Article Review of "Five Hundred Years of Love: A Prototype-Semantic Analysis" (By Heii Tissari. University of Helsinki)

The article is a research document composed of 30 pages which includes an abstract, introduction, presentation of data and data sources, hypothesis, discussion and interpretation, conclusion, notes, and references. It comprehensively discusses how the word LOVE changed through the course of time in terms of frequency of use and meaning based on the researcher’s point of view and his interpretations of data. The researcher used context-based approach; the analysis is not purely based on participant criteria, but also on situational knowledge. He also utilized the Prototype Theory of Concepts and Word Meaning. The model follows the prototype theory of semantics, which suggests that meaning is situated in domains and organized in clusters, and that some meanings re more typical than others.

            The researcher identified five central or prototypical ‘loves’ which occur in the domains of: 1) family, 2) friendship, 3) sexuality, 4) religion, 5) non-human world. Noteworthy, Lewis’s (1960) The Four Loves presented the following terminologies:

1.      Storge (Affection or family love)

2.      Philia (friendship)

3.      Eros (sexual love)

4.      Agape (religious love)

Moreover, Lewis provided five clearly differentiated categories of love, which can be defined via the participants in the following manner:

1.      The participants of family love are the family members

2.      The participants of friendship are friends

3.      The participants of sexual love are lovers

4.      In order for love to be religious, God has to be a participant

5.      If one of the participants is non-human, love is situated in the fith category which is called love of things

THE DICTIONARIES

The dictionaries consulted by the researcher include: 1) The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and 2) Dr. Johnson’s eighteenth-century Dictionary of the English Language (DEL). Johnson’s five senses correspond exactly with the 5 categories, as can be seen in his definitions:

1.      To regard with passionate affection, as that of one sex to the other = sexual love

2.      To regard with the affection of a friend = friendship

3.      To regard with parental tenderness = family love

4.      To be pleased with = love of things

5.      To regard with reverent unwillingness to offend = religious love

            Correspondences show that Johnson seems to associate parental care chiefly with God. His definition of love conveys the idea of God as a loving parent whom we must revere. It is also clear that good will is a more general attitude than friendship, and that courtship or lewdness are specified aspects of sexual love. AOD distinguishes fairly well between sexual love, religious love, love of things, and other love, but family love and friendship merged in its entries into this category of other. The level of abstraction is high in the definition of the verb, where OED only distinguishes between loving a personal object and loving a thing.

ON PROTOTYPE THEORY

            The researcher was able to demonstrate how to apply the prototype theory of semantics in an actual research. In my opinion, I think this could be replicated if one intends to do a prototype-semantics analysis. The whole procedure is based on the way that the mind probably deals with concepts, through prototypical representations and contextual information. Love is considered a large conceptual cluster, which consists of five principal smaller clusters: family love, friendship, sexual love, religious love, and love of things.  These major categories are defined both in terms of their participants and in terms of the domains where they occur:

1.      Family love occurs within the family

2.      Friendship occurs in the domain of the world at large, between people whose mutual love is not based on the family situation or sexual relationship

3.      Sexual love occurs within the range of romantic, sexual and erotic relationships and encounters

4.      Religious love occurs in a world defined in terms of God’s dominance

5.      Love of things contains the remaining instances.

            Prototype theory implies degrees of typicality which means that it is likely that loving a personal object is more typical than loving a thing; or that when one looks the 5 categories, one of them is likely to be more typical than the others. Prototypical categories tend to have a family resemblance category. This theory takes up elements of former theories and moulds a new whole out of them.  It acquires a flexible and functional character through propounding the unsuitability of definition by a set of criteria attributes.

ECTRALINGUISTIC CONTEXT OF THE MODEL

            In this portion of the article, the researcher also introduces future researchers to possible issues that would manifest in the conduct of this kind of research. This way, the reader will be aware possible problems that will manifests in his research endeavors, and as a result, he will be able to apprehend and plan more carefully on how he will resolve these issues. There are 3 major issues that the researcher encountered;

1.    There is what a linguist normally calls synchronic and diachronic points of view, which concerns two periods separately and together.

2.    It is not only a society which develops and changes but also every individual.

3.    A topic which relates closely to the latter is the question of how much of the subject-matter here concerns intercultural or universal phenomena and how much is typically of the English language.

DATA

            The researcher also opens the minds of his readers on the advantages and disadvantages of the data that he utilized in this article, and leaves it to them to decide whether to follow his lead or devise another data gathering technique that is deemed more effective. Using the corpus data, the researcher easily access a large and representative collection of texts, that one of this collection contains evidence of a language (Early Modern English) the speaker of which can no longer be interviewed; partially the overlapping structure of the corpora facilitates a comparison with the Present-Day English. On the other hand, the researcher confronts the problem in deciding whether to treat texts and genres individually or in groups, and the fact that size does not necessarily mean quality.

            The data show that love is a much more frequent item in the Early Modern English sources than in the Present-Day English sources. The Early Modern English period of the HC cover the years 1500-1710. The present-Day English corpora were compiled in the 1960s and should represent the then current usage. Sources include: The Helsinki Corpus (HC), Shakespeare’s prose, Brown and LOB.

EXPECTATIONS

            In this portion, the researcher shows his vision of the study. He already have presumed results that will guide him in the course of analysis and interpretation. The main hypothesis concerns changes in the meaning of love, and especially the five prototypical loves between two different periods. What could have happened between those periods? Did love become any less powerful, did its meaning faded?

            There are 3 areas in which people’s world view might have influence the usage of the word love:

1.      Because of the secularization of Western culture, religious love could have become less frequent towards the present

2.      Early modern society was undoubtedly more patriarchal and stricter about family hierarchy.

3.      The dada could confirm the reality of a sexual revolution or at least growing courage ang willingness to talk about sexual love in the 1960s

            What happened to love in various text types? Expressions of affect tend to be most frequent in personal letters. Face to face conversation, telephone conversation, letters of recommendation, personal letters, and romance fiction. More generally, love should be more frequent in the Early Modern oral text types than in the literate, and more frequent in present day imaginative than informative prose.

LOVE IN THE TEXTS

            In the interpretation of data, the hypothesis of the researcher is confirmed in the results of the text type analysis. Love was most frequent in the private letters in HC and in the category of Romance and Love Story in Brown and LOB. All the highest figures in HC are in the oral group. After private letters came sermon, fiction and comedy. Similarly, love is more frequent in the imaginative than in the informative prose in the Present-Day English corpora.  Surprisingly, the category BIBLE in HC contained very little love. In the Present-Day English corpora it was surprising that there were categories o informative prose where love was almost as frequent as in imaginative prose.

            Sexual love should be an issue in romances and love stories, although surprisingly, Early Modern fiction and comedies contain more love. There is so little religion in the Present-Day English corpora that religious love cannot be very frequent in them.

THE PROTOTYPES

            Alongside with the participant analysis, the researcher also relied on contextual information concerning the domain of love.

Family Love

            It was more frequent in the Early Modern English texts than in the Present-Day English period, but a comparison between the two periods does not reveal all, because it was fairly rare in Shakespeare. This is problematic in two ways: 1) because one could consider the love words in letters quite separately as formulaic phrases, and 2) because Brown and LOB do not contain any such correspondence.

Friendship

Friendship was more common than family love in both periods, but even more frequent in the Early Modern English period. In the central sense, friendship is a mutual and free relationship between people who simply enjoy each other’s company, then the more peripheral senses were much more frequent in this cluster.

            The power relationship between people appears more clearly in the Early Modern English period, and the data also reflect a more male-oriented view of friendship in society. It is difficult to consider this as friendship, but all in all, samples shows the use of the word love in power relationships, moreover, people are more likely to use the word love when they are not talking about their friends in the strictest sense.

Sexual Love

            It was indeed the most frequent category in both periods, although it was even more dominant in the Present-Day English data. The whole process of falling in love and getting married is described by Kovecses (1986) who sketches both the ideal and the typical model of romantic love. The peripheral cases include the dogs behaving according to Kovecses’s model.

Religious Love

            God is the source of love but we may also expect it to mean that the brethren will love one another. Religious love in its primary sense is God’s love for people, but God can also inspire love in and among the created. In its secondary sense religious love is a divinely inspired love between people.

Love of Things

            It is somewhat more frequent in the Present-Day English data than in the early modern, where it is about as frequent as family love and friendship. The hypothesis about its becoming more frequent towards the present is hardly proved but it does  become more dominant with respect to other loves. Love of things was typically a verb category, while the other loves were more often presented by the noun.    

FUZZINESS

            The blurred edges between the categories are quite interesting as the relative frequency of the categories themselves. According to prototype theory, fuzziness appears in the categorical peripheries where edges meet and blur. Several problems were encountered by the researcher:

Problems of Participant Analysis

1.      Confusion when the participants could simultaneously be considered lovers and spouses (should it be taken as family love or sexual love?)

2.      It was not clear what to do with the texts discussing incest (should it be taken as family love or sexual love?)

3.      Homosexuality was not a problem if it was explicitly stated (should it be taken as sexual love or friendship?)

4.      Metonymy was typical of Early Modern love discourse. (since only a part of the body is mentioned to represent the whole, should it be love of things or sexual love?)

Domain Problems

5.      Smith’s sermon: should it be considered religious love because it appeared in the sermon or friendship because it dealt with the relationship between two people who were not family members or lovers?

6.      Taylor’s sermon: it talks explicitly about sexuality, and just a little about the relationship between Christ and the Church.

7.      The dog, falling in love, the analysis regards the dog as things but it is behaving like human.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

            The researcher presented a very general discussion of this result which could somehow be discussed and presented more explicitly and comprehensively to facilitate better comprehension in the part of the reader. By the way, he generalized that if the absolute frequencies of the five loves in both periods will be compared, then each prototype becomes less frequent in the Present-Day English data because it contains less love.

            Proportions of the prototypical love:  Sexual love and love of things increase, while the proportion of friendship and family love decrease. Surprisingly, nothing seems to happen in religious love. The results indicate changes between the relative proportions of the prototypical meanings. The results are partly analogous and partly contrary to expectations.

CONCLUSION

            The researcher ended the article with the conclusion that generalizes the results of the study. He made a clear finale for the important principles that were tackled along the way. He also highlighted the important contributions of this article in the Linguistics community. Such are as follows:

1.      There are strong family resemblances between these loves, which means that a look at dictionary definitions will show that their edges meet and blur.

2.      It is possible to categorized real data quite satisfactorily by looking at the participants and context (domain) of the five loves. However, sometimes the participant analysis can simultaneously suggest two categories and the contextual information may also differ from the participant analysis.

3.      Statistically, and based on numerical analysis, the relative frequencies of the five loves have changed between the two periods.

4.      The article further suggests that love could be considered at several levels of abstraction. Nevertheless, the study offers a new point of view on the history of love.

            This article therefore, is a good reading material for students of linguistics who want to further enrich their knowledge in semantics, especially in research context. Moreover, Five Hundred Years of Love is an indispensible reading material for linguistic researchers, most especially those who are focusing in the study of semantics. It provides a model on the conduct of research with respect to the field it focused with.  Furthermore, I think the article is also good for general readership and even to novice readers because it presents logical information and explanations that are easy to understand. But of course, it will demand the general reader an extra effort to look/research on several terminologies and concepts presented in the text. Above all, at least background knowledge or a basic understanding of what semantics and prototype theory is will ease the reading.

            To conclude, the article contains in itself a mystifying effect, that although the approach of the presentation is research based, it also offers a certain appeal to the emotion of the reader. Moreover, as I was reading the article, I noticed that I was constantly having reflections on my personal experiences about love, trying to reflect on my experiences as a reader and as an individual, and see through if I would agree and testify to the findings of the researcher, or if I will contradict him in my introspections.

            The article has its certain aesthetic value, aside from its being factual and informative. I suspect that this is due to its theme which is LOVE—something that everyone could relate and experience. 

SHADOWS OF THE ABSURD IN THE WRITINGS OF ANTON CHECKHOV

Prologue:

            Anton Chekhov is “one of the most popular great Russian writers” (Asiado, 2008); his prolific pen made him known in the world, and his works are constant part of literature textbooks and courses. According to Boyd (2004), his works are “extremely interesting but somehow ancillary and complimentary to his main achievement. And this Russian conception of his work has some validity: Chekhov, whatever his standing as a playwright, is quite probably the best short story writer ever.” His writings placed him in the ranks of the world’s literary cannon. Like certain great pieces of music, his stories repay constant reading and revisiting; renowned and critically acclaimed.

Chekhov’s stories, aside from being classic, are unexpected to reveal postmodern ideas since he was born in late 19^th Century—the peak of Modernism. But strangely, when I was reading “The Wife” using feminist’s lens, traces of postmodern ideas, especially absurdity, were unveiled, thus, leading me to shift my lens from Feminist to Postmodernist. Such decision was validated by William Boyd’s (2010) narrations: “Chekhov’s personal world was a godless one: despite his orthodox religious upbringing, he asserted, in 1892, that ‘I have no religion now’. But intelligent people who believed in God seemed baffling to him. ‘I squandered away my faith long ago and never fail to be puzzled by an intellectual who is also a believer.’” Boyd further added that Chekhov as a writer was: “secular, refusing to pass judgment, cognizant of the absurdities of our muddled, bizarre lives and the complex tragi-comedy that is the human condition.” Having such knowledge, I was convinced that Chekhov’s writings could really be subjected to postmodern reading. Surprisingly, this paper is able to identify several manifestations of postmodern ideas in his works which were subjected to deconstruction.

This paper is focused on deconstructing, using Postmodern approach, two of the longest fictions of Anton Chekhov entitled “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”.

“The Wife” is composed of seven chapters which tell about Pavel Andreitch’s search for peace of mind, and for the answers to plenty of his questions in life. He is described by his wife as educated, honest, high principled, rich; but in effect, he becomes suffocating, oppressing, insulting and humiliating. In his quest to find himself and the real meaning of his existence, he gave up all his wealth and belongings, almost literally everything that he posses in order to help the peasants who were under famine. He was uncertain of what will happen in the future, that he might grow old and poor; but he worried not. He found happiness in such action, he found pleasure seeing his wife doing good things for others in the expense of his own money and properties, and very selflessly, he said towards the end of the story, when his wife was looking for what more she can give for the starving peasant: “…there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor; but that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily.”

“A Dreary Story” is a composed of six chapters told through the Stream of Consciousness of an old professor named Nikolay Stepanovitch, a dying medical professor, who recounts at length his final months, his night fears and insomnia, his impatience with colleagues and weariness with family matters. Alarmed by his own indifference to his daughter's decision to run away with a man which he does not like, he registers that indifference as “a paralysis of the soul, a premature death,” and discovers within himself only a bundle of peevish desires. Towards the end of the story, his intimate friend named Katya, a prostrated stage actress, becomes bitterly disappointed because she asks for Nikolay’s advice but he cannot give an answer. Having discovered the meaninglessness of life, he becomes useless to the living.

Basic Tenets of Postmodernism

According to Feyerabend “The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.” This argument seems to question the organized body of knowledge that has been established by history and human experience. Since the 1960s, when different thinkers started questioning the validity of human Subject, leading to the rise of theories such as “phenomenology” and sociological outlooks toward liberal and subjective thinking; the birth of a new perspective now known as “postmodernism” has arise. Fackerell (2007) asserts that “Postmodernism arms us with a method of calling everything into question and promoting a new cultural agenda.”

Postmodern is the time when people could do away with theologies that has been the basis of human life throughout the history of mankind. It dismantles the premodern’s belief in god, and the modern’s belief in science. Copan (2007) further explains that god was excluded as the foundation of making sense of reality and human experience; as well as science; postmodernism is “critical of any view that claims to be neutral, unbiased, or rational.” According to Fackerell (2007), “Postmodernists can accept any god or God (or goddess) as long as this being takes his place obediently within the grid…Any claims of supreme authority is unacceptable” Copan (2007) further asserts that “we cannot speak of any universal truth, reason, or morality. We just have fragmented perspectives.” Furthermore, eNotes (2009) supports these claims, as it describes the social and political ferments of the 1960s to “indicate a profound distrust in historical and cultural traditions, as well as modernist notions of progress, objectivity, and reason.” Moreover, it added that in literature, “postmodernism represents the rejection of the modernist tenets of rational, historical, and scientific thought in favor of self-conscious, ironic, and experimental works.”

The article entitled “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts & Howie, 2010) published by spaceandmotion.com states that “The current postmodern belief is that a correct description of Reality is impossible.” This extreme skepticism which is popularized by proponents such as: Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn , produced the following postmodern assumptions (spaceandmotion.com, 2010):

• All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving.
• No theory can ever be proved true - we can only show that a theory is false.
• No theory can ever explain all things consistently.
• There is always a separation between our mind and ideas of things and the thing in itself.
• Physical reality is not deterministic.
• Science concepts are mental constructs.
• Metaphysics is empty of content.
• Absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable.

The Theory of the Absurd

“The picture we present of the reality is the product of the stories we tell. Since the stories we create are different and multiple, so is the world (multiple), as well. Accordingly, the realities that exist about the world will be incomplete, and non-shared, as well. The world is ‘made’ not ‘found’” (Parker, 1997).

According to Sajjadi (2007), “There is no fixed, unique and universal reality or truth so that one can analyze and evaluate good or bad deeds, right and wrong, the good and the evil, ugly and beautiful by recourse to it.” Thus, Postmodernism proposed a method of deconstruction that restored the fundamental difference of things, a singular elevation of difference thoroughgoing subjectivism, whereas objectivity was sacrificed to personal subjective responses (Heartfied, 2002). Martin Esslin mentions Ionesco's parallel concept of the absurdity: "Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose. ...Cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless".

In “The Myth of Sisyphus” by Alfred Camus (1942), he introduced the problem of human absurdity and how it arises. Through Sisyphus—the absurd hero, he describes the characteristics of human basic ontological categories as the feelings of "denseness" and "the strangeness of the world", which are the feelings of the Absurdity of man in a world where the decline of religious belief has deprived man of his certainties. “Absurdity does not reside in the world itself, or in a human being, but in a tension which is produced by their mutual indifference. Human existence is in its essence completely different from the existence of things outside the human subject” (Navratilova, 2010).

The “Theatre of the Absurd” (Esslin, 1962) is another movement that supports postmodern thinking. “The playwrights loosely grouped under the label of the ‘absurd’ attempt to convey their sense of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe.” (Crabb, 2010) Theater of the Absurd is surreal, illogical, conflictless and plotless. The dialogue often seemed to be complete gibberish. They, in a sense, attempt to reestablish man’s communion with the universe. Dr. Jan Culik, as cited by Crabb,  writes, “Absurd Theatre can be seen as an attempt to restore the importance of myth and ritual to our age, by making man aware of the ultimate realities of his condition, by instilling in him again the lost sense of cosmic wonder and primeval anguish. The Absurd Theatre hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical experience in confronting the limits of human condition.”

According to eNotes.com (2009), in literature, postmodernism represents the rejection of the modernist tenets of rational, historical, and scientific thought in favor of self-conscious, ironic, and experimental works.

Shadows of Absurdity in “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”

Irony and absurdity are some of the ideas of postmodernism. These were manifested many times in “the Wife’ and “A Dreary Story”. In postmodern literature, according to eNotes.com “the authors abandon the concept of an ordered universe, linear narratives, and traditional forms to suggest the malleability of truth and question the nature of reality itself, dispensing with the idea of a universal ordering scheme in favor of artifice, temporality and a reliance on irony.” In “The Wife” and “A Dreary Story”, irony and absurdity are depicted in many portions of both texts.

Noticeably, Chekhov’s style of writing manifested many ironic and contradicting statements, which somehow supports the theory of the absurd. Observe the contradiction between the underlined phrases and sentences, and his constant use of words with opposing meaning (notice the highlighted words) in following excerpts :

1. No kind of sport, no kind of game or diversion, has ever given me such enjoyment as lecturing. Only at lectures have I been able to abandon myself entirely to passion, and have understood that inspiration is not an invention of the poets, but exists in real life… That was in old times. Now at lectures I feel nothing but torture… There is a dryness in my mouth, my voice grows husky, my head begins to go round…(A Dreary Story)

2. He is always talking about serious things, but he never speaks seriously. His judgments are always harsh and railing, but, thanks to his soft, even, jesting tone, the harshness and abuse do not jar upon the ear…(A Dreary Story)

3. And I vow to myself that I will never go to Katya's again, though I know I shall go next evening. (A Dreary Story)

4. "After all, why am I so troubled?" I thought. "What force draws me to the starving peasants like a butterfly to a flame? I don't know them, I don't understand them; I have never seen them and I don't like them. Why this uneasiness?" (The Wife)

According to eNotes.com (2009), “language is inherently unable to convey any semblance of the external world, and that verbal communication is more an act of conflict than an expression of rational meaning.” The underlined statements in the first item realize the idea of “temporality”, there are conflicts between meanings; people cannot really say what will happen in the future. All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving. What is true today may be falsified tomorrow, because nothing is permanent. In item-two, the confusing effect connotated by the meaning of each underlined statements is notable, which is also the same effect created by the opposing pronouncements in the underlined statements in item-three. Furthermore, the same idea is conveyed in item-four whereas somebody is troubled and uneasy for people whom he don’t know, don’t understand and don’t like. All these are absurd.   The opposition between the words “enjoyment” and “torture”; “harsh” and “soft”; “never go” and “shall go” also prove the postmodern idea that language “is more an act of conflict…” , that language cannot be a defining factor for determining the truth. According to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe Reality. Thus, according to Feyerabend “The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.”    

Furthermore, some absurdities are also depicted in the following excerpts:

5. And she thought it funny that the students fought and I made them go down on their knees, and she laughed. She was a gentle, patient, good child. It happened not infrequently that I saw something taken away from her, saw her punished without reason, or her curiosity repressed; at such times a look of sadness was mixed with the invariable expression of trustfulness on her face -- that was all. (A Dreary Story)
6. "Excuse us for troubling you, Natalie. We are discussing a very important matter, and we had the happy thought that we might take advantage of your good advice, which you will not refuse to give us. Please sit down."…Natalya Gavrilovna looked at me inquiringly and shrugged her shoulders as though to say, "What do I know about it?" (The Wife)

The underlined statements here depict confusing ideas. In item-five, how could a person who is gentle, patient and good; will find it funny that students fight? Such is absurd. In a conventional pattern of behavior, someone gentle, patent and good is expected to think in a manner that aligns to these behaviors. In item-six, a woman who thinks she doesn’t know about the matter is expected to give good advice. In conventional reality, one cannot give what he doesn’t have.

Postmodernists open a man’s mind to unconventional ideas by showing those which are least expected. According to Crabb (2006) postmodernists “achieve this by shocking man out of an existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent.” Life has been made predictable, postmodernism offers new things to ponder.

Furthermore, some evidences of the absurd are also noticeable in the following:

7. My wife's face wears a look of triumph and affected dignity, and her habitual expression of anxiety. (A Dreary Story)

8. I listened and thought: "I am master here; if I like, I can in a moment turn out all that fine crew." But I knew that all that was nonsense, that I could not turn out any one, and the word "master" had no meaning. One may think oneself master, married, rich, a kammer-junker, as much as one likes, and at the same time not know what it means. (The Wife)

The statement in item-seven, considering the highlighted words and its general meaning is also absurd. Upon hearing it, one might ask, “how could you be triumphant and dignified when you are anxious?” To answer such question is futile since according to “On Truth and Reality” (Haselhurts & Howie, 2010): Absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable. In item-eight, there is an obvious paring of words with somehow associated opposite meanings with the word “master”: master-nonsense, master-no meaning, master-not know; such pairs if used to define the word master will create unconventional meaning, something frustrating—something absurd. This idea of opposing meanings is carried out when Camus (1942) says, “When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself.” Thus according to Fackerell, (2007) “The mind can be fooled. How could we know that our thinking patterns are reliable?”

Finally, Chekhov also manifested absurd behaviors in his writings; such are evident in the following:

9. Katya listens and laughs. She has a strange laugh; she catches her breath in rhythmically regular gasps, very much as though she were playing the accordion, and nothing in her face is laughing but her nostrils. I grow depressed and don't know what to say. Beside myself, I fire up, leap up from my seat, and cry…(A Dreary Story)

10. …being very cold, burst out with, "Scoundrels, these Germans!"I behave badly with Pyotr Ignatyevitch, and only when he is going away, and from the window I catch a glimpse of his grey hat behind the garden-fence, I want to call out and say, "Forgive me, my dear fellow!" (A Dreary Story)

The situations depicted in above items illustrate irony; what has been said and done are different from what is really meant. According to Haselhurts & Howie, (2010) our language is too imprecise, our senses too limited and deceptive to ever absolutely describe Reality. Looking at the behaviors manifested by the characters in both text, an evidence of confusion and uncertainty is drawn. The characters presented the so called “deceptive senses” by showing ironic responses. Navratilova in “The Absurdity of Samuel Beckett” says, “It is not concerned with the representation of events, the narration of fates, or the adventures of characters. It is instead interested in the presentation of an individual's basic situation. It presents individual human being's intuition of his basic situation as he experiences it.”

Conclusion

“The ideas of those who think that they have some kind of objective truth or reality now need to be firmly suppressed!” (Fackerell, 2007)

According to Camus: “If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would have a meaning, or rather this problem would not arise, for I should belong to this world. I should be this world to which I am now opposed by my whole consciousness and my whole insistence upon familiarity. This ridiculous reason is what sets me in opposition to all creation.” The world becomes alien and the human being becomes a stranger in it, he feels isolated and limited. This is what is absurd. We do not know and cannot know the truth. Furthermore, Fackerell (2007) asserts, “Postmodernist no longer believe in the existence of the objective truth.”

Human is now left with a question which will remain unanswered. Notice the last words in the ending of both text:

11. My wife often comes up to me and looks about my rooms uneasily, as though looking for what more she can give to the starving peasants "to justify her existence," and I see that, thanks to her, there will soon be nothing of our property left and we shall be poor; but that does not trouble me, and I smile at her gaily. What will happen in the future I don't know. (The Wife)

12. "Let us have lunch, Katya," I say.

"No, thank you," she answers coldly. Another minute passes in silence. "I don't like Harkov," I ; "it's so grey here -- such a grey town."

"Yes, perhaps. . . . It's ugly. I am here not for long, passing through. I am going on today."

"Where?"
"To the Crimea . . . that is, to the Caucasus."

"Oh! For long?"

"I don't know." (A Dreary Story)

“I don’t know.” This is the statement that best depicts absurdity. Crabb (2006) in explaining postmodernism, talked about “The Myth of Sysiphus” by Albert Camus, and further concludes: “Camus argued that humanity had to resign itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd.

Anton Chekhov, in “The Wife” and in “A Dreary Story”, manifested several shadows of the Absurd—such is a genuine characteristic of Postmodernism.

References:

Asiado, T. (2008). Anton Chekhov biography: Russian short story writer and playwright,

known for Uncle Vanya. Retrieved at:

http://www.suite101.com/content/anton-chekhov-brief-biography-a40721.

Crabb, J. P. (2006) Theatre of the Absurd. Retrieved at: 

http://www.theatredatabase.com/20th_century/theatre_of_the_absurd.html

Camus, A. (1942). The Myth of Sysiphus. Retrieved at:

http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm

Copan, P. (2007).  What Is Postmodernism? Retrieved at:

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2950205/k.7A9C/What_is_Postmodernism.htm

eNotes.com. (2009). Postmodernism introduction. Retrieved at:

http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism/postmodernism/introduction

Fackerell, M. (2007). Postmodernism and the Death of Truth. Retrieved at:

http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/postmodernism-and-death-truth

Haselhurst, G. & Howie, K. (2010). On Truth & Reality. Retrieved at:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Postmodernism.htm

Heartfield, J. (2002). Postmodernism and the ‘Death of the Subject.

            Retrieved at: http://marxistsfr.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm.

Navratilova, E. The absurdity of Samuel Beckett Retrieved on September, 2010 at

http://www.samuel-beckett.net/Absurdity.htm

SOCIAL DILEMMA: HOMOSEXUALITY Homosexuals in the Philippine Society as Depicted in “Geyluv” by Honorio Bartolome De Dios

my voice, the ocean’s bell

rings a note bellow the waves.

i am the sea’s sovereign sound,

everyone kneels upon my fins

they give me pleasure.

out of the sea, i am dumb:

my royalty holds no meaning,

no man kneels at my feet

 it is i who kneel

to give them pleasure.

--“Ariel II” by Ralph Semino Gallan (Ladlad, 1994) 

Introduction

The author of “Gayluv” is a gay. This piece of work is a manifestation of his individual point of view and a reflection of his personal observations and experiences on how homosexuals are being treated in our society. Gayluv, as a product of  a first hand experience of a gay man who wants to share the life of homosexuals, and to express his opinions regarding the issues faced by this gender in our society. Honorio De Dios served as an amplifier for the voice of this minority to be heard and be understood by the society. The first line of the story says, “I love you, Mike.” told by Benjie, a line delivered by a man to another man proves that these people are human too. The story evolves between two male characters who have questions in their respective lives and the big role of homosexuality in providing some answers and at the same time more and more questions. To have a better understanding of the idea of the story and the author, the following excerpt from De Dios’ “Sa Labas ng Parlor” (1998) is quoted. “Sa kanyang kalipunan ng mga maiikling katha, seryoso si De Dios sa kanyang pagsisikap na ipahayag at ipaunawa sa lipunang heterosexual ang partikular na kalagayan ng mga Filipinong bakla. Sa bawat kuwento ay hindi lamang ang problema ng bakla sa sarili ang pinoproblema ng bawat tauhan: laging kaugnay ito ng lipunan na siyang kinalalagyan at kinakaharap ng problema.Walang pag-aalinlangan na ang simpatiya ng awtor ay nasa tatag at ganda ng tagdang kinawawagaywayan ng bandila ng kabaklaan.”

“Maagang namulat si Honorio Bartolome De Dios sa makulay at madilim, masaya at malungkot, magulo at mapag-isang mundo ng mga bakla. Mula sa Marilao, Bulacan, lumuwas siya sa Maynila at bilang seminarista ay nag-aral ng sociology at nakilahok sa mga gawaing pangmasa. Na-involve siya sa development work sa loob ng sampung taon. Ngunit hindi lang sa mga ito siya naging abala. Sa mabangis na lungsod, ginalugad din niya ang mga suloksulok ng kabaklaan upang hanapin ang kanyang natatanging lugar sa lipunan. Ilang beses din siyang napaluhod, nadapa, at napasubsob sa kanyang paghahanap. Ngunit sa tuwina, bumabangon siya na may panibagong lakas at determinasyon. Sa ngayon patuloy pa rin ang kanyang paghahanap at ang pinagyayamang karanasan ang ginagamit niyang panulat upang lumikha ng mga kuwentong sumasalamin sa buhay ng mga bakla sa isang lipunang may kinikilingan, mapagsamantala, walang pagkakapantay-pantay, pyudal, at patriyarkal.”

Analysis

            The story is about Benjie and Mike who fall in love with each other. The two presented several aspects of homosexuality in our society. The typical gay or bakla, portrayed by the character of Benjie; was manifested by the manner of his speech in several lines from the story:

“Pero mga ateee, bumigay na naman ako sa hiyaw ng akong puso.”

“Gasgas na sa akin ang puna ng mga amiga kong baklita na ilusyon ko lng ang paghahanap ng meaningful relationship.”

“Daaaaay. Maganda si Carmi. Mas maganda at mas sexy kaysa kay Carmi Martin. Pinanghalong Nanette medbed at Dawn Zulueta ang beauty ng bruha.”

“Ay naku daaaay, imbyerna na ako ha! Ayoko ng guessing game na ganito.”

“Ang Drama, ateee.”

“Naloka talaga ako  nang bigla na lang siyang yumakap sa akin.”

            This kind of language is typical among Filipino homosexuals. Their wide knowledge on beauty and show business was also manifested when Benjie was describing Carmi. Their gay or jolly personality is also quite obvious in the way he speaks. Notably, this kind of homosexuals are those which we see in parlors, the one that is comical and laughable, the one that receives less respect and improper treatment from many, the one which is usually looked down and degraded. Those who are the living persona of insult and are epitomizing the so called “salot ng lipunan”. Remoto (2009) lamented, “Homosexuality is now a contagious moral and spiritual disease from which our youth need to be quarantined?” Such claim was also highlighted by Mike’s fear to be associated with gays, he says “Aba, eh baka kako mapaghinalaan din akong bakla kung isang bakla ang lagi kong kasama.” This manner or frame of thinking on how homosexuality is viewed in our society is possessed by the majority of Filipinos. According to Barnet, (1996) homosexuals and heterosexuals are ways of defining human being. Sadly, in the Philippine setting and in many parts of the world, the definition of homosexuality is immorality and sin. Perhaps, gay’s reputation of using money to get sexual satisfaction with the same gender is also manifested as Mike explained, “…nanlalaki, yun bang namimik up kung saan-saan.” It is undeniable that such practice is rampant among many homosexuals in our country, which probably is the reason why many Filipinos have a negative perception and reception of the gay community.

            An unacceptable behavior in our society of a man appreciating another man was also reflected in the story through the following remarks of Benjie about Mike:

“Oo, gwapo si Mike at macho ang puwit…”

“Aba, at mas gwapo pala sa malapitan ang Mike na ito.”

Such remarks, if uttered by a man, will be a qualifying evidence that he is a gay and that he is deviating from the acceptable norms in the society, which is condemning homosexuality.

            Homosexuals are also portrayed in the story as someone who does not deserve to be happy in terms of emotional aspect, most specifically in the aspect love. This was manifested by the character of Benjie who reflected, “Para kasing nung nakita ko silang dalwa, ang pakiramdam ko, kalabisan na ako…” as he saw Mike and Carmi together. This also supports the conventional thinking of our society that god created man for a woman and a woman for a man and same sex pairing is a sin.

            According to Barnet (1996), “…sexuality will determine the particular categories within which individuals come to understand and to name their own desires.” In the story, a line says, “…sa gitna ng madilim na kwartong kaming dalawa lamang ang laman, ay di lang yakap at halik ang gusto kong isukli sa kanya noong gabing iyon.” Such desire if uttered by a heterosexual will be very acceptable and even encouraged, but if it comes from a homosexual even if there is sincerity, it will still viewed by many-- maliciously and often immoral.

Conclusion

            It is a long way to go, if not impossible before our society could accept homosexuality with tenderness. The injury that it is inflicting and the living scars on the skin of both the heteros and homos in our society will continue as man strives to live in this diverse world. It will keep on burning the fire of reality that whatever we do, accept it or not, homosexuality is existing and growing in our society. These homosexuals could be your parent, your sibling, your cousin, your neighbor, your friend, the person sitting beside you, or you yourself. Therefore, the key I think is, the culture of understanding and acceptance, thus according to Remoto (1994) “yes, we have come, we are here, kapit bisig if you want it—voices that have long been silenced, people who have long lived on the margins of page, on the shadowlands of other people’s consciousness.”

References:

Barnet, S. (1996). A short guide to writing about literature 7^th edition. HarperCollinns:

USA.

Garcia, N. C. & Remoto, D. (1994). Ladlad anthology of Philippine gay writing.

Anvil Publishing Inc. Pasig City.

Remoto, D.(November 16, 2009) Disenfranchising homosexuals Editorial. Ang

Pahayagang Malaya. Retrieved at  http://dantonremoto2010.blogspot.com/2009