Location
Room 2901
Session Format
Paper Presentation
Research Area Topic:
Humanities & Social Sciences - Literature & Philosophy
Abstract
Although, as Robert Gordon observes, many critics view Harold Pinter’s political plays as simply didactic (163), his radical drama Mountain Language resists this perceived didacticism. This political play offers a nuanced understanding of how fascist bureaucracies manipulate language to authorize and authenticate violence against political subjects and how these subjects utilize language to resist governmental oppression. Employing Walter Benjamin’s theory that fascist states aestheticize politics, this essay argues that the fascist bureaucracy of Mountain Language aestheticizes language to justify and conceal its violence. In Mountain Language, anthropomorphism and offensive humor construct a dehumanizingly fascist aestheticization of language. Raymond Williams concept of an effective dominant culture, one which organizes a lived set of dominant meanings and values (38), illuminates the extreme extent to which the fascist government of the play dominates the lives of its citizens, both banning their native tongue and using names to regulate political agency. Homi K. Bhabha’s theory of a Third Space of negotiation between two subjects illuminates the plays use of metatheatrical techniques, particularly voice-over, as a means of asserting the capacity for language to promote love and empathy as easily as the state uses language to justify its violence. Voice-over dialogue between family members imparts the liberating power of language. Negotiating the Third Space created by the play’s voice-overs, spectators witness the power of their political agency to create new social realities. Because individuals cannot escape language, they must find a way to transform this mechanism of their oppression into one of their liberation. While Mountain Language cannot simply teach audiences what political actions to take, the play provides useful suggestions for initiating effective political action. In a social reality presenting fascist tendencies, achieving political action founded on community is no easy task, but Mountain Language proposes that it constructs a powerful political mechanism. This essay challenges the assumption of many Pinter critics that Pinter’s political plays are less worthy of critical attention than his other plays, and advances the trend of the majority of discourse on his play Mountain Language in particular beyond mere plot summary and generalizations about violent totalitarian states. Works Referenced Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed. Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey J. Williams, eds. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010. pp. 1051-71. Print. Bhabha, Homi K. “The Commitment to Theory.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed. Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey J. Williams, eds. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010. pp. 2353-72. Print.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2012. Print. Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” Culture and Materialism. London: Verso, 1980. 31-49. Print.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Presentation Type and Release Option
Presentation (Open Access)
Start Date
4-16-2016 1:30 PM
End Date
4-16-2016 2:30 PM
Recommended Citation
Wentz, Matthew, "The Transformative Linguistic Politics of Mountain Language" (2016). GS4 Georgia Southern Student Scholars Symposium. 126.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/research_symposium/2016/2016/126
The Transformative Linguistic Politics of Mountain Language
Room 2901
Although, as Robert Gordon observes, many critics view Harold Pinter’s political plays as simply didactic (163), his radical drama Mountain Language resists this perceived didacticism. This political play offers a nuanced understanding of how fascist bureaucracies manipulate language to authorize and authenticate violence against political subjects and how these subjects utilize language to resist governmental oppression. Employing Walter Benjamin’s theory that fascist states aestheticize politics, this essay argues that the fascist bureaucracy of Mountain Language aestheticizes language to justify and conceal its violence. In Mountain Language, anthropomorphism and offensive humor construct a dehumanizingly fascist aestheticization of language. Raymond Williams concept of an effective dominant culture, one which organizes a lived set of dominant meanings and values (38), illuminates the extreme extent to which the fascist government of the play dominates the lives of its citizens, both banning their native tongue and using names to regulate political agency. Homi K. Bhabha’s theory of a Third Space of negotiation between two subjects illuminates the plays use of metatheatrical techniques, particularly voice-over, as a means of asserting the capacity for language to promote love and empathy as easily as the state uses language to justify its violence. Voice-over dialogue between family members imparts the liberating power of language. Negotiating the Third Space created by the play’s voice-overs, spectators witness the power of their political agency to create new social realities. Because individuals cannot escape language, they must find a way to transform this mechanism of their oppression into one of their liberation. While Mountain Language cannot simply teach audiences what political actions to take, the play provides useful suggestions for initiating effective political action. In a social reality presenting fascist tendencies, achieving political action founded on community is no easy task, but Mountain Language proposes that it constructs a powerful political mechanism. This essay challenges the assumption of many Pinter critics that Pinter’s political plays are less worthy of critical attention than his other plays, and advances the trend of the majority of discourse on his play Mountain Language in particular beyond mere plot summary and generalizations about violent totalitarian states. Works Referenced Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed. Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey J. Williams, eds. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010. pp. 1051-71. Print. Bhabha, Homi K. “The Commitment to Theory.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed. Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, and Jeffrey J. Williams, eds. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010. pp. 2353-72. Print.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2012. Print. Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” Culture and Materialism. London: Verso, 1980. 31-49. Print.
