I suggested to a friend that these four quotations, pulled from what might be called “varying” sources, all had a substantial connection — subtle, perhaps, but substantial. He couldn’t see it; he said no one else would either. I think he’s nuts. Don’t you, dear reader, see the pattern?
Please say that you can pull one thread through all of them, or maybe even two. There might have been a few dollars (and/or pounds) wagered on your response, not that there’s any pressure. Go on; give it a whirl.
A baby strives to tune in to his parents, but he cannot judge their goodness. He attaches to whoever is there, with the unconditional fixity we profess to require of later attachments: for better or worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health. Attachment is not a critic: a child adores his mother’s face, and he runs to her whether she is pretty or plain. And he prefers the emotional patterns of the family he knows, regardless of its objective merits. As an adult his heart will lean toward these outlines. The closer a potential mate matches his prototypes, the more enticed and entranced he will be — the more he will feel that here, at last, with this person, he belongs
– Thomas Lewis, M.D., Fari Amini, M.D., Richard Lannon, M.D., A General Theory of Love
A startling thought this, that a woman could handle business matters as well as or better than a man, a revolutionary thought to Scarlett who had been reared in the tradition that men were omniscient and women none too bright. Of course, she had discovered that this was not altogether true but the pleasant fiction still stuck in her mind. Never before had she put this remarkable idea into words. She sat quite still, with the heavy book across her lap, her mouth a little open with surprise, thinking that during the lean months at Tara she had done a man’s work and done it well. She had been brought up to believe that a woman alone could accomplish nothing, yet she had managed a plantation without men to help her until Will came. Why, why, her mind stuttered, I believe women could manage everything in the world without men’s help….
With the idea that she was as capable as a man came a sudden rush of pride and a violent longing to prove it, to make money for herself as men made money. Money which would be her own, which she would neither have to ask for nor account for to any man
– Margaret Mitchell, Gone With the Wind
There is a haunting prehistoric ritual still conditioned into every human being’s reflexes. Observe it next time you’re in a restaurant — it never fails: When the waiter puts the plate down in front of a customer, the customer will not eat until he has first adjusted the plate with his own hands. He may not move it more than a sixteenth of an inch — but he will invariably move it, touch it with his fingertips. Only then, having satisfied his prehistoric need, will he pick up his knife and fork and begin to eat. I have watched this wild, unconscious ritual a thousand times, at drugstore soda counters and fancy restaurants. I have yet to see one exception.
– Allan Sherman, The Rape of the Ape: The Official History of the Sex Revolution
His wife had been through with him before but it never lasted. He was very wealthy, and would be much wealthier, and he knew she would not leave him ever now. … She had missed the chance to leave him and he knew it. If he had been better with women she would probably have started to worry about him getting another new, beautiful wife; but she knew too much about him to worry about him either. Also, he had always had a great tolerance which seemed the nicest thing about him if it were not the most sinister. … They had a sound basis of union. Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him.
– Ernest Hemingway, “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”
21 Responses to A Quiz and Just a Tiny Bet
tendrecroppes - December 30, 2009 at 3:34 am
I feel as though each of these passages is trying to express the essence of human existence – each in its own way, of course. The first explains that all humans strive to belong; the second tries to make plain that man is no better than woman (and that woman, by nature, pursues this idea); the third that man follows his prehistoric instinct to make something his own, even if that is merely through touch; and the fourth that every person is always afraid that they are not deserving (socially, physically, so on and so forth and what-have-you) of being loved. They are very different approaches, and very different conclusions, but they address the same basic question: Is there one thing that can define humanity, and if so, then what?
goxewu - December 30, 2009 at 11:52 am
Two guesses:1. Something about women and property.2. Gee, Prof. Barreca is widely read.
deanette - December 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I think they connect through the idea of the formidable, unspoken, underlying assumption that is sudden brought to light and then cannot be ignored. Alan Sherman is the guy who did “Hello Mudder, Hello Fadder” isn’t he?(ps to godewu: I put the ‘god’ in your name because that’s who you think you are, clearly, why don’t you ever seem to enjoy yourself?)
goxewu - December 30, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’ve never enjoyed anything in my whole life as much as posting #2. (Well, maybe the delicious restraint of not indulging in “dinette.”)
bookgirl - December 30, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yes, I see the pattern. Hope you win the bet!
gzerovnik - December 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I see two themes. One is how culture is shaped beginning at birth by our earliest contacts with other humans–usually our parents. The other theme is the role a woman learns to assume as a consequence of the first theme.
11144703 - December 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Each is obviously about white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.
dblobaum - December 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm
We assume that women orbit around men, and we express that sometimes explicitly and sometimes just by using the masculine pronoun to refer to people in general.
beverlysmith - December 30, 2009 at 3:15 pm
above all reasoning and logic, instinct prevails.
ddayton - December 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypotheses
22228715 - December 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I would say that all four, together, provide varied reflections on the nature of human choice and identity and how they intersect. Do we each have free will, to chart our own courses based on who we are and what we want to do? Or is that illusion? Perhaps our range of choices in life are drastically narrower and more predictable, based on things we can’t change such as family (or community) of origin, gender and others’ perception of our gender, primal instinct, and even the culmination of choices over time that become practical realities, that we cannot remove once chosen. Additionally, each of the four selections seems to lean toward some notion of those narrow choices being pretty inevitable, although (to varying degrees) each excerpt also has at least a small suggestion to that awareness of such predestination probably challenges a person to try to change it (and perhaps succeed despite a narrator’s doubt.)Hey, we could do this all day. Is this from the GRE writing portion?
cjmventer - December 30, 2009 at 8:34 pm
To me, these all seem to be about the power of conditioning and relativism over a person’s actions or, maybe subjectivity.In all four examples, we see someone doing something or remembering something they don’t find to actually be good or pleasant, but which they take pleasure in or continue to do only because that’s what they are used to.Does moving your plate really improve your meal? Do you stay with a lover everyone else can see is bad for you because you’ve got a history and that’s something stable (even if the instability of your relationship is the thing you can count on)? Does Scarlet really take pleasure in the idea she is inferior to men or does it simply remind her of her childhood? Do you really like your mom’s face or are you just used to it?It seems like the connector here is taking pleasure in things that are familiar to you, even if they’re not inherently pleasing.
nimmi47 - December 30, 2009 at 8:39 pm
The passages above speak of human instincts and how these rule our reactions to situations and circumstances.
isugeezer - December 31, 2009 at 9:26 am
We form patterns early, according to the dictates of stimulus-response, and we are loathe to change them, even when we–like Scarlett–realize their impotency.
mmccross - December 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Our individual identities are formed through the interplay between nature and nurture.
langrishe - December 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm
belonging, at home
milesmann - January 1, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Several posters here have contributed thoughtful responses I can mostly get behind, and yes, I think there’s certainly something about instinct in each of these passages.My own thoughts are that we do what we can–we strive, at least–to make the world our own, regardless of what invisible forces may be shaping the world for us. The passages, in turn, seem to argue with each other on this subject. Passage #1 appears to be in favor of instinct: It tells us that we will choose partners closely resembling the patterns and emotional outlines of our own family (though I would not agree fully; I can think of countless counter-examples). Passage #4, however, tells us that even if our best instinct is to leave a person, we will ultimately make our own choice, based on what we want, not what we need.Passage #2: “With the idea that she was as capable as a man came a sudden rush of pride and a violent longing to prove it, to make money for herself as men made money. Money which would be her own, which she would neither have to ask for nor account for to any man.” Scarlett wants to live by new rules, not the ones she has been raised on.Passage #3: Even by a small, unconscious act, the shifting of a plate of food, we seek to make the world our own.I could be wrong about the above, but take this into account, on the subject of instinct: I went out to breakfast this morning and, after reading this entry, decided it was possible not to shift my plate as it was put down before me. So I didn’t. And I never will again, if only to prove that instincts do not rule our lives down to the smallest detail.I also saw Avatar this week, against the instinct that it would suck. (It did).
goxewu - January 3, 2010 at 10:26 am
Third guess:If you’re a woman with hair on your upper lip, you shouldn’t be teaching at the college level?
itc2000 - January 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm
It’s about imprinting, whereby, for better or worse, our brains are hard wired to convert early sensory input into mental constructs that become, over time, immutable and pernicious. Which is why goxewu will always be a misogynist, regardless the quantity or quality of evidence amassed against his parochial and myopic views.
goxewu - January 4, 2010 at 1:50 pm
#18 was a snide reference to a previous post by Prof. Barreca, publishing and extolling an essay by one of her male undergrads in which facial hair on a female professor was cited as undesirable trait for a faculty member. #19 might not know this, and might wish to look elsewhere for misogyny.
11231850 - January 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm
We’re not sure in any of the passages if the shooter is actually aiming for the lion.Or maybe something about balances of power.