May 14 2009

Some More Thoughts On Sheppard Lee

by at 12:59 am

Adam Smith sees the biological limitations of a pure sympathetic response. To Smith, lived experiences are very much tied to the individual body, so one can never fully understand another’s experience because one individual never occupy the body of another. Mesmer’s ideas on animal magnetism, I argue, solve this problem by creating networks of bodies (hmm…”networks,” like what Laura Otis is talking about?) that can be linked via electrical impulses. Sheppard Lee similarly solves the body barrier divide that is put forth by Smith by having Sheppard Lee’s soul occupy the body of dead corpses. In this way, Sheppard Lee enacts a purely sympathetic response….and, yet, these instances of body travel still seem to problematize successful sympathetic encounters. For one, the fact that Sheppard Lee’s body is restored at the end is extremely significant. The entire narrative is written by this restored Sheppard Lee, and thus it seems as if even as Sheppard Lee inhabits the bodies of others there is still a marked seperation between Sheppard Lee and the body he inhabits. This may, again, be a result of the narrative–Sheppard Lee is writing this in hindsight, but it still prevents any true sympathetic exchange.

No responses yet | Categories: Writing Sample | Tags: , , , ,

Apr 21 2009

Sympathy–Elizabeth Barnes

by at 1:47 am

Since I’m writing about the science of sympathy for my Sheppard Lee paper, I’ll need to include a summation of the critics and their analyses of the sympathetic response. Because this information is so crucial for my paper, I’m going to start cataloging important passages from these theoretical works. The first one? Elizabeth Barnes’ States of Sympathy.

Barnes, Elizabeth. Preface. States of Sympathy: Seduction and Democracy in the American Novel. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. ix-xiii.

“That is, this book stresses not Europe’s dreams about America [a la Leslie Fielder] but America’s dreams about itself” (Barnes ix).

“In attempting to retell some of the stories of the stories that American writers told about themselves and their country, I have chosen to focus on representations of American culture offered to us by the literature of the time–to emphasize, in other words, American imaginings over American history” (Barnes ix).

“Implicit in my argument is the idea that the cultural imaginary can be as powerful a political tool as material facts and events. Rather than treat specific historical or political incidents, I investigate the ways in which sociopolitical discourses intersect with popular literary themes to construct a compelling and coherent image of America. In doing so I have found that what most preoccupied American authors was imagination itself. Sympathetic identification–the act of imagining oneself in another’s position–signified a narrative model whereby readers could ostensibly be taught an understanding of the interdependence between their own and others’ identities. In a time when American national as well as individual identity was in question, it is not surprising that Amerrican literature brought such issues as identification, unification, diversity, and autonomy to the fore” (Barnes ix).

“One of the distinctions American authors emphasized, and one of the tools with which they attempted to forge their new identity, was, ironically enough, sympathy. Sympahty was to be the building block of a democratic nation, and democracy, so the story goes, was a defining element of the United States. Sympathetic identification–of the foremost elements of sentimental literature–works to demonstrate, even to enact , a correspondence or unity between subjects. In American literature sympatethetic identification relies particularly on familial models. Readers are taught to identify with characters in such a way that they come to think of others–even fictional “others”–as somehow related to themselves. At the same time, the family analogy generates a myriad of problems for an emerging national audience. For example, the long-standing metaphor of England as America’s “parent country” raises questions as to how America can both glorify family and reject the ‘parent’ that has so profoundly infleunced its culture. For how does a nation repudiate that which has brought it into being without repudiating an essential part of itself?”  (Barnes x).

“In this book I argue that American culture’s preoccupation with familial feeling as the foundation for sympathy, and sympathy as the basis of a democratic republic, ultimately confounds the difference between familial and social bonds. This accounts in part for why so many American stories center on the distinction between licit and illicit love and why incest and seduction become recurrent themes” (Barnes xi).


Barnes understands American sympathy in terms of a familial metaphor. While Barnes’ observation is an astute one, I would like to look at how sympathy is also tied to an electrical metaphor. Sympathy as science, or electrical magnetism, creates new possibilites for nation building, in which the skin barrier that seperates gender and race could be bypassed–something the familial metaphor could never do. In fact, the familial metaphor could potentially reinscribe racial difference by including only pure Anglo-American lineage under its scope.

No responses yet | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , ,