People read a text and interpret it based on other texts they have read and personal life experiences. Structuralists believe that "things […] have to be seen as part of a larger structure to which they belong" (Dobie 152). It is with this intent that readers read; we look to attach a text to its larger structure. Stories are read and characters are perceived based on the meaning a reader gives to signifiers within the text. There are flaws in interpretation because "language […] is arbitrary, conventional and based on difference" (Dobie 154). Deconstructionist critics seek to prove that there is no transcendental signified. Since texts are "dynamic entities that are given new life with repeated readings and through interactions with other texts," meaning changes depending on the reader (Dobie 155). This changing signified becomes apparent when applying this theory to A Family Supper by Kazuo Ishiguro.
In the story, the narrator is returning to Japan to visit his father and sister after the death of his mother. The narrator had previously been living in California as a result of a strained relationship with his parents. As the story progresses, important binary oppositions begin to emerge, most prevalent among these being the honor/disgrace opposition. Others that arise include good/bad, pride/shame, and male/female. In binary oppositions, “one member is privileged,” and “define[d] by […] its less-valued partner” (Dobie 158). In these oppositions, “honor,” “good,” “pride,” and “male” are privileged.
The narrator's father repeats that his former business partner Wantanabe was “a man of principle” whom he “respected very much.” The narrator’s father explains that when their business folded, "Wantanabe killed himself. He didn't wish to deal with the disgrace” (story 339). This shows that the narrator’s father values honor and thereby shuns dishonor, or disgrace. Similarly, the narrator’s father reiterates that the narrator’s sister, Kikuko is a “good” girl, showing that he values Kikuko’s goodness. Kikuko reinforces this belief when she explains to the narrator, “[Mother] used to tell me how much more careful they'd been with me, and that's why I was so good" (Ishiguro 340).
Early in the story it is noted that the narrator’s father was “particularly proud of the pure samurai blood that ran in the family” (Ishiguro 338). Samurai’s are traditionally male which shows not only that pride is privileged, but also that males are privileged. The reader can infer that shame surrounding behaviors about which his mother had been upset sent the narrator to California. Further, that the narrator remembered a time when his father had “struck [him] several times around the head for ‘chattering like an old woman’” shows that females are not valued (Ishiguro 339). Also, Kikuko is obedient and quiet around her father showing her understanding and acceptance of the male privilege.
This interpretation of the binary oppositions leads the reader to find a story about honor and redemption after disgrace. The narrator disgraces his family in some way and separates from the family to restore honor. Similarly, the failure of Wantanabe’s business caused his family disgrace so he killed them and himself in an attempt to do the same. Upon the narrator’s return he is accepted by his family and welcomed to dinner as a family with his sister and dad despite the previous disgrace.
This reading seems to work well for the text until elements begin to contradict themselves. First, while the narrator’s father repeatedly remarks that Wantanabe is “a man of principle,” Wantanabe does a dishonorable deed in killing his family and himself. The narrator questions his father about whether Wantanabe made a mistake. The narrator’s father’s response directly contradicts his earlier declarations of honor: “Why, of course. Do you see it otherwise?” (Ishiguro 344). In proclaiming Wantanabe’s respectability, the narrator’s father has been valuing Wantanabe’s disgrace instead of honor like he thinks.
Kikuko’s actions also contradict the idea that she is a “good” girl. She smokes in the absence of her father, tells her brother about her boyfriend and their plans to go to America when she finishes her studies. Kikuko shares her intent to hitchhike, a dangerous activity (Ishiguro 340). Kikuko asks the narrator about a woman that the narrator doesn’t want to discuss (Ishiguro 341). The similarities between Kikuko’s plans and what seems to have happened with the narrator shows that the narrator’s parents have actually been valuing “bad” by embracing their “good” daughter.
The pride/shame and male/female oppositions are closely connected and also reversed within the text. The narrator’s father admits his shortcomings to his son, showing the value of shame: “Perhaps I should have been a more attentive father” (Ishiguro 342). The narrator’s father also finds shame in being able to do what is traditionally a woman’s job. Since his wife death, the narrator’s father has had to learn to cook for himself but it is “hardly a skill [he’s] proud of” (Ishiguro 342). Also, by preferring Kikuko in light of the narrator’s disgrace, the narrator’s father has been valuing the female term all along.
Meaning is further deconstructed by refocusing on elements in the story that have been glossed over by the conventional reading. For example, my reading doesn’t explain why the ghost in the garden, the “old woman” wearing a “white kimono,” is the same image he sees in the picture of his mother. Further, it is never clearly stated what the narrator did to disgrace his family. The reader knows that the narrator was "swayed by certain--influences" (story 339).His father noted that parents sometimes lose their children "to things they don't understand" (story 342). It is later revealed that the narrator was involved with a woman named Vicki, with whom he presumably went to California. The inverted binary opposition of male/female is reinforced by these elements. The narrator valued the female over his male dominated family.
The text continues to reach aporia with each reading and refocus on marginal elements or reversal of binary oppositions. There are many possible interpretations of the text because, as a deconstructionist critic knows, meaning is always provisional. One could continue to reinterpret the text. For instance, the significance of the fugu fish is unclear. That the fish essentially has to be castrated in order to be safe for consumption reinforces the inverted male/female binary opposition. Castrating the fish makes it safe suggesting that one should value the female term for one’s own safely. There will always be alternate readings to a text because no ultimate signified exists for a specific text. Each reading will contradict the previous one, deconstructing the text every time.
Works Cited
Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 150-168. Print.
Ishiguro, Kazuo. “A Family Supper.” The Art of the Story. Ed. Daniel Halpern. New York: Penguin, 1999. 338-345. Print.
In the story, the narrator is returning to Japan to visit his father and sister after the death of his mother. The narrator had previously been living in California as a result of a strained relationship with his parents. As the story progresses, important binary oppositions begin to emerge, most prevalent among these being the honor/disgrace opposition. Others that arise include good/bad, pride/shame, and male/female. In binary oppositions, “one member is privileged,” and “define[d] by […] its less-valued partner” (Dobie 158). In these oppositions, “honor,” “good,” “pride,” and “male” are privileged.
The narrator's father repeats that his former business partner Wantanabe was “a man of principle” whom he “respected very much.” The narrator’s father explains that when their business folded, "Wantanabe killed himself. He didn't wish to deal with the disgrace” (story 339). This shows that the narrator’s father values honor and thereby shuns dishonor, or disgrace. Similarly, the narrator’s father reiterates that the narrator’s sister, Kikuko is a “good” girl, showing that he values Kikuko’s goodness. Kikuko reinforces this belief when she explains to the narrator, “[Mother] used to tell me how much more careful they'd been with me, and that's why I was so good" (Ishiguro 340).
Early in the story it is noted that the narrator’s father was “particularly proud of the pure samurai blood that ran in the family” (Ishiguro 338). Samurai’s are traditionally male which shows not only that pride is privileged, but also that males are privileged. The reader can infer that shame surrounding behaviors about which his mother had been upset sent the narrator to California. Further, that the narrator remembered a time when his father had “struck [him] several times around the head for ‘chattering like an old woman’” shows that females are not valued (Ishiguro 339). Also, Kikuko is obedient and quiet around her father showing her understanding and acceptance of the male privilege.
This interpretation of the binary oppositions leads the reader to find a story about honor and redemption after disgrace. The narrator disgraces his family in some way and separates from the family to restore honor. Similarly, the failure of Wantanabe’s business caused his family disgrace so he killed them and himself in an attempt to do the same. Upon the narrator’s return he is accepted by his family and welcomed to dinner as a family with his sister and dad despite the previous disgrace.
This reading seems to work well for the text until elements begin to contradict themselves. First, while the narrator’s father repeatedly remarks that Wantanabe is “a man of principle,” Wantanabe does a dishonorable deed in killing his family and himself. The narrator questions his father about whether Wantanabe made a mistake. The narrator’s father’s response directly contradicts his earlier declarations of honor: “Why, of course. Do you see it otherwise?” (Ishiguro 344). In proclaiming Wantanabe’s respectability, the narrator’s father has been valuing Wantanabe’s disgrace instead of honor like he thinks.
Kikuko’s actions also contradict the idea that she is a “good” girl. She smokes in the absence of her father, tells her brother about her boyfriend and their plans to go to America when she finishes her studies. Kikuko shares her intent to hitchhike, a dangerous activity (Ishiguro 340). Kikuko asks the narrator about a woman that the narrator doesn’t want to discuss (Ishiguro 341). The similarities between Kikuko’s plans and what seems to have happened with the narrator shows that the narrator’s parents have actually been valuing “bad” by embracing their “good” daughter.
The pride/shame and male/female oppositions are closely connected and also reversed within the text. The narrator’s father admits his shortcomings to his son, showing the value of shame: “Perhaps I should have been a more attentive father” (Ishiguro 342). The narrator’s father also finds shame in being able to do what is traditionally a woman’s job. Since his wife death, the narrator’s father has had to learn to cook for himself but it is “hardly a skill [he’s] proud of” (Ishiguro 342). Also, by preferring Kikuko in light of the narrator’s disgrace, the narrator’s father has been valuing the female term all along.
Meaning is further deconstructed by refocusing on elements in the story that have been glossed over by the conventional reading. For example, my reading doesn’t explain why the ghost in the garden, the “old woman” wearing a “white kimono,” is the same image he sees in the picture of his mother. Further, it is never clearly stated what the narrator did to disgrace his family. The reader knows that the narrator was "swayed by certain--influences" (story 339).His father noted that parents sometimes lose their children "to things they don't understand" (story 342). It is later revealed that the narrator was involved with a woman named Vicki, with whom he presumably went to California. The inverted binary opposition of male/female is reinforced by these elements. The narrator valued the female over his male dominated family.
The text continues to reach aporia with each reading and refocus on marginal elements or reversal of binary oppositions. There are many possible interpretations of the text because, as a deconstructionist critic knows, meaning is always provisional. One could continue to reinterpret the text. For instance, the significance of the fugu fish is unclear. That the fish essentially has to be castrated in order to be safe for consumption reinforces the inverted male/female binary opposition. Castrating the fish makes it safe suggesting that one should value the female term for one’s own safely. There will always be alternate readings to a text because no ultimate signified exists for a specific text. Each reading will contradict the previous one, deconstructing the text every time.
Works Cited
Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 150-168. Print.
Ishiguro, Kazuo. “A Family Supper.” The Art of the Story. Ed. Daniel Halpern. New York: Penguin, 1999. 338-345. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment