Avelar's Second
Thesis delves back into the analysis of the relationship between Torture and
Voice. It brings us back to the works of Elaine Scarry and her thoughts about
torture and language, self, and world. For this analysis we're focusing mainly
on the relationship between torture and language. It goes into explain that
inevitably the torturer is only a voice and the tortured is only a body.
More in depth, to me
this means that the torturer has the power and the muscle to enforce this power
yet they do not need this muscle. Passed a certain point, their voice becomes
the only instrument they need to show their dominance over the tortured and to
in turn once again torture them. Their voice becomes a constant reminder of
what they have already gone through. This can be seen in Death and The Maiden.
His voice in inevitably how she recognizes her torturer years later. The
tortured on the other hand, no longer have their voice. They are just a body
that is having to endure and feel the pain that the torturer is choosing to
trust upon them. They have no voice to express their protests of the pain
infliction. They don’t even have a voice to express how much it hurts because
there is no one there to even listen. They are just an alienated body.
You bring up some interesting points, Alexis. I think what is meant by the tortured being "only a body" is that the humanity of the person (their beliefs, their morals, the way they perceive the world) is stripped away when torture occurs. It's similar to Scarry's idea of pain being self and world-destroying. When one is tortured, nothing matters but the pain. All that remains is one's physicality, and the stinging reminder of the fragility of human bodies. However, torturers have a "voice" in that they are still able to continue to process life and continue on in relative normality once the torture they inflict ceases. The tortured, as you noted, do not. This is related to the idea of torture destroying language. Since the torturer is not at the receiving end of the pain, he/she still fully possesses language. Following her torture, all Paulina can focus on his the pain that was inflicted on her body: all that she knows is her body. Under the assumption that Miranda is her tortutrer, she knows that Miranda still has a voice and thus still has the option to process the entire scene of torture and ultimately confess.
ReplyDeleteAlexis and Shayna, I agree with both of you. In my view this quote by Paulina on p37 perfectly exemplifies how the torture deprived her of her voice "It’s been years since I murmured even a word, I haven’t opened my mouth to even whisper a breath of what I’m thinking, years living in terror of my own.” As humans the ability to hear and speak allows us to use language as a means of expressing our identity and when torture takes away our voice it simultaneously takes away our power and our very identity, leaving the tortured as "just a body".
ReplyDeleteThough Avelar deems Paulina as a hysteric woman, seeing Paulina's struggle in trying to regain her lost voice convinced me of the truth behind her words and leads me to believe that the movie adaptation of the play is appropriate. This made me realise that language not only holds an importance in the play in the relationship between the tortured and the torturer but also between the play/movie and the audience.