Using Spectacle to Hold Open the Door: In Dahomey

We’ve talked about spectacle a number of times in this class. We asked whether Gulliver was a spectacle in Lilliput and the country of the Houyhnhnms, which seems likely in both instances in the way he is seen as almost a tourist attraction. For instance, he writes in Lilliput that “as the news of my arrival spread throughout the kingdom, it brought prodigious numbers of rich, idle, and curious people to see me (Swift, 15).” Additionally, we wondered whether Douglass was a spectacle in Ireland, arriving at a more inconclusive answer.

However, in In Dahomey, the question of spectacle is never in doubt. As Daphne Brooks writes about the play, “The press trumpeted the arrival of African-American performers in a musical of their own making and encouraged the public to attend the production, if only to observe the odd miracle of African-American theater (Brooks, 207).” As this quote shows, the all-black cast was a spectacle regardless of the content of the play. On one hand, this intentional spectacle gave African-Americans an important viewership that at the very least opened the door for black actors to become more prominent in theatre. Yet it also put limitations on what these women and men could achieve through this play. The all-black cast made this play a work of “black art,” which was thus undeniably political. All art made by a marginalized person is automatically political and can longer solely entertain. Thus, if the writers of In Dahomey attempted to present obvious critiques of the color line, racial discrimination, and the Jim Crow South, they would lose the precious viewership achieved by this spectacle (at least in the United States). As a result, the play portrays the racist stereotypes of African-Americans in theatre.

Brooks argues that, through Mose and Me Sing, the play mocks individualism in the black community (specifically through emigration) by exposing the greed and xenophobia that undermines such an attitude (Brooks, 246). In a way, this critique, though not explicit in the text, makes perfect sense. The writers of In Dahomey reject individualism themselves. Though they could have pursued a more overt and aggressive critique of the color line, they instead utilize their spectacle to place a foot in the door so that others, like those writers in the Harlem Renaissance, could present a more overt case. Reversing the rhetoric we have seen in the past, though the subversive critiques of society in In Dahomey show that the writers were ready to attack racial injustice, the finished product of the play shows a recognition that the world “was not yet ready.” Yet, when it became ready, In Dahomey ensured that black artists would have an entryway into the conversation.

Belonging in Gulliver’s Travels

In our discussion of Gulliver’s Travels this week, we touched on Gulliver and his sense of belonging in the world. I found Gulliver to be a peculiar character, as I cannot tell whether he hates the idea of belonging altogether or only belonging when connected to England and the Yahoos. In support of the former, Gulliver is always traveling and never stays in one place for too long (if he can help it). He is of English birth but has no true home; he transfers his “home” to wherever he is. Gulliver seems like he is the most comfortable when he is in the states of in-between found in his often aimless traveling. To most people, being in between two states is often an uncomfortable position. Gulliver, however, always seeks to set himself out into the unknown, leaving behind all sense of belonging in the process. 

On the other hand, Gulliver seems as though he is always ready to jump into a new culture, as long as it is not English. During his travels, he readily abandons the ways of life that he learned from his English origins in order to conform and belong with the peoples that he encounters. He adopts the customs of both the Lilliputians and the Houyhnhnms, learning their languages and contributing to their societies. Gulliver even sees the Houyhnhnms’ way of life as far superior to any of the peoples he’s seen before, including the English. Gulliver is a product of English society but, as a result of his travels, comes to completely reject his national origin and even his identity as a Yahoo. He does not reject all sense of identity and belonging, however, as he comes to express his wishes to find a place of belonging among the Houyhnhnms. So, is it just England (and the Yahoos that inhabit it) that Gulliver wants to abandon or is it all sense of belonging as well? What does the answer mean for us as the reader?

Gulliver and Belonging

This week I thought a lot about Gulliver as a reputable and trustworthy character. While relatively neutral in part one, I found Gulliver to be very unlikeable in part four. This was mostly due to his rejection of his family and all of humanity as he comes to believe he is above them after his time with the Houyhnhnms. Is this forgivable? Gulliver spurns his wife and children to the point of only letting his wife eat all the way across the table from him. He cannot stand the smell of his wife or the sight of his children. But, Gulliver rejects them because he has no home. He is constantly on the move, feeling out of place where-ever he ends up. With the Lilliputians, he is a giant unable to be sustained by their society. To the Houyhnhnms, he is a yahoo – a kind of pet for them to play and converse with but never fully relate to. While this does not fully excuse Gulliver’s rejection of his family and the rest of humanity, it helps me understand why he makes this ultimate decision. If he never feels at home, how can he reintegrate himself within society without a certain sense of trust and companionship?

Gulliver is very similar to Helga Crane in Quicksand. Quicksand is about a young biracial woman who struggles to find a home as she moves between America and Denmark. After being rejected by her European relatives, Helga moves schools, communities, and countries, always feeling as though she is in-between or out of place. She doesn’t fit in with the strict atmosphere in the school she teaches in, Harlem’s rigid ideas of race, or the lavish Denmark lifestyle. She ends up in an unhappy marriage and fails to find fulfillment in every move she takes. This novel has a very pessimistic outlook, matching the tone of Gulliver’s Travels. Helga and Gulliver both end up unhappy without a home or family, due to their constant movement and rejection. Looking at Gulliver through the lens of Helga Crane, I can understand his rejection of humanity as not just thinking he is “above”, but that he does not belong.