|
July, 2010 Problematic and Dynamic Identities in Angels in America The title and subtitle of Tony Kushner’s Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes demonstrates the playwright’s intention to present a political play examining the national themes in which various controversial issues are involved for example, politics, AIDS, religion, race, ethnicity, and no doubt homosexuality. Divided into two parts, Millennium Approaches and Perestroika, Angels problematizes identity politics, which tends to define community in terms of identity’s sameness and difference, through its portrayal of how some communities get broken up in Millennium Approaches because of the characters’ changes by their sexual re-orientation or because of the AIDS they get in. Identity as well as its political implications is then gradually re-defined from Millennium Approaches to Perestroika-- through fantasies, dialogue, actions as well as theatrical techniques such as split scenes. What begins as anxiety, isolation, disavowal of the Other, however, does not end in total harmony or stabilization of identity. As the rabbi says to the congregation in Louis’s grandmother’s funeral, “in you that journey is” (17), so Kushner illuminates that each character in Angels goes on a journey differently to reassert and reconstruct his/her identity. Through analyzing the characters’ changes and transgression of boundaries in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, this paper attempts to demonstrate that the forming of identity is problematic but dynamic. Identity is problematic and unstable because there are in this play both thematic elements of change and relapse. Identity, on the other hand, is dynamic because of the use of argumentative dialogue and split-scene technique, as well as the possibilities of progress towards the end of the play.
II. “History is about to crack wide open”—Changes Occur IV. New but Uncertain Identities
Identity in its conventional meaning designates “an all-inclusive sameness, seamless, without internal differentiation” (Hall 17). However, Stuart Hall reconceptualizes the definition of identity through his discussion of poststructuralists’ examination of identity, for instance Derrida, Foucault, and Butler, proposing that identities are: produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices by specific enunciative strategies. Moreover, they emerge within the play of specific modalities of power, and thus are more the product of the marking of difference and exclusion, than they are sign of an identical, naturally constituted unity. (17) Since identity can not be a natural and stable unity without differences within or without, Hall argues that the construction of identity is “only through the relation to the Other, the relation to what it is not, to precisely what it lacks” (17). Hall, thus, points out that the process of identification is the “‘play’ of différance,” which means that identity formation is always deferred for its signification. In addition, the self is always in relation with the different others. While Hall develops his theorization on the binary elements of self/other and sameness/difference, in his illustration of identity, he claims that is impossible for the self to remain the same; on the other hand, identity is “multiply constructed, often intersecting and antagonistic, discourses, practices, and positions” (17). The process of identification, thus, takes place in this dialectical relations. The identity politics Kushner deploys in Angels corresponds to Hall’s idea of identity as constantly produced in its dialectical relations with the others. In the play it is the elements of change that push the characters away from their original positions and into some new sets of dialectical relations with the others. Kushner’s characters go through radical changes in their lives. In other words, AIDS and coming out of homosexuality, which causes failure in marriage, are the initiation forces that drive these characters away from their original positions to deal with the difficulties in keeping a relationship, to be entangled in a web of relations and, moreover, to abolish the old selves for a new order. Thus, as the characters struggle to survive the harsh reality and look for consolation, they also undergo the process of identification. Although identification is traditionally “a recognition of some common origin or shared characteristics with another person or group, or with an ideal, and with the natural closure of solidarity and allegiance established on this foundation,” from a discursive approach, identification is seen as a construction, “a process never completed --- always in process” (Hall 16). Such a poststructuralist definition of identity, for me, can help explain Kushner’s portrayal of the characters’ journey of their identification from facing and responding to their fragmented and conflicting identities in the first part to a gradual reconstruction and progress of new selves and a new community in the second part. Presumably, these characters stay in a temporary closure of fixed identity before the occurrence of their problems. It is their problems that offer them a chance to reconstruct their identities.
II. “History is about to crack wide open”—Changes Occur Relations are first affected and broken in the play because of AIDS. First of all, Louis has to leave Prior because of the latter’s AIDS, and Joe gets distanced from Harper because of his growing homosexual desires. Joe’s coming out, in turn, pushes his mother, Hannah, from her secure home in Importantly, the characters’ identities are changed as they deal with their problems, while the other characters are inevitably involved in the process of changes. In other words, in Kushner’s network of interconnectedness, one change leads to another and there is simply no end to it. Upon disclosing that he has been infected the “kiss of the angel of the death,” Prior states, “I’m a lesionnaire. The Foreign Lesion. The American Lesion. Leisionnaire’s disease” (27). Discovering that AIDS has marked its symptom on his body, Prior ironically identifies himself as one of a military group, “legion,” but one which is both “foreign” and American, suggesting that he is aware of being excluded even by his own “American” community. The epidemic thus makes him become the Other, a different subject from the healthy gay community. Seeing Louis astonished and emotionally distraught when they part for the day, Prior reveals his fear of losing Louis: “Then you will come home?” (28). Prior’s question discloses his anxiety of being abandoned and excluded from the majority; at the same time, it reveals how his disease will turn Louis into a “traitor” in the subsequent sequence of chain reaction, as the latter does go away and searches for sex with some other gay men. AIDS thus elicits Louis’s flaws in his characteristics; for example, cowardice, disloyalty, and duplicity. In this way, the disease not only strikes Prior’s body, but also demolishes the people’s trust and break up this gay commitment. If it is hard for Louis to face the possibility of Prior’s death and his own contracting the disease, it is even harder for Roy, a powerful person, to face his own death, it means being disempowered both by the disease and the fact of his homosexuality. Kushner’s depiction of Another initiating force to drive the characters to change is Joe’s sexual orientation, whose immediate consequence is to intensify Harper’s sense of disorientation in Like Prior, Harper is also a victim in a failed relationship, but both manage to see it from some broader perspectives. While Prior sees clearly his marginalized position as Other, Harper discloses human alienation in the world of rapid system changes: “People who are lonely, people who left alone, sit talking nonsense to the air, imaging … beautiful systems dying, old fixed orders spiraling apart” (22). For Joe’s mother, Hannah, the change she experiences is that of her belief system. Upon hearing Joe’s confession that he is a gay, Hannah refuses to accept the fact: “No more talk. Tonight. This … (Sudden very angry) Drinking is a sin! A sin! I raised you better than that. (She hangs up)” (82). Instead of directly indicating that his homosexuality is sinful, Hannah is so astonished that she would rather reprimand her son for drinking. Hannah’s response and attitudes towards Joe’s coming out imply the conflict between mother and son. As a conservative Mormon living alone in
While AIDS and coming out respectively bring changes to the characters’ lives and break their families and/or systems of belief, the characters respond differently. Roy tries to deny his AIDS but Prior faces it, yet both remain confined in the hospital or at home. On the other hand, Louis and Joe take action to escape from their homes only to find themselves entangled in a temporary partnership. When these two guilty souls meet, they seem to find the temporary shelter from their morality condemnation. Following Louis to his apartment, Joe experiences the sensuous and homoerotic sex with Louis. In their sexual encounter, Louis plays the role of a mentor and helps Joe to break out his heterosexual boundary through his exploring his own body and physical sensations “The nose tells the body --- the heart, the mind, the fingers, the cock --- what it wants, and then the tongue explores, finding out what’s edible” (164). With his initial sense of inhibition broken, Joe appears to bravely declare his identification with and love for Louis by trying to clear Louis’ sense of guilt and shedding his Mormon identity—without, however, being aware that this shedding of an old skin is only a partial break from his old system. Joe, first of all, tries to justify Louis’ running away from Prior: “What you did when you walked on him was hard to so. The world may not understand it or approve but you did what you needed to so. And I consider you very brave” (205). In addition, he keeps on emphasizing that Louis and he are the same: “You and I, Louis, we are the same. We both want the same thing” (205). Apparently justifying Louis’ action, Joe reveals his anxiety to find a sense of belonging with Louis. Since he has abandoned his heterosexual identity, duty, and life, he is eager to be accepted to Louis. To prove Louis that he accepts his homosexuality, Joe takes off his underwear, the temple garment, exposing his naked body in front of him. Symbolically, Joe’s taking off his clothes plays a central role in his identification. The temple garment signifies the social and religious boundary confining Joe’s sexual orientation for a long time. For Joe, it is his “[p]rotection” and “second skin” (203). Kruger in his discussion expounds that “skin and the cross of its boundaries provide the opportunity not only for wounding but for connection” (159). Thus, as Louis tells Joe that he wants to go back to Prior, Joe takes off his clothes to prove he will change for Louis and abandon his past: “Whatever you want. I can give up anything. My skin” (206). Joe’s action implies his lack of security and belonging in response to the changes. Before his coming out, Joe displays his struggle and pain in hiding his homosexual desire. Yet, after his acceptance of his homosexuality, he is afraid to be isolated from any homosocial connection. Through taking of his “second skin,” Joe attempts to maintain the connection with Louis. While Joe seeks to strengthen his newly established identity by an excessive identification with Louis to confirm their bonding, Louis remains ambivalent in his identification. He is portrayed as an ambivalent figure who keeps meeting conflicts between his self and the others. After his betrayal of Prior, Louis is never relieved from his guilt. In order to justify his deeds, Louis often engages in the argumentative dialogue with the others in order to find a politically correct stance. Importantly, Louis’s identity formation usually takes place in his heated dialogue through which his original identity is deconstructed due to the encounter with the different discourses. Generally, it is While Joe and Louis take action to escape from the old selves, they respectively break the boundaries and the relational commitment (to parents and/or lovers) that come with their old identities. Joe discards the heterosexual marriage, which is seen as a requirement for men in a heterosexual dominant society, and embraces his homoerotic desire. Ironically, the latter stays in another partnership to flee away from his guilt and fear. The two persons with seemingly “same” sexual orientation are thus a direct opposite to each other. The other seemingly same position is taken by Harper and Prior in their confinement at home and fantasies. In the meantime, Harper relies on her fantasy to face the alternative realities. At first, Harper’s illusion temporarily helps her escape from the difficulty in real life. No matter it is her imaginary friend Mr. Lies or her encounter with Prior in the imaginary world, Harper reveals her insecurity and uncertainty towards her alienated relationship with Joe, moreover, towards the inevitable change of her self. She poses her anxiety and pessimistic attitude toward facing changes of the external world and her identity in front of Mr. Lies: “maybe the troubles will come, and the end will come, and the sky will collapse and there will be terrible rains and showers of poison light, or maybe my life is really fine, maybe Joe loves me and I; only crazy thinking otherwise…” (24). Although Harper’s illusion in Part One serves as her escape from the harsh reality, she still has to face the problem initiated from Joe’s coming out. As Joe comes out in front of her, Harper breaks down completely for what she fears the most has come true. Hence, Harper again retreats to her illusion, asking her imaginary friend to take her away from the harsh reality. Significantly, the name Mr. Lies, with the connotation of lying, suggests that Harper more or less is aware that she is lying to herself. While staying in allusion, she does not have to face changes in reality. Yet, the escape doesn’t provide Harper a terminal shelter from facing the inevitable changes of her identity. To Harper, her imagination is not simply some meaningless delusion, but it contains the profound signification for her to know the meaning of changes in her identification. In her dialogue with the Mormon Mother, Harper gradually breaks the boundary of her old self and acquires a broader understanding of change. As Harper desperately asks the Mormon Mother why people change, the Mormon Mother’s answer expounds that changes must be destructive, violent, and painful: “God splits the skin the jagged thumbnail from throat to belly and then plunges a huge filthy hand in, he grabs hold of your bloody tubes and they slip to evade his grasp but he squeezes hard, he insists” (211). Although the process of changes is ferocious, the Mormon Mother points out that after destruction there must be reconstruction: “And then he stuffs them back, dirty, tangled and torn. It’s up to you to do the stitching” (211). The Mormon Mother demonstrates how changes offer an individual a chance to reconstruct his/her identity. Once Harper is able to overcome her fear in facing changes, she is able to form a new identity. As Harper accepts changes through her fantasy, Hannah meets the identity differences as she is in In fact, Hannah is not the only caretaker in the play. Belize is another one supporting the other characters in their identification. Although Although Kushner delineates the characters’ different responses to the changes, he provides an optimistic prospect in Part Two Perestroika, especially in his presentation of Prior. In Part Two of Angels, these characters find their own ways to reconcile with their problems. Most importantly, they assume new identities in the process of dealing changes. Furthermore, they establish a community in which the diversity of identities co-exists without conflicts.
IV. New but Uncertain Identities Prior goes through a long journey in his forming of new identity. Firstly, he gets AIDS, and then being abandoned by Louis. Later, before the visit of the Angel, his two ancestors from the old Walter family appear as the heralds of the Angels. According to Kruger the two figures of prior Priors elucidate “the stability of the Walter family […] in shaping Prior’s emerging identity as (reluctant) prophet for the Angel’s deeply conservative political project” (152). While Kushner provides a dramatic ending in Millennium Approaches with the Angel’s bursting into Prior’s room through cracking the ceiling, the audiences and readers must wonder whether this symbolic action suggests Prior’s death due to AIDS. In fact, the cracking of the ceiling reminds us of Ethel’s line, “History is about to crack wide open. Millennium approaches” (118). In other words, this action can be seen as the symbolic fragmentation from which Prior’s old identity is disrupted. To form a new identity on the basis of his old self, Prior must defy against the Angel’s demand, that is, the stasis of humans: “If you [humans] do not MINGLE you will Cease to Progress: Seek Not to Fathom the World and its Delicate Practice Logic; You cannot Understand, You can only Destroy. You do not Advance, You only Trample” (178). Unlike the general understanding of angels, the Angel does not provide Prior hope but his end. Alisa Solomon writes, “The Angel’s visit is not intended to save Prior from his disease but, rather, to use his disease against him” (144). Yet, Prior powerfully and firmly refuses the Angel’s demand: “ Therefore, as the play goes on, Prior gradually affirms his subjectivity over his new identity. At the second visit of the Angel, Prior is in the hospital sickly recovering from another severe attack of his illness with the companionship of Hannah. Seeing the Angel dressed in black, Prior and Hannah are so frightened that Hannah asks Prior to wrestle with the Angel. As Prior takes action to wrestle with the Angel, he literally and figuratively demonstrates his refusal to accept the identity the Angel assigns to him. He expresses his desire to control his fate: “I … will not let thee go except thou bless me. Take back your book. Anti-migration, that’s so feeble, I can’t believe you couldn’t do better than that, free me, unfetter me, bless me or whatever I will be let go” (251). It is a significant turning point for Prior to display his strong will to survive from the epidemic. From this moment he is no longer the passive, hopeless, and melancholic AIDS patient abandoned by his lover. In contrast, he resolutely refuses to be destructed by his illness; more importantly, he contends against the Angel to secure his subjectivity. Therefore, after the wrestle, the Angel yields to Prior and allows him to ascend to the heaven to claim his will and argue against the other angels. Indeed, the movement of Prior’s ascending to heaven symbolically suggests his progression in the forming of his identity. In heaven, Prior’s dialogue with the Angels manifests his assertion of who he is; that is, he would not accept the Angels’ demand to “STOP MOVING” (178): “We can’t stop. We’re not rocks --- progress, migration, motion is modernity. …We desire. Even if all we desire is stillness, it’s still desire for” (264). As Prior discloses that it is necessary for humans to keep progression and moving, he forms a counter discourse to the Angels’. In the meantime he uses his contaminated body as the proof to expound that even the threat of death is not able to shatter his belief. Although Prior’s illness can not be cured and erased from his body, he contends to seize the chance to stay alive. In other words, Prior’s new identity in seen as the embodiment of human’s endurance, struggle, and determination: “Death usually has to take life away. I don’t know if that’s just animal. I don’t know if it’s not braver to die…. We live past hope. If I can find hope anywhere, that’s it, that’s the best I can do…. Bless me anyway. I want more life” (267). Showing his resolution in front of the angels, Prior demonstrates his fulfillment in the reconstruction of his new identity. Aside from Prior, the other characters also gradually complete the formation of new identities. In her talk with the Mormon Mother, Harper realizes that changes are inevitable but violent. Her acceptance of the changes propels her identity formation. Thus, in the scene when Joe returns to Harper for a temporary shelter after Louis leaves him. Asking Joe if he is thinking of men when they are in bed, Harper wants the truth to ascertain that their relationship can not be the same as it used to be. Thus, as Joe affirms it and leaves her once again, Harper peacefully utters: “It sets you free. Goodbye” (239). Harper forgives Joe’s betrayal and hiding the secret of his homosexuality in their marriage. Most important of all, she frees herself from the traumatic memory with Joe and accepts a new self. Afterward, Kushner’s presentation of Harper elucidate that she has transformed from a passive wife to an independent woman, living for herself. Harper leaves Joe, heading for At the same time, Hannah is another one who accepts changes and secures a new self. Hannah adapts herself to a new life in Louis, on the other hand, may not change as extremely as Hannah or Harper, but, in the process of facing changes, Louis reaffirms his political principles and racial identity. Kruger writes, “Louis changes position frequently in the play, but his movement is ultimately circular, a return to where he began” (158). While Louis is with Joe, he continuously meets the political and religious conflicts with Joe. As a Jew supporting for liberalism, Louis can not believe that Joe, a Mormon, is a gay. Louis asks Joe, “How can a fundamentalist theoretic religion function participatorily in a pluralist secular democracy?” (197). Yet, it is in the endless conflict with Joe that Louis stands firms for his political principles. Their conflict comes to the climax as Louis discovers that Joe works for In addition, Louis re-identifies with his Jewishness through forgiving However, there are still some characters staying in the uncertainty or relapse of identification, for instance, Joe and Roy. Joe changes from his denial of homosexuality to his acceptance of it. In addition, he is willing to give up his old self to embrace the new identity. Joe’s radical change for a new self is seen in his intense argument with Louis. Hitting Louis out of rage, Joe breaks the restriction imposed on his old self. Besides, the action elucidates that he moves form his old self to a new identity. However, Joe’s return to Harper at the end of the play poses an ambivalent question in the play’s identity construction. Why does Joe waver between his homosexual and heterosexual identities in the course of the play? Kruger indicates that Joe “never grapples with the self or its past history in such a way as to effect change” (165). Yet, we can not deny that Joe undoubtedly undergoes the radical changes and conflicts between the binary oppositions of heterosexuality/ homosexuality, old/new, Mormonism/Judaism, and conservatism/liberalism while he is with Harper, Louis, or even Roy. Therefore, I would like to argue that Joe’s repetitive wavering between old self and new one is not his inability to assume a new identity, but his quest to find a sense of belonging. As Louis holds on with his love for Prior, Joe realizes that he does not belong to their community. He reveals his anxiety of being alone and isolated while talking to Harper: “Only you love me. Out of everyone in the world. I have done things, I’m ashamed. But I have changed. I don’t know how yet, but …. Please, please, don’t leave me now” (272). Joe shows his feeling of getting lost in his identification. Hence, Harper’s last words for Joe provide him a way to solve his uncertainty: “Sometimes, maybe lost is best. Get lost. Joe. Go exploring” (273). This line reminds us of Harper’s last monologue in the plane. In other words, Joe does not fail in his identification. He just needs more time to identify with a fixed self. On the other hand, the presentation of The process of forming new identities is a long journey for the characters. Prior refuses to be a prophet to deliver the message of stasis for the Angel. He is optimistic for the future though his disease can not be cured. Louis reaffirms his political position and re-identifies with his Jewishness. Harper becomes an independent woman exploring the external world with her new self. Hannah accepts the identity differences and stays in
This community is the result of Kushner’s intention to form a network among the characters. To form this community, Kushner applies the theatrical technique of split scenes. Kushner’s idea of interconnection aims to demonstrate that the process of identification can not be fulfilled by each of the characters alone. To explain the dramaturgy in the play, Art Borrca points out that the split scenes “spatially juxtapose characters and their actions in order to suggest their social interconnectedness” (256). Therefore, in Harper and Prior’s mutual dream, they cross the spatial confinement to confide their fear of facing changes in reality. Their encounter in the fantasy “can be seen as a species of split scene that superimposes the characters’ simultaneous, unconscious visions upon one another” (Borrca 256). Besides, in showing the negative responses to changes, Kushner also juxtaposes the falling apart of Prior and Louis’s and Harper and Joe’s relationship on stage at the same time in act 2, scene 9. Significantly, the identity formation takes place in the split scenes. While realistically and unrealistically juxtaposing the characters, Kushner implies the identity construction must work in a network in which the characters interact with the different others. In this network, they progress to identify with their new selves. Uniting in front of the Bethesda Fountain, the characters celebrate the new order in a utopian community, which is established through the “interconnectedness of all humanity regardless of race or racial preference” (Fisher 85). As Prior claims that the Bethesda Fountain is his favorite place in the universe (278), the meaning of new order is endowed by this fountain. While the statue represents a female angel, who touches down the fountain, where water sprouts into the surrounding pool, beneath the statue there are fours cherubs representing Temperance, Purity, Health, and Peace (“Bethesda”).Therefore, these elements can be seen as the foundation of this new community. Works Cited “Bethesda Fountain.” Wikipedia.com. 2008. Wikipedia. 11 June 2008. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Fountain> Borrca, Art. “‘Dramaturging’ the Dialectic: Brecht, Benjamin, and Declan Donnellan’s Production of Angels in America.” Approaching the Millennium: Essays on Angels in Fisher, James. The Theater of Tony Kushner: Living Past Hope. Kushner, Tony. Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. Kruger, Steven F. “Identity and Conversion in Angels in Millennium: Essays on Angels in
|