國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The absolute hospitality requires one to unconditionally accept and welcome the
foreigner. There should not be expectation of reciprocity, and such an idea of hospitality indicates that this is a complete altruistic act that has nothing to do with duty and
obligation to give and to return. In New Anatomies, when Isabelle and Natalie visit Algiers for the first time, Natalie is incomprehensible to the locals’ generosity:
NATALIE. It’s wonderful how stupid these people are. They give you things for nothing.
ISABELLE. The word is generosity, gifts of hospitality.
(New Anatomies 23)
The locals’ generosity is beyond Natalie’s understanding. Nevertheless, Isabelle notices well that the locals, who are the hosts of the country, are simply practicing hospitality.
4.3 The Host-guest Relationship
In New Anatomies, the French government is originally the guest that visits North Africa, and is supposed to be welcomed by the host/Africans. However, the host-guest relation inverses within the colonist contexts. Therefore, when Isabelle visits North Africa, she actually meets two hosts. One are the locals, and the others are the French.
The French Captain’s first invitation to Isabelle implies that he already treats the country as the property of the French government, and he is authorized to act as the host:
CAPTAIN. . . . if you wished to see the country, you should have come to us. We would be only too pleased to escort you and you would find our company much more entertaining than that of those sandfleas.
ISABELLE. You shouldn’t speak of the Arabs in that manner, Captain. They resent
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
it.
CAPTAIN. You must tell me how to run the country, mademoiselle.
(New Anatomies 30-31)
The Captain invites Isabelle not only to the country but also to the colonizer’s social stratum. If it were unconditional hospitality, there should not be any form of invitation.
Unconditional hospitality only happens with the unexpected arrival of the guest;
therefore, the Captain’s direct invitation is merely conditional hospitality. In this case, the hospitality is, nevertheless, unfulfilled because Isabelle declines the Captain’s invitation afterwards. In response to Isabelle’s offensive words, the Captain manages to regain his authorized power by threatening her that she needs to have “government permission to travel through French territory” (New Anatomies 32). The Captain tries to remind Isabelle that he, who owns the place, is the host and the master.
The host who possesses a place of his/her own is the one that is able to welcome the guest; meanwhile, the guest is the receiver of the hospitality. From this perspective, the host-guest relationship is another factor that constitutes hospitality. As Brian Treanor says:
Hospitality exists, if it does exist, in the relationship between host and guest.
Hence the Latin hospes, which can mean both ‘host’ and ‘guest’. When the host ceases to be a host (as when she herself is displaced) or when the guest ceases to be a guest (as when she becomes a naturalized citizen or member of the family), we can no longer speak of hospitality. These conditions, as well as many others, indicate just how place-saturated hospitality is. (50; emphasis in the original)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
To have a space of our own prepares us the condition to invite the visitor; nevertheless, without the guest, we are still unable to carry out hospitality as the host. In other words, the host needs the presence of the guest so as to become the host; meanwhile, the guest becomes the guest by the presence of the host. Derrida explains that “the master of the house is at home, but nonetheless he comes to enter his home through the guest—who comes from outside. The master thus enters from the inside as if he came from the outside” (Of Hospitality 125; emphasis in the original). The explication implies that the presence of the guest is what makes the master of the house the master. “It is as if the stranger or foreigner held the keys” to liberate the “impatient master” (Of Hospitality 123; emphasis in the original). The host and the guest possess inseparable coexistent relationship.
Theoretically, there is only one host-guest relationship within the colonist context in
New Anatomies because the French government has already turned the locals into the
inferior. Nevertheless, soon after Isabelle shows up, two other possible relationships occur. One is the relationship between Isabelle (guest) and the French government (host).The other is the relationship between Isabelle (guest) and the locals (host). Traveling to North Africa, Isabelle is the only character that remains the guest position throughout the play. Isabelle’s posited guest position is essential because her presence allows both the French government and the locals to have the chance to become the hosts. The French government begins to establish colony in Africa by taking the land under French sovereignty. With the conquest of Algiers, the French violently take away the host position from the locals. As the representative of the French government, the Captain considers himself the host of the country. The presence of Isabelle enables the Captain to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
practice hospitality/hostility as the host. On the other side, though the locals think of themselves the masters of the monasteries, they can never realize their host position without the presence of Isabelle. Isabelle’s visitation is especially important to the Africans because it offers the inferior a chance to regain power of being the host and the ability to practice hospitality. From this perspective, the foreigner provokes positive stimulation to those who are already settled in the land. It can be said that Isabelle’s visitation to North Africa complicates the host-guest relationship because she questions the ethics of hospitality.
4.4 The Host-guest Relationship22
How we shall greet the foreigner is the problem that remains unsolved. Pure
hospitality implies an unconditional welcome to the foreigner. It implies no interrogations to the foreigner. However, when it comes to politics of hospitality, Michael Naas states that:
There on the border, names are asked, identities verified, origins checked, and intentions cleared. For when it comes to politics, to hospitality in or of the state, conditions are always stipulated. (157; emphasis in the original)
In politics, name and borders function as the threshold that parts the host and the guest.
By identifying with the guest, one is able to reduce the sense of foreignness when facing the guest at the first sight. Naas observes the dilemma of hospitality and states that “[t]he essence of hospitality surely involves welcoming a stranger or foreigner and not someone
22 In this thesis, I mention that the French government deprives the locals of their host position, and turns the locals into the inferiors. Based on the theory of hospitality, the host-guest relationship is inversed.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
with whom we are already fairly familiar” but still, “to have a genuine effect, to be a real welcome, the guest must be identified” (159). The “identification” process, however,
“risks negating the hospitality that is extended” because “the stranger always risks
becoming a relative nonstranger” (159). The Captain, who first meets Isabelle on her way to a monastery, starts the conversation with enquiry:
CAPTAIN. . . . What’s your name?
ISABELLE. Si Mahmoud.
(New Anatomies 30)
In fact, the enquiry takes the risk of becoming an interrogation. With a brief enquiry, the Captain is able to identify Isabelle’s origins. However, the hospitality that the Captain offers might be considered as conditional hospitality, which is practiced as a result of speculation and evaluation. If the host only invites those who have good intention, it is the hospitality that is based on certain conditions.
From another perspective, the Captain’s enquiry does not necessarily direct to bad intention. Brian Treanor in “Putting Hospitality in Its Place” emphasizes the importance for one to own a place because owning a place is for the purpose of giving place to the visitor; Treanor argues that “[h]ospitality is more than just admitting the other; it requires a genuine attempt to welcome the other and to make the other feel ‘as if’ she is at home”
(62). To elaborate on his idea, Treanor goes on saying that:
We are not hospitable if we simply throw open our doors, even if we ask no questions and allow unconditioned and unchallenged entry, simply because there is no one at the gate to question the stranger. . . . Hospitality requires someone implaced, someone who will greet, and question, the stranger. (63)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Hospitality requires genuine and graceful intention to present a cordial atmosphere, and to allow the foreigner to have a sense of being at home. Thus, the Captain’s enquiry can be considered an act of reception though it is also the starting point of evaluation. When the Captain learns that Isabelle does not take her side with the French government, he immediately turns his back on Isabelle:
CAPTAIN. This Si Mahmoud is a woman.
Silence. Bou Saadi laughs stupidly. Saleh doesn’t react at all.
Look under her clothes if you don’t believe me.
SALEH. (slowly) Si Mahmoud has a very good knowledge of medicine. He’s helped people with their eyes and cured children.
CAPTAIN. Probably told them to wash. It’s a woman I tell you. You must be stupider than I thought not to have noticed or at least asked a few questions.
SALEH. It is a courtesy in our country not to be curious about the stranger. We accept whatever name Si Mahmoud wishes to give us.
ISABELLE. You knew.
SALEH. We heard. We chose not to believe it. (to the Captain) Si Mahmoud knows the Koran better than we do. He’s in search of wisdom. We wish to help him.
(New Anatomies 32-33)
The Captain thinks that it is necessary to have enquiries on the foreigner. On the contrary, Bou Saadi and Saleh show no interest in questioning Isabelle’s identity, and are willing to offer Isabelle unconditional hospitality. In Saleh and Bou Saadi’s opinion, it is
unnecessary and even impolite to interrogate a foreigner. It is previously mentioned that
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the French government takes away the host position from the African, and reverses the host-guest relation; however, the dialogue hints that the inversed host-guest relation still possesses the capacity to overturn again. When Saleh states that “[i]t is a courtesy in our country not to be curious about the stranger,” he uses possessive case “our” [Saleh and Bou Saadi’s] to imply that the noun following up, which is “country”; in the line,
“country” is the possession of “our” (New Anatomies 32). Saleh tries to slip the concept that the Africans are the true possessor of the place into the dialogue without the
Captain’s notice. Being the true host of the country, Saleh and Bou Saadi are willing to welcome Isabelle, the unexpected visitor, into their place with unconditional hospitality.
As a foreigner, Isabelle is the person who enables the locals to practice unconditional hospitality with courtesy.
In the play, monasteries preserve Arabic cultures. The locals are confident that monasteries are the places where the French government cannot take over. The places thus become ideal sites for the locals to greet their visitors:
SI LACHMI. You’ll be safe in our territories.
ISABELLE. Take off at last the grimacing, degraded mask.
SI LACHMI. All our monasteries are open to you.
(New Anatomies 42)
Si Lachmi gives explicit declaration that monasteries are their territories, and Isabelle is completely welcomed. As the host of the place, Si Lachmi finally has the opportunities to welcome his guest in. The hospitality that Si Lachmi offers are unconditional hospitality because all places are “open to” the guest (New Anatomies 42). The French government takes over the territory of North Africa; nevertheless, Isabelle’s visitation has allowed the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
locals to become the host again. This is the positive influence of the foreigner’s visitation.
Si Lachmi, Bou Saadi and Saleh do not simply welcome Isabelle, but actually find a sense of intimacy with Isabelle. The intimacy comes not from language, nation or race but from the similar cultural knowledge Isabelle shares with them. One of the possible means for one to communicate with each other is language. Language thus becomes an approach for one to get connected with the other, and to know the other’s culture. Both Kristeva and Derrida speak of the problem of language that the foreigner may encounter.
In Strangers to Ourselves, Kristeva addresses that manipulating a foreign language endows the foreigner with a “new skin” that positively symbolizes the act of leaving the past behind and an approach to fit in the foreign country (15). In order to get accustomed to the new culture, the foreigner manages to use the foreign language to communicate with the locals. In Derrida’s opinion, such an approach makes language “the first act of violence” acted upon the foreigner “by the master of the house, the host, . . . the
authorities” (Of Hospitality 15). It is said that “the foreigner is first of all foreign to the legal language in which the duty of hospitality is formulated . . . He has to ask for
hospitality in a language which by definition is not his own” (Of Hospitality 15). At some places such as Athens, the foreigner has the right of hospitality. Derrida mentions that Socrates once asks for tolerance for his foreign “accent,” “voice, “elocution,” and
“spontaneous, original, idiomatic rhetoric” in court (Of Hospitality 19). The problem of language thus implies that unless the guest is able to utilize language spontaneously, he/she can never sense the hospitality. For this reason, language can either become assistance or remain obstruction to the foreigner in foreign countries. The language problem is, nevertheless, no longer an obstacle to the Europeans in New Anatomies.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Within the colonist context, the violence of language is not against the French who come to North Africa as the foreigners, but is against the locals instead. In North Africa, the locals are asked to speak French to the French. It is not the Europeans that need to communicate with the locals in their native language. When Isabelle visits Antoine’s family in Algiers for the first time, she is actually being accused of talking to the natives in the native’s language but not in French. In the eyes of the French, the natives, who are no longer the hosts of the place, are those who have to speak in French.
Derrida goes on discussing language in a broader sense by saying that it is not only
“a linguistic operation” but also “a matter of ethos” (Of Hospitality 133; emphasis in the original). “[T]he language in which the foreigner is addressed or in which he is heard . . . is the ensemble of culture”; thus, “it is the values, the norms, the meanings that inhabit the language” (Of Hospitality 133). Therefore, what makes the foreigner foreign depends on the extent of culture similarity he/she shares with the other. From the locals’
perspective, as a foreigner, Isabelle seems less foreign than the rest of the Europeans because she is acquainted with the local culture. Saleh even praises Isabelle for knowing the Koran better than the locals. Unlike Isabelle who tends to remain the guest of the foreign land, the European colonizers take over North Africa and consider themselves to be the hosts of the place; instead of accommodating themselves to the foreign land, they force the locals to follow their rules, to accept their culture and even to learn their
language. It turns out that it is the locals that require intercultural competence in response to the European intrusion.
In New Anatomies, both Isabelle and the European colonizers come to North Africa as visitors in the first place, and are supposed to be treated as the guests. However,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Isabelle is the only person who sticks to her role as a guest, and accepts the hospitality from the locals. Being a foreigner, Isabelle makes effort to learn the new culture, and even communicates with the locals with their language. Unlike Isabelle, the European colonizers claim to be the hosts of the country by depriving the locals of the host role.
Instead of appreciating the new culture, the Europeans only manage to bring in their own culture and force the locals to learn from them. The relationship between the locals and Isabelle shows how the original host-guest relationship appears to be, and becomes a contrastive example when comparing to the inversed host-guest relationship between the locals and the colonizers. Perhaps it is more precise to say that the colonizers actually think of themselves as the masters of the place because they never intend to treat the locals as their guests. The inversed host-guest relationship between the locals and the European colonizers can only be carried out with the presence of Isabelle. Being the one who remains the visitor in North Africa throughout the time, Isabelle is able to
experience the hospitality that is offered by the locals; furthermore, she can observe the distorted host-guest relationship in the colonial society. To the locals, Isabelle offers them a chance to become the hosts again and to have the ability to greet their guests. To the colonizers, Isabelle is just a mediator for them to manifest their power over the locals.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter Five
Conclusion
This thesis seeks to make use of the traveling theme in New Anatomies to bring forth the foreigners’ questions by associating Freud’s theory on uncanniness and Kristeva’s concept of foreigners with Derrida’s notion on hospitality. In addition, I also try to figure out whether these theories can be realized within the colonist context.
New Anatomies portrays Isabelle’s traveling experience to North Africa, and it is
originally a story of a female who is in the pursuit of ideal home and knowledge. To complete a voyage, one has to leave home and to return home so as to complete a circular act. Isabelle does leave her homeland and head for North Africa; however, instead of returning to her homeland, Isabelle prefers to keep on her journey. The play ends with the announcement of Isabelle’s death in the desert, yet the fact that nobody ever finds her body offers the readers a reasonable doubt that Isabelle simply intends to leave the chaotic place without trace; it is an unrestricted path that Isabelle is heading for. In the end of the play, Isabelle’s friends Lyautey and Séverine tell the Judge that Isabelle is drowned in the desert but they can only find Isabelle’s journals on the scene. The journals thus become the records that show the epitome of her life struggle. In addition to the journals, Séverine’s records of Isabelle’s voyage also become the trace of Isabelle’s existence.‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
As a matter of fact, the chronicle that contains Isabelle’s traveling experience becomes an essential part of the play because it reflects on different purposes for writing.
On the one hand, the recounting of Isabelle’s traveling experience becomes the mirror of cultural and social background of the time. On the other hand, it is a model for those successors who are eager to travel. Isabelle once tells Séverine that she must write down all her traveling experience without editing because people in Europe “want to know that” (New Anatomies 7). What Isabelle is concerned with is the presentation of her travel
On the one hand, the recounting of Isabelle’s traveling experience becomes the mirror of cultural and social background of the time. On the other hand, it is a model for those successors who are eager to travel. Isabelle once tells Séverine that she must write down all her traveling experience without editing because people in Europe “want to know that” (New Anatomies 7). What Isabelle is concerned with is the presentation of her travel