Talking Back by Bell Hooks and Sins of Silence by Mai Kao Thao were very thought provoking. There are similarities between both women's lives- how they were told not to "talk back", how every family member punished them for it- male and female. Yet I find it interesting that Bell Hooks continued to talk, while Mai Kao Thao kept her silence.
I think the one major difference between their lives is the fact that for Bell Hooks, she saw and heard women talking, with power and without fear. Although for her it was a crime to talk, she knows that it is possible for women to talk- "And yet it was hard not to speak in warm rooms where heated discussions began at the crack of dawn, women's discussions filling the air, giving orders, making threats, fussing" (15). Bell Hooks sees women talk, and considers it a beautiful thing- describing it as so rich and poetic that she felt compelled to join in. This is where she gains her determination to speak no matter the consequences.
For Mai Kao Thao, however, there are no women she interacts with that she can look up to- there is no knowledge that women have ever spoken up or have a right to speak. Her mother stays silent and does not argue, and when Mai Kao Thao sees this, she accepts it as how life is. Making sure there is no trouble around her becomes the goal of her life. It is not only until she comes to America that she realizes how life was in Laos, and the effect of the silence she kept. Before coming to America, Mai Kao Thao didn't know she could talk back, and that she didn't have an individuality as a child.
I guess for someone like Bell Hooks to gain determination, she had to see it happening and know that it was possible, so she had something to hold on to through the punishments she was given. Since Mai Kao Thao had no one, perhaps the idea that she would 'talk balk' couldn't even occur to her. We often accept life how it is and do not question why life is the way it is- we cannot. How are we to know of something that isn't in life? Mai Kao Thao did not think of talking back because she didn't know it existed.
This ties in with all of the dystopia novels we have read. In We, D-503 does not think of rebellion until after I-330 shows him a life other than the One State's. He hadn't thought of this, because he did not know such a thing could exist. In 1984, the Party limits the Outer Party members' thoughts (with Newspeak and the like) so they cannot think of rebellion- as Sime mentions, it will be impossible to think of rebellion because the words simply won't exist. In A Handmaiden's Tale, one of the Aunts tells the handmaidens that it is harder for them to do their job because they remember the past- but later generations will have it easier because they won't know of any other life. Thus, without knowing that something exists, how can we think of it?
Hey! You made a valid and interesting observation of mothers acting as a role model and we become what we learn and see as shown in the articles and also the mentioned books. But do you think that this is always the case ?Do children of drug addicts and rapists become drug addicts and rapists ? No not automatically,often they are able to break the cycle? History fortunately does not always repeat itself. Sometimes children grow up with abuse and wayward parents, witness firsthand the dire consequences and vow never to make the same choices or mistakes. It was possible for Mai Kai Thao to see through her mothers mistakes and take corrective action. She had a choice to grow up standing up for herself with self realization as the role model as opposed to a third party.Further, children of confident and famous actors sometimes follow in their parents footsteps while others retreat into a shell feeling they can never live up to their expectations and become shadows of their parents.We all react to life's experiences whether it be good or bad in different ways. For example a child of an alcoholic parent may express their disgust by becoming a tee totaller in adulthood. However, our historical past and the people who influence it do play a part in our choices whether it be positively or negatively, but the path we take i feel is not always a blind affirmation of follow the leader...
ReplyDeleteThanx Sabrina
I think you misunderstood what I was saying: children do not always (or even very often) follow their parents' footsteps, but they are always impacted by their family and what they are surrounded by. Children of drug addicts do not always become drug addicts- but what they saw and went through as a child makes them who they are. Sometimes those who experienced drug-addict parents become the ones most against drugs. I was trying to say that a child is effected by their surroundings, and this is what makes them who they are.
ReplyDeleteIt was hard for Mai Kai Thao to see through her mother's mistakes (although I do not think we can say it is a mistake), because she knew of no other possibility. She saw no evidence of a woman talking, so the idea never occurred to her. Bell Hooks could, because she saw other women doing it- that is the difference between Hooks and Thao. None of us are destined to follow the leader- but that does not mean we do not watch and learn.