The repercussions of politics on Celia’s family

The unbreakable link between politics and identity in Christina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

In Crístina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”, politics shows to be one of the main themes and leads inexorably to exile and the question of identity and hybridity. The use of figures of speech strengthens these main themes. The drawing of a parallel between form and content, allows us to understand more deeply the meaning that the key concepts of politics, exile and identity bear. The parallel can be more precisely drown in the chosen passage that starts page 6: “Celia grieves for her husband,” until page 7:” scarlets and greens.”. In this passage García reveals the unbreakable link between politics and its consequences such as identity questions through dead metaphor, rhetorical questions, hyperbole, specific vocabulary choices, lexical fields, and allusion in order to point out the repercussions of politics on Celia’s family.

The opening of the passage allows us to dive directly into the political issues faced by Celia’s family, at this time, in Cuba. When it is ambiguously written that: “Celia grieves for her husband” (p.6), it is not meant for his death, “not yet” (p.6) as she says but mostly for his “mixed-up allegiances” (p.6) meaning his honor, bravery and loyalty. Thereby it is meant that even if moral values are important, that they do not seem to be always as positive as they should be, as they bring sorrow to Celia. Jorge worked hard in an American company wanting “to prove to his gringo boss that they were cut from the same cloth.” (p.6). By using this dead metaphor, García introduces the concept of inequality. Indeed, the verb “prove” used here reveals the fact that it is Jorge who has to do things better and work harder to show his equal status to his boss. It is a little “ironical” if we consider the fact that it is Jorge who is the native Cuban that has to surpass himself to “prove” something to a stranger who had more power. Jorge claims that his “gringo” boss and he are equal, introducing thus also discretely the discrepancy in social classes in Cuba in this pre-revolutionary era and the underlying inferiority of Cubans versus the Americans. Moreover, the slang term “gringo” meaning a stranger not natively speaking Spanish and mostly associated to an Anglophone country and its culture and society, is mostly used in a pejorative way to express its original meaning: greens go, implying the American soldiers. The dead metaphor allows us thus to understand better the social climate of the novel.

Politics do not only bring social discrepancies but also the idea of uncertainty. In fact, the use of a third person narrative gives the impression that the character is not completely in control of the situation and that an omniscient external narrator is needed to answer Celia’s rhetorical questions and explain the situation. The allusion to “El Líder” (p.6) as Fidel Castro is a metonymy and he stands for responsible of the happening situation. Celia’s children and grandchildren are “nomads” (p.7) due to the “vagaries “(p.6) of life, as if things were not always under control but were resulting from luck or misfortune, from an uncertain, influenceable destiny. The lexical field of unpredictability is thus increased by the use of words and expressions such as: “uncertain”, “who could have predicted”, “unknown”, “vagaries” and “happenstance” (p.6). Uncertainty steams directly from political context and influences the characters’ lifes.

Moreover, in addition to the idea of uncertainty, there is the introduction of the concept of exile and what it implies. When García writes that “Celia cannot decide which is worse, separation or death. Separation is familiar, too familiar (…)” (p.6) we are confronted to a consequence of unstable politics too: exile. Her family is scattered through the world and she feels alone. The hyperbole “too familiar” amplifies her solitude and the lexical field of loneliness is thus increased. Moreover, Celia asks herself rhetorical questions about the course of her life and how she got to this point and what is interesting here, is that the last word of her questioning is “solitude” (p.6), as if it was a kind of answer to everything. Besides leading to exile, politics also bring separation and identity questions.

Furthermore, in order to deepen the subject of identity, it is relevant to examine the term “nomads” (p.7), that is used to link the theme of identity with exile. Indeed, the choice of the term “nomad”, as a consequence of exile, is representing someone that has no homeland due to the fact of moving constantly (for political reasons or not) and not belonging anywhere. This link allows us to draw a parallel with hybrids, an important term in colonial societies and therefore in this novel. In fact, hybridity depends on social and political contextual factors to which people tend to belong or not. In García’s novel, Pilar stands as representation of it, as she does not feel home in New York, but neither in Cuba, where her only link is her “abuela”. She is torn by her hybridity and as it is described: “Pilar, her first grandchild, writes to her from Brooklyn in a Spanish that is no longer hers. She speaks the hard-edged lexicon of bygone tourists (…)” (p.7), as if Pilar also just was one of them, not belonging in Cuba anymore. This frightens Celia because she seems to realize where Pilar belongs whenever Pilar does not know and will only discover in the very end of the novel. The vocabulary sets the atmosphere and are clues to the following events.

To conclude we can assert that the content and the form of the passage are strongly linked and that they strengthen each other. The use of many figures of speech such as dead metaphor, rhetorical questions, hyperbole, specific vocabulary choices, lexical fields, allusion and ambiguity, allows us to identify more clearly the troubles the characters are going through. The way in which the novel is written, helps the reader to follow the story and understand better the main relevant elements. Politics influences the life of a lot of families by this time, by questioning their identity in this exile situation and this is what is perfectly depicted in this novel.

The dynamic of Lourdes and Pilar’s relationship  

Exploring the significance of Pilar and Lourdes relationship through Pilar’s inner monologue in Cristina Garcia’s “Dreaming in Cuban”

Cristina Garcia’s 1992 “Dreaming in Cuban” deals with the consequences of the 1979 Cuban Revolution, such as the separation of Cuban families. Even if the Puente family is not physically separated, Lourdes and Pilar do have some disagreements because of their ideologies about Cuba. This passage is rooted at the beginning of the story, as Pilar arrives to her cousin’s house, Blanquito. Pilar is on the run for Cuba and she imagines her mother’s reaction (on page 63). This passage focuses on Pilar’s determination to go back to Cuba, despites her mother’s opinion. The process of narrating in Pilar’s monologue effectively sheds a light on Pilar’s desire as well as the dynamic of Pilar’s relationship with her mother. The use of antithesis, double-meaning and associations portrays Pilar confronting her mother’s ambiguous personality. Thus, Pilar’s monologue reveals that Cuba appears as the missing part to affirm Pilar’s own identity and the remedy for her relationship with Lourdes.

By depicting Lourdes through the use of animalistic similes, Pilar’s inner monologue intensifies her mother’s ambiguous reactions. After discreetly sitting on Blanquito’s lounge chair and imagining her mother’s reprimands, Pilar juxtaposes two metaphoric images of her mother. On the one hand, her mother’s physical appearance parallels an authoritarian figure with evil connotations, as “she can look like the gods guarding hell” (63). On the other hand, Pilar underlines Lourdes’ inoffensive and powerless personality, as “[Lourdes] sounds more like a terrier or a Chihuahua” (63). By using animals from opposite tempers, Pilar ironizes Lourdes’s overreactions. This opposition thereby appears more as an antithesis, because it visualizes Pilar’s own perception of Lourdes’s personality. In other words, by mocking her mother’s reaction through an antithesis statement, Pilar implicitly spells out her own doubts or inability to understand her mother’s ambiguous personality. Thus, this derision of Lourdes’ behaviour suggests that the dynamic of their relationship is fed by a lack of communication on behalf of Lourdes and Pilar.

While Pilar’s inner monologue implicitly sheds a light on her own thoughts concerning her mother’s ambiguous personality through the use of animalistic antithesis, the ignorance of double meaning echoes Pilar’s rejection of her mother’s principles. As Pilar still imagines her mother’s reaction, Pilar recreates Lourdes’s discourse: “You [Pilar] can’t compare yourself to me [Lourdes] |…] I work fourteen hours a day so you [Pilar] can be educated “(63). This comparison implicitly suggest that Lourdes works the more she can in order to pay school for Pilar. Lourdes then appears as a devoted mother. Nonetheless, as Pilar asks the following rhetorical question “so who’s comparing?” (63), Pilar choses to reject her mother’s help. By ignoring the idea that Lourdes is involved on her education, Pilar indirectly refuses her mother’s work ethic principles. It is also suggested that Pilar refuses to be confined by her mother; Pilar needs her own independence, as she is looking for her own identity. thus, Pilar’s rejection of her mother’s morals shapes their relationship, as the serpent biting its own tail; the more her mother will try to instil morals or principles to Pilar, the more Pilar will move away from her mother.

In addition to the mother-daughter relationship dynamic partly based on rejections and objections depicted by the ignorance of double-meaning, the use of associations illustrated in Pilar’s inner monologue constantly depicts her thoughts about Cuba and her mother. Effectively, by spontaneously “guess[ing] [she is] one of those things [her mother] can’t change” (63), Pilar’s inner monologue leads two opposite meanings. For example, this association does not picture Pilar as the victim concerning the dynamic of her relationship with her mother, rather Pilar considers herself as the culprit. Pilar indirectly acknowledges that she may be one of the reasons why her mother is frustrated. In this sense, she indirectly confesses questioning herself as being one of the constant sources of her mother’s torments. Nonetheless, the association of Pilar to “those things” gives an idea of certainty as well. This association of Pilar to “those things” then puts forward Pilar’s self confidence; she refuses to submit to her mother concerning her decision to go back to Cuba. Both possibilities indirectly spell out that the problem of their relationship is not rooted in Pilar herself. The problem between them is rather rooted on Lourdes’ fear of confronting her past, as Pilar will inevitably dig it up by returning to Cuba. Besides, by comparing Lourdes’ reputation in both Cuba and the US, Pilar underlines Lourdes’ blindness concerning Lourdes’ self-awareness: “Back in Cuba, everybody used to treat Mom with respect. […] These days, all the neighbourhood merchants hate her” (63). This comparison points out how Lourdes is despised in a place, where she idealises the American dream. It also underlines Lourdes’ unhappiness, as she has to leave Cuba because of the revolution. This comparison then reinforces Pilar’s disapproval of staying in the US, because on the one hand her mother refuses to deal with her inner struggles. On the other hand, this comparison motivates Pilar to return to Cuba in order to find herself as well as to bring peace to her mother. Thereby, it is suggested that the dynamic of their relationship is more tormented by the geographical place, than Pilar and Lourdes themselves. Cuba appears as the key to save their relationship as well as the Pilar’s affirmation of herself.

According to the antithesis, which echoes Pilar’ uncertain perception of Lourdes, the ignorance of double-meaning in Lourdes’s discourse, as well as the associations articulated around Pilar and Lourdes, the layout of Pilar’s inner monologue appears as a portrayal of her determination to go back to Cuba. The use of implicit language also articulates Pilar’s possible doubts and Pilar’s determination. In other words, it is suggested that Pilar and Lourdes both embodies ambiguities. This monologue reveals that the source of the remedy is also the source of their torments; both of them will go back to Cuba. Pilar will affirm herself and Lourdes will free herself. Pilar’s monologue reveals the importance of nation, or the feeling of belonging to construct one’s self.

Traditional Memory –or a military strategy

Exploring the Link between Memory and the way of Writing about Colonial History in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban.

In Cristina Garcia’s 1992 Dreaming in Cuban, the memories of Colonization are recounted through unconventional points of view. To put it differently, Pilar and Herminia’s views of colonial history do not correspond to the traditional view of colonial history. The ‘traditional history’ of Colonization, as pointed out in the chapter ‘Memory’ of Justin D. Edwards’ in Post Colonial Literature, symbolizes “the imperial power” (Edwards 2008: 131). This metaphor expresses the fact that the traditional way of writing about colonial history is first and foremost through the colonizer’s point of view, that is to say European countries such as Spain. This traditional way of writing history consequently implies that there are traditional memories as well. In other words, these memories are Eurocentric. Throughout the use of a rhetorical question and a metaphor, Pilar and Herminia, who remember what their fathers told them about historical events, both expose the idea that these traditional memories of colonization are in fact selective memories. Choosing what should be recount and what must be occluded in term of historical events in fact reveals a military strategy of the “imperial power” (131).

Throughout the use of a rhetorical question, Pilar implies that memory interferes in the way of writing history. Traditional history then appears as a partial memory. Pilar’s father recounts her how, after “Columbus came” (García 1992: 28) in Cuba, “Spaniards wiped out more Indians with smallpox than with muskets” (28). Specifying that the infectious diseases brought by Spaniards killed more Indians than enslavement shows that Pilar’s father knowledge about the arrival of the Columbus in the unknown territory does not rely on the traditional accounts. After hearing this different account about the ‘1942 Discovery of the New World’, Pilar wonders “why [we don’t] read about this in history book” (28). By using the verb “read” (28) in her rhetorical question, Pilar challenges in fact the way to write history. Then, the term ‘history book’ referring to traditional history also questions who has the legitimacy to write about historical records. This rhetorical question thus denounces that the persons who represent traditional history, are persons who have the power. To put it differently, the legitimacy of writing history belongs to the “imperial power” (Edwards 2008: 131). By taking into account Rufino’s version, the ‘Columbus’ Arrival’ consequently appears as a ‘partial’ memory because those who have the power select what they want to remember of the world history and delete what is preferable to be forgotten. This process of erasure, as pointed out by Edward in Kincaid’s My brother, “is a way of controlling and manipulating stories about the past –stories that might challenge the legitimacy of the [imperial power]” (131). Indeed, the use of verbs such as ‘controlling and manipulating’ exposes the idea that memory influences the way to write about history. Traditional memory consequently appears as a medium which allows the colonizers to maintain power over the colonized. By asking “why [we don’t] read about this in history books” (Cristina 1992: 28), Pilar in fact dismantles this hierarchical order. In this sense, her question puts forward the idea that the term ‘1942 Discovery of the New World’ depends on which point of view is taken. Pilar’s view then refers to this date as a symbol of Colonization. Thus, traditional memory does not only appears as being subjective; it rather appears as a medium which guarantees hierarchical power.

In addition to Pilar’s rhetorical question which is against the idea that the legitimacy of writing history belongs to the colonizers, Pilar’s metaphor also emphasizes the oppressive function of traditional memory over the colonized. While Pilar denounces about the dictatorial system in Cuba, she asserts that “the politicians and the generals […] force events on [Cubans] that structure [their] lives, [and] that dictate the memories” (Cristina 1992: 138). By saying so, Pilar reveals how much Cubans’ lives were controlled by the political system. On the one hand, the metaphor “dictate the memories” (138) highlights the authoritarian power of dictatorships. On the other hand, this metaphor depicts how this political system maintained its power; by controlling the way Cuban perceived history. However, this metaphor implies that “the politicians and the generals” (138) not only controlled people’s perception of history throughout “history books” (28), but they also imposed the Eurocentric view of colonial history in Cubans’ minds. In other words, they force people to remember certain events and forget others. Even if the following example does not correspond to the same political event, the oppressive function of traditional memory is still illustrated throughout Herminia’s opinion about the way politicians dealt with “the Little War of 1912” (185). Herminia, who is Afrocuban, claims claims that “for many years in Cuba, nobody spoke of the problem between blacks and whites[, because] it was considered too disagreeable to discuss” (184-185). The exaggeration “too disagreeable” (138) intensifies the fact that it was probably forbidden to talk publicly of this racial war after it happened. This exaggeration also echoes Herminia’s anger and dissatisfaction because this war “is only a footnote in our history books” (138). Thus, as in Pilar’s case, Herminia “condemns” (Edwards 2008: 131) those who have the “imperial power” (131) because they occlude parts of history. Herminia’s opinion parallels the one of Kincaid, as both argue “that this act of forgetting has a purpose, for it erases abuse and illegitimate power and negates responsibility” (131). As Edwards puts it, the reasons why the imperial country silences past events are essentially political and moral. On the one hand, by silencing its own act of atrocity, the imperial country guarantees the legitimacy of “imperial power” (131) as already suggested. On the other hand, they do not need to take responsibility, so that “there can be no apology, reparation or forgiveness” (131). In other words, selecting memories allows the imperial country to expand its conquest. Traditional memory in Dreaming in Cuban then denounces more than its political power; it is also reveals that this imperial uses memory as a military strategy. By speaking for the marginalized, Pilar and Herminia expose the imperial country’s inhumanity and savageness and refuse to conform to the “imperial power” (131).

By taking into account the different choice of verbs and the figures of speech, Pilar and Herminia on the one hand question the Eurocentric vision of the world regarding to the way of writing and understanding history. On the one hand, they denounce that this traditional way of writing history is in fact biased by political, moral and military strategies. As emphasised throughout Edwards’ analysis of Kincaid’s My Brother, traditional memory is consequently not a reliable source of information, because of its a selection of memories. Thus, the significance of collective memory in Dreaming in Cuban is revolutionary because remembering unconventional memories decentralizes the “imperial power” (131) and consequently calls for political equality.