世界英文文學首頁   /   作家  /  Margaret  Atwood  瑪格莉特.愛特伍德  /  作品
Surfacing
作者Author  /  Margaret  Atwood  瑪格莉特.愛特伍德

Study Guide

 
Surfacing
 Nature, Women vs. Dualism

 Language as a Power for Men

 The Patriarchal Order Being Challenged

 Surfacing -- a story about the suppressed condition of women and nature

 
 

Nature and Women: Refusing to be victims

The logic of domination is often expressed in dualisms.  Dualisms reduce diversity to two categories: A or Not A.  They convey the impression that everything can then be appropriately categorized: either A or Not A.  These dualisms represent dichotomy rather than continuity, enacting exclusion rather than inclusion.

                                                                                                               Carol J. Adams

 

 
 Nature, Women vs. Dualism
 

Nature and Women are oppressed in dualist thinking.  As a product of human ideology, dualism serves to divide everything into two.  According to the established binary logic, humans easily draw close to one and isolate the other in the opposite category.  Undoubtedly, women and nature are categorized as the “other” in light of this dominant division.  Women serve men and nature serve civilization.  Both are excluded from the core of power and placed in the subordinate positions in this way; they share similar statuses.

      Nature has a close affinity to women.  Both of them are in humans’ complete control with the metaphors of feminized nature and naturalized women.  Women have menses, pregnancy, and menopause that are similar to Mother Earth’s regular cycle to rear all the creatures in the world.  Women and nature take the responsibility of reproduction, which are supposed to be their only roles.  Furthermore, they are deprived of the right to speak because they ought to be obedient women or silent nature under the control of men.

 

TOP

 
 Language as a Power for Men
 

Language is an exclusive privilege for human beings, especially for men only.  Restricted from participating in the social affairs, women are confined to a private and domestic realm while men could exert their influence on the public one.  Women are molded to be the angels in the house to take charge of the duties inside the house by the male-centered order.  They do not and cannot have voices.  And how about nature?  Of course, nature has no voice either.  It cannot speak.  It cannot express.  It cannot have the rights to do anything.  Christopher Manes observes the condition in his “Nature and Silence” and believes that being a speaking subject is only a “human prerogative”:

Michael Foucault has amply demonstrated that social power operates through a regime of privileged speakers, having historical embodiments as priests and kings, authors, intellectuals, and celebrities.1  The words of these speakers are taken seriously as opposed to the discourse of “meaningless” and often silenced speakers such as women, minorities, children, prisoners and the insane. (16)

In the society, males hold power to speak so females cannot get the way to say anything.  It’s the so-called human reason that leads to the commanding classification of speaking men and silent women.  Women are the people who supposed to be unreason; therefore, it’s impossible for them to participate in public affairs.  Manes then dwells further on this topic:

                  For half a millennium, “Man” has been the center of the conversation in the West.  This fictional character has occluded the natural world, leaving it voiceless and subjectless.  Nevertheless, “Man” is not an inevitability.  He came into being at a specific time due to a complex series of intellectual and institutional mutations, among them the sudden centrality of reason. (26)

There are complex reasons that assure women’s voicelessness in society.  Social patterns, the so-call “women nature” to be obedient and tender and the powerful patriarchal education all contribute to women’s silence.  However, what needs to be taken into account is the outcome of the unequal treatments of men and women, human civilization and nature.  Silent nature and voiceless women are deprived of the ability to speak while men are performing their own monologue in the established human hierarchy.  It’s a monologue rather than a dialogue because only the more powerful side has the right to speak.  It’s an unilateral communication.  Undoubtedly, women and nature are categorized and educated as the obedient and submissive side.  Therefore, women are posited under the authority of men and nature under the power of civilization within the bigoted hierarchy.  Val Plumwood in “Women, Humanity, and Nature” points out:

                  There is now a growing awareness that Western philosophical tradition which has identified, on the one hand, maleness with the sphere of rationality, and on the other hand, femaleness with the sphere of nature, has provided one of the main intellectual bases for the domination of women in Western culture. (211)

Therefore, since the positions for women and nature are constructed by human reason and have been established for a long time, the destruction of the system must be dealt with rapidly and without fail. 

 

TOP

 
 The Patriarchal Order Being Challenged
 

 Followed by the awareness of women’s human rights in the 19th century,2 the fixed hierarchy of patriarchy is questioned and overturned.  More and more women occupy positions not previously belonging to females in every field.  The close connection between women and nature is soon noticed.  Scholars were devoted to demonstrate how patriarchal culture “naturalizes” the authority of nature and women3 since Françoise d’Eauboonne coined the term “ecofeminism” in1974.4  They try to illustrate their ecological concern from a femininist standpoint.  In the introduction of Ecofeminism and the Sacred, Carol J. Adams points out that ecofeminism “has been called the third wave of feminism” (3). 

                   In fact, ecofeminists around the world are analyzing the interrelated aspects of social domination and domination of nature.  We are deeply engaged with political and economic struggles, as well as with the challenge to articulate ecofeminist theory.  This is why ecofeminism has been called the third wave of feminism.  Ecofeminism may have grown out of earlier feminist theory, but it revises this theory by its position that an environmental perspective is necessary for feminism. (3)

Looking into similar problems but from a different perspective is what ecofemisnists try hard to do.  Being one of the pioneers to connect women and nature, Rosemary Radford Ruther states the interconnection of women and nature in her “Ecofeminsm: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppression of Women and the Domination of Nature”:

                   How did this reversal [the concept of human outside of nature] take place in our cultural consciousness?  One key element of this identification of women with nonhuman nature lies in the early human social patterns in which women’s reproductive role as childbearer was tied to making women the primary productive and maintenance workers.  Women did most of the work associated with child care, food production and preparation, production of clothing, baskets and other artifacts of daily life, cleanup and waste-disposal. (15)

It’s the social pattern that causes women and nature to be dominated.  They are constructed to be under the monopoly of male culture.  However, the reproductive ability for women and nature reveal the truth that the continuity of life does rely on females on the other hand.  The so-called reasonable males are the more dependent side in patriarchal relationship.  Without women and nature, it is impossible for men to sustain the whole universe all by themselves.  According to Ruther, it’s very clear that far before the participation of human beings, nature exists and maintains itself well.

                    It is, in fact, human beings who cannot live apart from the rest of nature as our life-sustaining context, while the community of plants and animals both can and, for billions of years, did exist without humans.  The concept of humans outside of nature is a cultural reversal of natural reality. (14-5)

In other words, “nature does not need us to rule over it, but runs itself very well, even better, without humans” (21).  Human beings are latecomers to the planet in fact.  It’s humans who construct the logic of control in order to govern everything in the world.  However, when women have already taken actions to voice themselves out, what about silent nature?  Is it really silent?  Maybe it’s not absolutely true.

    Since language is viewed as an “exclusively human prerogative,” nature, therefore, articulates in a different manner.  Manes carries out an exploration of the condition in “Nature and Silence”:

                    In addition to human language, there is also the language of birds, the wind, earthworms, wolves, and waterfallsa world of autonomous speakers whose intents (especially for hunter-gatherer people) one ignores at one’s peril. (15)

Therefore nature is not obedient and submissive to what humans have done to it after all.  It uses another way to accuse humans’ selfish deeds.  Greenhouse effects, the thinning of the ozone layer, acid rain, desertification and El Nino are all nature’s voices to resist and to withstand human’s unscrupulous damage to the one and only Mother Earth.  They do protest against the pollution of civilization.  As the slogan always seems to warn us: ”How many earths do we have?”   

     Based on the concern for suppressed women and nature, ecofeminists construct their own standpoint as opposed to the male-centered ideology.  Human beings always attempt to term the entire universe according to the narrow vocabulary of epistemology that exclude so many possibilities on the other hand.  Setting up a firm hierarchy, eliminating everything inferior from the established order, and then marginalizing the powerless ones, everything they do is unscrupulous.  Teal L. Willoughby illustrates ecofeminists’ ideas further in “Ecofeminist Consciousness and the Transforming Power of Symbols”:

                   Now ecofeminists are constructing their own viewpoint out of their own values and understanding of ecology and feminist theory.  This alternative perspective, called ecofeminist consciousness, will be conscious standpoint for evaluating actions toward the earth (both literal and symbolic).  This viewpoint upholds the values of interconnection, diversity, and greater awareness of nature in and of itself as opposed to the linear, hierarchy mind-set in which nature is rated lower than man and man is rated higher than woman. (136)

Due to so many similarities between women and nature, scholars of ecofeminism contribute their efforts to fight for an equal position for both of them.  As a well-known woman writer nowadays who contributes a lot to the equality of men and women, Margaret Atwood expresses her concern for the subordinate women and nature as well.

 

TOP

 
 Surfacing -- a story about the suppressed condition of women and nature
 

     As a novel about human’s relation with nature, Surfacing shows Atwood’s unique insight into the suppressed condition of both women and nature.  Even though it is published in the early 70’s, it demonstrates her particular concern about the crisis of human intrusion in the wilderness and evokes the attention to the disequilibrium in the novel.  According to Nathalie Cooke’s observation in Margaret Atwood: A Biography, Atwood shows her concern of the topic about nature in her early works5:

                   Atwood’s earliest work reflects a number of concerns that have remained central to her oeuvre: a profound respect for the natural world, a commitment to Canadian culture, and a firm belief in the rights of the individual.  In her work, such concerns can be traced in the themes of nature’s triumph over civilization, Canadian nationalism, and feminism. (79)

In Surfacing, Atwood embraces many of the dichotomies that have long been standards in Western thought.  She connects women with nature and men with culture, which each in opposition to the other.  Although these binary categories bring the nameless narrator numerous pains, she relieves herself from the burdens of dichotomy and returns to the city with hope at the end of the novel.

     The anonymous narrator in Surfacing grows up in a remote island in northern Quebec.  She goes back to her birthplace in search of her missing father.  When she puts herself in the isolated nature, the narrator finds that she is captivated and summoned by the mysterious power of nature like many of the female characters in the fairy tales.6  She has a special sense as she dwells in the natural environment.  She gets the experience in her lifetime to come into contact with and learn about nature.  Unlike her unfeeling companions, she believes and senses nature with ease.  As she stays in the rural environment, she feels a kind of safety.  “How have I been able to live so long in the city, it isn’t safe,” the narrator says, “I always [feel] safe here, even at night” (70).  In comparison with the stifling city, the narrator lives and breathes at ease on the island. 

     For the narrator, living in the city is as if bearing numerous kinds of burdens.  Everything in the city for her is a difficult task.  Getting alone with so many people makes her uneasy.  She cannot fit herself into the surrounding at all.  Every time she recalls the nights she spent in the city, she suffers the tension of emotion.       

                    In the night I had wanted rescue, if my body could be made to sense, respond, move strongly enough, some of the red light-bulb neurons, incandescent mole-cules might seep into my head through the closed throat, neck membrane.  Pleasure and pain are side by side they said but most of the brain is neutral; nerveless, like fat.  I rehearsed emotions, naming them: joy, peace, guilt, release, love and hate, react, relate; what to feel was like what to wear, you watched the others and memorized it. (112)

She is unaccustomed to the pressure of modern life.  She cannot get used to the life in the civilization.  Therefore, she confronts so many difficulties during the period she spends in the city.  It’s such a hard time in her life.       

                    The inside of my arms were stippled with tiny wounds, like an addict’s.  They slipped the needle into the vein and I was falling down, it was like diving, sinking from one layer of darkness to a deeper, deepest; when I rose up through the anaesthetic, pale green and then daylight, I would remember nothing. (112)

The narrator’s unaccommodated situation in civilization is displayed in her narration as well.  Shoes for her “are a barrier between touch and the earth” (164).  David and Anna’s car is nothing but “a lumbering monster.”  The “Americans” are intruders.  As Hilde Steals notices in “Surfacing: Retracing the Paths of (Self-) Mutilation,” the narrator disdains everything symbolizing civilization and never wants to change herself. 

                   These foreign signs signal the deterioration of the “original” landscape, caused by the intervention of other human beings, an interference that she associates with violation.  The environment that underwent a process as a result of changed context “betrays” her [the narrator’s] expectations. (46)

Therefore, when the narrator comes back to her birthplace, goes fishing with her friends, and eats artificial food on the natural land, she even has a sense of complicity.  A sense of crime rises gradually in her mind because she is aware of her taking part in doing something bad to nature.

                   We knelt down and began to pull at the weeds; they resisted, holding on or taking clumps of soil out with them or breaking their stems, leaving their roots in the earth to regenerate; I dug for the feet in the warm dirt, my hands green with weed blood.  Gradually the vegetables emerged, pallid and stunted most of them, all but strangled.  We raked the weeds into piles between the rows, where they wilted, dying slowly; later they would be burned, like witches, to keep them from reappearing.  There were a few mosquitoes and the deer flies with their iridescent rainbow eyes and stings like heated needles. (77)

After perceiving her own complicity, she then turns to despise what the “Americans” do to the natural island and even compares them with dogs.  They should preserve the beauty of the environment rather than destroy it.

            After we landed we found that someone had built a fireplace already, on the shore ledge of bare granite; trash was strewn around it, orange peelings and tin cans and a rancid bulge of greasy paper, the tracks of humans.  It was like dogs pissing on a fence, as if the endlessness, anonymous water and unclaimed land, compelled them to leave their signature, stake their territory, and garbage was the only thing they had to do it with. (111)

The “Americans” unscrupulously do things bad to nature in order to demonstrate their power.  They repeatedly ravage and rob the landscape with their own will and disregard the reciprocal relationship between humans and the land.  Human beings exist in the natural world.  They should give thanks and preserve it with all efforts.  Without the support of natural system, it’s impossible for humans to sustain themselves well.

                    Whether it died willingly, consented, whether Christ died willingly, anything that suffers and dies instead of us is Christ; if they didn’t kill birds and fish they would have killed us.  The animals die that way we may live, they are substitute people, hunters in the tall killing the deer, that is Christ also.  And we eat them out of cans or otherwise; we are eaters of death, dead Christ-flesh resurrecting inside us, granting us life.  Canned spam, canned Jesus, even the plants must be Christ.  But we refuse to worship. (141)

It’s ironic that human beings worship Jesus Christ for his sacrificing life for them but contempt animals’ for giving life to provide them food.  Birds and fish in the novel are victims that convey the embarrassing condition.  The way of human’s exploitation of nature is connected to the oppression of women through the narrator since she is a woman who suffers painfully from the domination of men and civilization and has a special bond to nature.  Both nature and women contribute to human society but are repressed under men’s commanding power.

     Women have no names in the rural town.  Everyone is called “Madame.”  They are only objects that belong to men in the male-dominated society.  They exist to satisfy the physical, domestic and sexual needs of their spouse or male companion.  Names for them are not important at all because individuals are not significant.   The narrator’s abortion of her child is then portrayed as brutal as a butcher’s slaughter of livestock in the novel although the narrator deliberately describes it as if she goes through a delivery:

                   After the first I didn’t never want to have another child, it was too much to tie your hands down and they don’t let you see, they don’t want you to understand, they want you to believe it’s their power, not yours.  They stick needles into you so you won’t hear anything, you might as well be a dead pig, your leg are up in a metal frame, they bend over you, technicians, mechanics, butchers, students clumsy or snickering practicing on your body, they take the bady out with a fork like a pickle out of a pickle jar.  After that they fill your veins up with red plastic, I saw it running down through the tube.  I won’t let them do that to me again. (79)

The narrator is cut into two after the cruel and forced abortion.  “I [am] emptied, amputated;” the narrator says,” I [stink] of salt and antiseptic, they [have] planted death in me like a seed” (145).  This compelled event hurts her physically and mentally since how she feels is never the concern. 

Women are so humble that they can do nothing they really want to.  The narrator’s best female friend Anna provides the best example to present this inferior situation.  Anna lives up to the stereotypical image in the society that women are labeled subordinate to men.  Within her marriage with David for nine years, she is submissive all the time.  She does her best to please him from stem to stern.  She is never in control of her life; instead, it’s David in control of her life.  Like what Brooks J. Bouson describes in Brutal Choreographies: Oppositional Strategies and Narrative Design in the Novels of Margaret Atwood, Anna “is a passive recipient and not active agent”(42).  She makes herself up to fit in with all of David’s demands.  The subjectless Anna hides poorly behind her makeup appearance.  Without makeup, she loses the only magic in her life.  She is poorly trapped in the powerless role of woman.

David symbolizes the authority of patriarchy that exploits women in all respects.  On the sixth day they spend on the island, David asks Anna to take off her clothes for his Random Samples.  He persuades her into doing it.

                    “What’s humiliating about your body, darling?” David said caressingly.  “We all love it, you ashamed of it? That’s pretty stingy of you, you should share the wealth; not that you don’t.” (136)

By pressing a button, David easily captures Anna’s naked images.  It’s a torture to Anna but a joy to David.  Shooting films is an act of taking possession.  David takes Anna as his personal property for consumption that he can film her as long as he can and he want.  For David, Anna becomes nothing but a pornographic object displaying in front of his eyes.  As Bouson observes in Brutal Choreographies, it’s the unequal power relationship that results in Anna’s tragedy.

                   Drawing attention to the power politics of gender relations, it shows how women, in an age of supposed sexual freedom, remain bound in a social formation that assigns man the role of sexual aggressor and woman that of passive victim and sexual object. (40)

The marriage between Anna and David is not an admirable relationship; on the contrary, it gives the narrator a lesson to scrutinize her own carefully.  Bouson further illustrates the power struggle between Anna and David.

                   Contesting the myths of romantic love as the attraction of opposites or the balance of complements, Surfacing draws attention to the oppression of women in a male-defined order of hierarchical and oppositional roles that empower men at the expense of women. (43)

The narrator gradually realizes the imbalance of Anna’s marriage and she decides to fight back.  She wants to do something for Anna, but at this point, she is still afraid and feels that "the only defense was flight, invisibility":

                    I wanted to run down to the dock and stop them, fighting was wrong, we aren’t allow to, if we did both sides got punished as in a real war.  So we battled in secret, undeclared, and after a while I no longer fought back because I never won.  The only defense was flight, invisibility.  I sat down in the top step. (136)

The narrator reels off the film and symbolically rescues Anna from David’s coercion.  She unwinds the film and throws it into the lake.  These unjust treatments of Anna lead the narrator to re-examine her identity as a woman in marriage.  As the journey progresses, she rejects the patriarchy-defined gender role for women.  She refuses to be a victim like poor Anna.  She wants to have her own way as Atwood talks about in Margaret Atwood Conversation:

                If the only two kinds of people are killers and victims, then although it may be morally preferable to be a victim, it is obviously preferable from the point of view of survival to be a killer.  However, either alternative seems pretty hopeless; you can define yourself as innocent and get killed, or you can define yourself as a killer and kill others.  The ideal would be somebody who would neither be a killer nor a victim, who could achieve some kind of harmony with the world, which is a productive or creative harmony, rather than a destructive relationship towards the world. (16-7)

Without doubt, Anna embodies the role of victim, a victim of patriarchy.  However, the narrator doesn’t.  She resists being subordinate.  As Elenoara Rao points out in Strategies for Identity: The Fiction of Margaret Atwood, the narrator comprehends so many oppressions in her life that she decides not to be a victim anymore: 

Images of victimization permeate Surfacing.  The world of nature that surrounds the narrator and her companions is violated by technology, pollution and human lust.  The protagonist, confronted by such evidence of victimization, is convinced that she herself is a victim.  As a woman she feels handicapped in a man’s world as a commission; as a Canadian she feels exploited in a country that she regards as a sell-out.  As a human being, she is pervaded by guilt. (55)

Unlike Anna, the narrator asks for equilibrium in her “marriage.”  Her previous abnormal relationship with her ex-lover in the city leads her to try to break free from the established women’s role in the society.  Unlike Anna she strongly refuses to be a victim within the system of patriarchy.  Besides fighting back violently, there should be some placid ways to solve the problem.  Bouson observes in Brutal Choreographies:

                   Women and men may not only oppose but also represent aspects of one another.  Despite her inner resistance to the monolithic voice and finalizing speech of bourgeois culture, the Surfacernot unlike Anna who speaks in a “radio” voicefinds herself responding to Joe in an inauthentic feminine voice. (45)

The narrator is conscious that she will never be a woman like Anna.  She has to resist.  She has to fight.  She has to walk her own path.  The journey into the wilderness is a chance for her.  After a few days’ stay on the island, the narrator’s long-denied past and affection surface.  She wants to experience nature.  She rejects to go back to the city to conform to the male-constructed woman without any change.  Then she decides to turn into a “natural” woman and lives in a “natural” way there.  The narrator is tired of civilization and does not want to pretend anymore.   She wants to get rid of all the burdens of civilization. 

                   It’s true, I am by myself; this is what I wanted, to stay here alone.  From any rational point of view I am absurd; but there are on longer any rational points of view. (173) 

The narrator cares nothing about reason anymore.  Eating roots, destroying her clothes and sleeping in the wilderness, she reverts to the original state of life.  According to Emma Parker in “You Are What You Eat: The Politics of Eating in the Novels of Margaret Atwood,” it’s the narrator’s way to experience nature:

                    When she rejects culture and retreats into the wilderness to become a “natural” woman, she gives up eating processed food.  Such food is contaminated in the same way that society is contaminated by patriarchical ideology.  Both are unnatural, constructed, man-made, and both threaten to poison her. (115)

In this way, the narrator relieves completely from all of her burdens.  She accepts nature’s healing power. As Bouson points out in Brutal Choreographies, the narrator also reverses the perfect woman image set by Anna in her own way.

                   Through this troubling image of the natural woman, the novel deliberately subverts the cultural construction of an eroticized, commodified femininity promoted by and circulated in the men’s magazines: the glossy magazine centerfold woman who is, like Anna, an imitation of an imitation. (58)

The narrator puts herself in the entire natural world.  She immerses herself in the lake and gets a redemptive power and then finally gets a totally new perspective toward life.     

                            A fish jumps, carved wooden fish with dots painted in the sides, no, antlered fish thing drawn in red on cliffstone, protecting spirit.  It hangs in the air suspended, flesh turned to icon, he has changed again, returned to the water.  How many shapes can he take.

                  I watch it for an hour or so; then it drops and softens, the circles widen, it becomes an ordinary fish again. (193)

Even death for her does not mean a separation now.  The death of the narrator’s father is a reunion to the earth, to nature. 

I am part of the landscape, I would be anything, a tree, a deer skeleton, a rock.  I see now that although it isn’t my father it is what my father has become.  I knew he wasn’t dead. (193)

Death becomes a kind of return to nature and a promise of new life.  After death, her parents blend into nature and become part of it.  She receives the inspiration and realizes that she must go back to the city with a completely new understanding.

The narrator determines to accept the restrictions in the city and the obstruction of civilization.  However, this time, she is different.  She is ready to try to fit herself into the world.  She does know that as a human being, coming back to the city is inevitable.  Eating food in the cabin, as Emma Parker illustrates in “You Are What You Eat,” is the narrator’s first step to compromise with the world.

                   However, when she “runs out of food, she realizes she cannot live without physical sustenance just as she cannot lives outside society.  She must engage with life.  Her return to the cabin to eat food there signals her first step toward tentative reintegration into society. (115)

However, after the first step is taken, the narrator decides to go back to the city then.  She decides to let go and to believe and is prepared to rejoin the world. 

     Nothing can disguise the fact that humans are part of nature, indivisible from it.  Even the narrator chooses to come back to civilization at the end of the story does not deny this idea.  Nature and civilization, women and men are not absolutely opposite.  However, with a complete transformation in mind, it can be changed.  As Rao illustrates in Strategies for Identity: The Fiction of Margaret Atwood, the importance of living in harmony with nature does not equal to give up everything civilized. 

Atwood implies that we should transcend the politics of victims and victors and thus try to “achieve some kind of harmony with the world, which is a productive or creative harmony rather than a destructive relationship towards the world.” (8)

After the journey, the narrator prepares to rejoin the world with a new realization.  Nature and Civilization are not the two levels in the hierarchy.  In Ruther’s phrase, they are “dependent parts”:

                    We need to think of human consciousness not as separating us as a higher species from the rest of nature, but rather as a gift to enable us to learn how to harmonize our needs with the natural system around us, of which we are a dependent part. (21)

There are no superiors or inferiors in the relationship.  There is only a mutual corporation for the only universe.  That is what Atwood wants to talk about in the book when she mentions it in her Conversation.

                    There is an objective world out there; I’m far from being a solipsist.  There are a lot of things out there, but toward any object in the world you can take a positive or negative attitude or, let us say, you can turn it into a positive or a negative symbol, and that goes for everything.  You can see a tree as the embodiment of natural beauty or you can see it as something menacing that’s going to get you, and that depends partly on your realistic position toward it; what you are doing with the tree, admiring it or cutting it down; but it’s also a matter of your symbolic orientation toward everything.  Now I’m not denying the reality, the existence of evil; some things are very hard to see in a positive light.  Evil obviously exists in the world, right? But you have a choice of how you can see yourself in relation to that.  And if you define yourself always as a harmless victim, there’s nothing you can ever do about it.  You can simply suffer. (212)

Looking from a different angle, everything will be different.  The borders between women and men and nature and civilization are not that hard to cross.

 
 

TOP

 
     
 
   
導讀
Copyright ©2009 國科會人文學中心 All Rights Reserved.