaulistic relationship to the environment, while men  have a more confrontational relationship, constantly trying to conquer and use for their own gain.

In the same light, Ecofeminists argue that the oppression and destruction that the environment faces is very similar to the struggle of women in our society. (If you would like to learn more about ecofeminism here’s the wikipedia link, to no surprise, it is quite short: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism)

It then becomes clear why Atwood decided to tie the struggles of women in with the experiences of a fringe group of ecowarriors. This intersectionality adds depth to the story, and also further Atwood’s novel from that of just a feminist focused piece of literature to a larger statement on the relationship between women, technology, and the environment.