This picture reminded me of the piece, “A Rose For Emily”, because of the main character Emily and the motif of the flower throughout the story. In this piece, Emily was the main character she was single all throughout her life because of her father’s overprotection. Once Rose’s father died, she was in denial and didn’t want to let his corpse go. This led to her replacing her fathers corpse with Homers body. The rose symbolizes love, but this one is dying. This flower symbolizes more than just love. The wilting rose in Beauty and the Beast echoes dying flowers. This can be applied to Emily’s situation.

This specific image reminds me of Pecola and the theme of, “The Bluest Eye”.Throughout the novel, blue eyes are a prominent symbol that signifies beauty and happiness, especially to Pecola. Pecola forms an obsession with having blue eyes. The beauty standards of the time, during gaining these blue eyes was the main focus, that would make her happy and feel beautiful. This picture captures an eye being held by two hands which in turn reminds me of the blue eye motif in the novel.

The painting, “A Clinical Lesson at the Salpêtrière”,

 is an interesting art piece created by Andre Bouillet. The art depicts a room full of post-graduate students and before them, giving a lecture, is Charcot a neurologist. On the left side of Charcot is a woman presumed to be one of his patients, in what seems to be an unconscious state. A nurse is in a motion suggesting she is going to help the patient, as another young male holds the patient up. There are a few things that make me inquisitive and bring forth many emotions from viewing the painting. Initially, I did not know what to think about the art, the longer I looked at and analyzed it the more feelings arose about the details; the painting evoked emotions of confusion, anger, disturbance, and interest. Many aspects of the painting were confusing, one of the main reasons is because of the position of the woman in distress. The patient is thrown back in the arms of a young male while everyone else seems to be calm and casual about the situation, this confuses me in terms of the desensitization that these men have towards seeing something like this. The nurse seems as if she is going to help and looks to be the only one that is concerned for the well-being of the woman due to the worried facial expression. The position of the woman is also confusing and interests me because if she was unconscious, as she appears to be, why would her arm be flexed upward? If someone is unconscious they would not be able to flex their arm, their body would be completely limp. Another, reason why I am confused is why there is a stretcher/bed and they don’t lay the woman down to perform the demonstration, it is clear she is unable to stand on her own. The painting evoked feelings of interest because it made me wonder why the woman looked so faint. The woman’s arm, as mentioned previously, is flexed upward so she still had some sort of consciousness and wasn’t fully helpless. This still inflicts an uncomfortable feeling as well as interest onto me as a viewer due to not knowing what state of consciousness the patient is in. Another, question that arose was why the men in the room were so calm as if they have no concern for the patient, sure she is being used as an example, but all of the men have a straight face of inquiry rather than concern. It intrigues me to know more about why these men were so desensitized to seeing a woman in this helpless state. Lastly, the piece evokes a feeling of interest in me as a viewer due to the coincidence of the the painting on the wall, the patient is in a similar position; both of their backs are arched, does this have any significance? Another, feeling I developed the longer I viewed this art was disturbance due to Charcot and all of the other men in the room just viewing the female patient in what seems to be an unconscious state and carrying on with the lecture as if nothing is happening. The lady is in a state of hysteria and doesn’t seem like she is being tended to too well. She seems to be there only as a demonstration, if someone is in distress or in a helpless state as she is she should be laying down and resting until she is in her right mind. This part of the painting makes me feel disturbed primarily because the woman depicted I feel is being neglected and not cared for. The woman isn’t seen as a concern to anyone other than the nurse that is attempting to help her. The painting just seems to have her there as an example to help demonstrate something to the post-grads. It is disturbing to see a single woman in such a vulnerable state in front of a group of men, the woman is basically helpless in a room of strangers. The painting also causes feelings of anger in me not only because of the negligence of concern but the fact that there are no women in the lecture room other than the woman and the nurse. The painting captures that it was a mainly patriarchal society and men were the main ones who were able to be scholars and obtain an education, while women stayed home and looked after the house. The only women you see in the photo are the nurse and the patient and neither are acknowledged by any of the men. I can come to this conclusion because, Charcot has his back turned towards the lady in distress and nobody acknowledges that the nurse is there to help. Neither, of the women depicted in the picture seem to hold importance in the room just to serve their purpose. The lady to serve the purpose of demonstration and the nurse to come help the lady if she becomes ill. Not knowing more context of what was going on in the painting, not knowing the purpose and meaning behind this painting is frustrating. Possibly, knowing more of what is going on, why the woman is how she is, and why no one is reacting All in its entirety, the painting, “A Clinical Lesson at the

 Salpêtrière”, is an

 interesting oil painting that

 encapsulates the lecture on treating hysteria. Many aspects of the painting make me wonder why certain details, like the painting on the left side, were added. The painting evoked emotions of confusion, anger, disturbance, and interest in me the longer I viewed it. At first glance, I did not know what to think about the piece, but when having to write about it, describe it, and how I feel about it the piece made me realize much more.

Beauty Is in The Eyes of The Beholder

Throughout the history of the United States, racism has been an ongoing atrocity that wreaks havoc on the lives of colored people, mainly African Americans. Racism deprives colored people of feeling beautiful in their own skin. Colored people were and felt inferior to whites in the 1950’s, leaving them to long for a different skin to live in. Not only was there racism coming from whites, but from the colored people themselves. Some felt as if they were in a higher status according to their job, associations, or etiquette. The novel that encompasses the racism mentioned is, The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison. The novel, The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, takes place in a time of racism and discrimination in the South. Racism was not only from white Anglo-Saxons; there was internalized racism present between the colored people themselves. Morrison digs out the negative impact that mainstream white culture exerts on colored people, through the Breedlove family. Morrison makes a statement about the damage that internalized racism can do to a young developing girl like Pecola.  The Freudian concepts that are presented within the story are displacement, suppression, and dissociation. Toni Morrison conveys her critique of society and its standards of beauty and family in the novel through the characters of Pecola, Pauline, and Geraldine.

            Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, in, The Bluest Eye, that beholder is Pecola. She’s an adolescent female that is going through puberty and struggling with her self image. Pecola is repeatedly raped by her perverted father and neglected from her distant mother. These types of traumatic events that happen in her life can lead to psychological problems that will affect her adulthood. Pecola believes that her family, including herself, are ugly due to their skin’s complexion and facial features such as eyes. During, the 1950’s beauty standards for young girls were to look like Shirley Temple. This meant having light skin, light hair, and blue eyes. Throughout the novel, blue eyes are a prominent symbol that signifies beauty and happiness, especially to Pecola. Pecola, forms an obsession with having blue eyes. The beauty standards of the time, during gaining these blue eyes was a main focus, that would make her happy and feel beautiful.

“’My eyes.’

“What about your eyes?”

‘I want them blue.’ Soaphead pursed his lips, and let his tongue stroke a gold inlay. He thought it was at once the most fantastic and the most logical petition he had ever received. Here was an ugly little girl asking for beauty.” (Morrison 167). 

Evidently, Pecola wanted blue eyes so desperately that she went to Mr. Soaphead, a sort-of priest, to ask him to give her blue eyes. According to Freuds Lectures in Psycho-Analysis, “In the first place, it must be emphasized that Breuer’s patient, in almost all her pathogenic situations, was obliged to suppress a powerful emotion instead of allowing its discharge in the appropriate signs of emotion, words or actions” (2201). Pecola knew that her obsession of having blue eyes was not normal. Pecola did not allow her obsession with blue eyes to be known explicitly, she intentionally hid this desire within herself in hopes of not being judged or chastised for having such a thought. Eventually, Pecola “gains” her blue eyes and in having done so she develops an imaginary friend. In developing this friend, she feels the need to have validation of her blue eyes being beautiful and being the bluest. The creation of this imaginary friend can be considered what Freud would call dissociation. In his second lecture, Freud describes dissociation as one not being able to handle events in their life, and instead they disconnect from reality and form illusions (2210). This directly connects to Pecola’s situation because of her release from reality when talking to this imaginary friend as if it were real. All in all, Morrison uses Pecola’s character to portray the effects of racism and societies beauty standards on a young girl.

Pauline Breedlove is Pecola’s aforementioned distant and negligent mother. Pauline’s character allows us to see how beauty and familial standards affect more than just Pecola. When Pauline was pregnant, she longed to look like a white actress. “’I don’t believe I ever did get over that. There I was, five months pregnant, trying to look like Jean Harlow, and a front tooth gone. Everything went then. Look like I just didn’t care no more after that. I let my hair go back, plaited it up, and settled down to just being ugly.’” (Morrison 123). This portrays the very fact that Pauline desired to have the same beauty as Jean Harlow who happened to be a white actress. Still, the motif of white women being the symbol of beauty of the time, encompasses how racism degraded colored women into feeling they were not beautiful unless they were white. Ultimately, depicting Toni Morrison’s critique of how society affects colored people. Pauline can be seen suppressing her negative emotions she holds because of her family. Pauline can even be seen as displacing her hatred onto Cholly or Pecola, having nowhere else to put it. Pauline is not content with her family and longs for a family like the white one she takes care of. Societies standards of beauty and family at the time caused Pauline to long for more than she had. Pauline would never be content with the life she was given unless she looked like Harlow or had a white family.

 “Why does shame and self-loathing become cruelty to the innocent?” a quote by Anne Rice, Merrick can be directly applied to Geraldine’s character. Geraldine is a middle-class African American woman who is a prime example in the novel of internalized racism and colorism. According to the article Racism and Appearance in The Bluest Eye: A Template for an Ethical Emotive Criticism, “ If the ultimate ‘enemy’ that shames and traumatizes African Americans is the racist white society, there are also more immediate and intimate enemies within the African American community and family” (1999, [End Page 158] 217; cf. Guerrero 1997, 29). This fortifies the very idea that there is a form of colorism and racism within African Americans themselves.  As previously mentioned, there was an aspect of racism within colored people themselves. “White kids; his mother did not like him to play with niggers. She had explained to him the difference between colored people and niggers. They were easily identifiable. Colored people were neat and quiet; niggers were dirty and loud.” (Morrison 87). This example from the text depicts opinion on colored people, even though she is a colored person herself she believes that she is better than others. Geraldine is indeed racist to people who have the same complexion as her; she separates and isolates her family from anyone she deems to act or be a, “nigger”. It is clear that Geraldine also hates her own skin, she exemplifies self-hate, by having hate towards people with the same skin color as herself. According to, “Internalization of Negative Images: Self-Loathing as Portrayed in Toni Morrison’s ‘The Bluest Eye.” Geraldine’s Case Study”, “Instead, by being an organic part of the culture that detests her, she learns to hate her dark skin, her poverty, otherness and funkiness. Therefore, Geraldine disparages, doubts and discredits the epitomes of her blackness and bitterly endeavors to eradicate it.” (Czajkowska 28).

In its entirety, The Bluest Eye, encompasses racism and discrimination during the 1950’s. There was internalized racism present between the colored people themselves. Morrison digs out the negative impact that mainstream white culture exerted on colored people, through the Breedlove family. Morrison makes a statement about the damage that internalized racism can do to the black community.  The Freudian concepts that are presented within the story are displacement, suppression, and dissociation. Overall, Toni Morrison effectively conveys her critique of society and its standards of beauty and family in the novel through the characters of Pecola, Pauline, and Geraldine.

Me, Myself, & I

The story, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been”, is about a fifteen-year-old girl named Connie who is fixated on herself image due to her mother’s criticism. Her mother is constantly judging her by her appearance and comparing Connie to her sister June. Although Connie believes that she is pretty, the constant picking she received did affect her despite her denial about what her mother says about her being true. Gradually, Connie develops a split consciousness that is delivered through the characters Arnold Friend and Ellie. In, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”, Joyce Carol Oates effectively illustrates the psychoanalytic concepts of suppression, splitting of consciousness, and resistance through Connie’s character.

            Connie’s mother would constantly badger Connie about her appearance, one example is, “’Why don’t you keep your room clean like your sister? How’ve you got your hair fixed—what the hell stinks? Hair spray? You don’t see your sister using any of that junk.” (Oates 1). Connie did not intentionally put the constant complaints from her mother into her unconscious, she suppressed them, “Connie would raise her eyebrows at these familiar old complaints and look right through her mother, into a shadowy vision of herself as she was right at that moment: she knew she was pretty and that was everything.” (Oates 1). This portrays Connie’s way of suppressing what her mother kept saying about her. Freud’s concept of suppression is shown through Connie consciously disregarding the negative things her mother says about her. The criticism she suppressed would then manifest into symptoms. One of these symptoms is shown when Connie constantly checks herself in the mirror, and always worries about how she looks in front of people. In one instance, when Arnold was pulling into the driveway, Connie’s first reaction is, “Her heart began to pound and her fingers snatched at her hair, checking it and she whispered, ‘Christ. Christ’, wondering how bad she looked.” (Oates 1). This shows Connie’s symptoms of being self-conscious of her looks due to her mother’s criticism. These symptoms may further manifest and may lead to a psychotic break or flood of emotions that were suppressed into the conscious.

Further in the story, the splitting of consciousness is demonstrated with Arnold Friend and Ellie. Their characters are developed as both sides of Connie’s consciousness. In the story it says,

“Everything about her had two sides to it, one for home and one for anywhere that was not home: her walk, which could be childlike and bobbing, or languid enough to make anyone think she was hearing music in her head; her mouth, which was pale and smirking most of the time, but bright and pink on these evenings out; her laugh, which was cynical and drawling at home—”Ha, ha, very funny,”—but high-pitched and nervous anywhere else, like the jingling of the charms on her bracelet.” (Oates 1).

This shows the different personalities that then separated into Arnold and Ellie. Arnold being the more arrogant, Ellie is more reserved and quieter especially when it comes to insults or being involved with the harassment Connie was experiencing. Ellie can be seen as Connie’s side when she is being criticized by her mother, she is quiet and reserved when it happens. Connie tries her best to brush off any nuisance to her. As opposed to when Connie is with her friends, she is more Arnold’s personality, more arrogant and gruesome. The Arnold side of Connie is shown when she wishes her mother is dead and when tells her friends that her mother makes her, “want to throw up” (Oates 1). Arnold’s character is arrogant and malicious, and this is shown in Connie when talking about her mother to others.

In addition, the psychoanalytic concept of resistance is what Freud explains as “They were in the patient’s possession and were ready to emerge in association to what was still known by him, but there was some force that prevented them from becoming conscious and compelled them to remain unconscious.” (Freud 2212).  This is portrayed in the story when Arnold Friend is trying to get Connie out of the house, Arnold could have been created as a result of a traumatic experience to Connie; this traumatic experience being the criticism from her mother. Arnold keeps emphasizing that Connie will learn to love him, this can signify that if she comes out of the house, where she is constantly being criticized, or releases her repressed memories she will learn to love herself and who she is. She still resists and tells Arnold that she does not know him and that he should leave, further proving the presence of resistance in the story.

            All in all, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been”, portrays Connie developing a split consciousness, she tries to suppress the criticism from her mother which manifests into symptoms. The symptoms finally lead to a splitting of consciousness which was Arnold and Ellie. Although Connie believes that she is pretty, the constant picking she received did affect her despite her denial that what her mother says about her is true. Joyce Carol Oates effectively illustrates the psychoanalytic concepts of suppression, splitting of consciousness, and resistance throughout the story.