The film American Psycho is flooded with imagery and references to masks, some of which allude to materialism, others to personal image (a spawn of materialism), others to aspects of human nature, and still others to societal normatives (what ought to be done, as opposed to norms which are imperatives of what is to be done). The beginning of the movie gives a number of examples of masks and masking that are worth looking at. As Patrick Bateman introduces himself and his morning routine he is largely concerned with the appearance of his face. When he wakes up, if his face is feeling a little "puffy" he puts on an ice pack while he does his stomach crunches. Then later he uses an aftershave with little or no alcohol because "alcohol dries your face out, and makes you look older." (This could correspond to our discussion of Augustus Caesar Prima Porta statue, in which he is depicted a young, healthy, and perfect man). Then Bateman applies an herb mint facial mask, which he leaves on for fifteen minutes. As he is peeling this mask from his face his inner monologue says, "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me; only an entity; something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours, and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable, I simply am not there."
So far this quote should be nothing new to us. It corroborates the idea of the mask as a tangible face (facere) for abstractions, the face itself as a mask ("flesh gripping yours"), the idea (signified) of something beneath the mask that we are not privileged to, and the possibility of nothing beneath the mask. This latter part, "I simply am not there," brings us back to the question of whether there is a true face under all our personas, or if there is only masking, layers of masks that only conceal a hollow core. These are expanded upon later when Bateman is at the salon getting a massage, manicure, and a tan (not to mention in this scene he has his eyes covered while tanning): "I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip."
Why is sanity a mask? Is sanity actually a mask? Most certainly it is, because we have now come to one key element of our exploration of the mask: it is arbitrary in its definition and presentation; that is the signifiers are always arbitrary. It's back to the difference between the idea of tree or "tree-ness" and the word tree. Why the word tree? Does it hold something magical about the idea of "tree-ness"? Could we not just as easily have used the word feather to describe the idea of "tree"? Most certainly. If I suddenly tell you that anytime I use the word feather I am talking about a tree, you will understand from thenceforth what I have now arbitrarily established "tree-ness" with feathers: Feathers are usually tall, and there are two types: conifers and deciduous. Feathers are usually green because of chloropyll, which assists chloroplast in the the photosynthesis process of turning water and sunlight into starches and sugars. Feathers are part of the plant kingdom, and some feathers are amongst the largest organisms on planet earth.
Do you see how easily and arbitrarily I changed tree to feather? And by common agreement on the use of words and their meanings you can still understand what I was talking about. This is how the signifier is arbitrary in its role of defining and communicating the idea that it represents. Thus is the same with Bateman's mask of sanity. Sanity is arbitrary by definition (much like the self is arbitrary by definition, "some kind of abstraction... something illusory"). It is a cultural normative that society has come to a common agreement on what sanity means, and we reinforce the idea of sanity so that it can maintain its definition of what is sane.
To illustrate again how arbitrary cultural normatives (what ought to be done) are, I will use an example from the film Alice In Wonderland (2010). Alice is told that wearing knickers is not proper, and she questions her mother about what is proper. "What if it was agreed that proper was wearing a codfish on your head?" Note Alice's use of "if it was agreed that proper was..." All ideas of sanity, proper, and normal are established by agreement among a given culture's population majority. If the majority suddenly decided that it was normal to be raised in a dysfunctional family, then those who grow up in a functional family are now abnormal (it should be of some consequence that something like 60% of American families are classified as dysfunctional, therefore dysfunctional is normal, and normal is abnormal). This is the nature of sanity. We constantly wear a visage of sanity when we go outside and confront the world everyday. We have a consciousness programmed into us all that keeps us in check to make sure we continue to act as "functioning" members of society. This mask of sanity prevents us from murdering, raping, stealing, throwing feces at strangers, or urinating in public. Of course this mask of sanity is necessary for society to continue to exist and propagate, but what the mask of sanity actually looks like (metaphorically of course) is arbitrarily decided by common agreement amongst the majority for the sake of civil living.
This argument for the mask of sanity/proper/normality is the same argument made by Judith Butler in her paper "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." Butler argues that gender roles and sexuality are all imitation, arbitrarily defined attributes of what it is to be a woman, a man, heterosexual, homosexual, or transsexual. She calls this imitation "cross dressing." Essentially her argument is that the way we define what it is to be a homosexual or heterosexual is all cross dressing, i.e. we arbitrarily establish what homosexual or heterosexual or transgender is, then we wear (like a mask) what we have established, and then constantly reinforce those sexuality parameters in order to maintain them. I am no more a heterosexual male than I am a lesbian, because society has set its standards of what it thinks the normal manner in which a lesbian or a heterosexual male should behave, dress, talk, and present themselves. As a heterosexual male I am constantly reinforced these normatives by advertisements, my peers, my family, books, movies, et cetera. I am told I should either have a beard or shave, use masculine deodorants and hygiene produces, eat steak and bacon, lift weights, drive a truck or sports car, watch sports, read the paper, wear suits and ties, et cetera. Women are told to be thin, eat fine chocolates, wear dresses and makeup, use feminine hygiene products, have girls nights, et cetera. A homosexual male should speak femininely, wear tight clothes, have a sense of fashion, go shoe shopping with women. So forth and so forth. But how are any of these things masculine, feminine, homosexual, heterosexual, or transgender?
They're not; not in any way, shape, or form. The behavior and manner of a homosexual is no more homosexual than a mask is a face. This is why Butler calls it cross dressing: they are not our own, but we wear them anyway; just as a cross dressing male wears women's clothes even though he is not a woman. But what makes them women's clothes? Because we are told only women should wear them? Why can't men wear them? Women like to wear their male significant other's clothes from time to time, why not men too? Because we have arbitrarily decided men don't do that. Just like Caesar Augustus's cuirass: it is a trophy (as indicated on the back of the cuirass), but it is not his even though it perfectly fits him. It is the same for cross dressing: women's clothes are not for men, but men can still fit in them, and they can fit him perfectly.
There is only one period of time in which Michelangelo felt that humans did not wear masks, and did not wear things that weren't theirs: before the expulsion from Paradise. Michelangelo was often criticized as to why he would paint nude figures on the Sistine ceiling, why he would paint something vulgar like the corrupt, nude body of man. He always claimed that he was trying to depict man and woman as God had originally made them: naked, noble, and without fear or awe. In other words: perfect. This is evident in the portion of the ceiling known as The Expulsion. On the left side is the naked, but noble, Adam and Eve being tempted by the serpent. On the right Adam and Eve are being expelled by the Cherubim. While Adam's naked body is still exposed, Eve is huddled over to cover her breasts. They are no longer noble, but rather old looking, tired, beaten, and Eve looks like an old hag. It seems as if Michelangelo is trying to say that in Paradise we did not wear masks, and that we made the masks once expelled; in other words, we made the masks of sanity and normality once expelled. Essentially, we are no longer what God had originally intended us to be, so now we must wear clothes and shield our true forms. Michelangelo also believed we learned sin from ourselves, and as a consequence had to establish a difference between right and wrong, good and bad, sane and insane, proper and improper, normal and abnormal in order to keep ourselves in check. This is God's Covenant with the Jews, and Christ's promise to Christians. Again these all lead back to knowing what, if anything, is behind our own masks; a way back to ourselves (something we will come to again).
This question of right and wrong, good and bad will be brought up again when we look into whether or not a mask is a good or a bad thing. But for now we will suffice with a conclusion and leave that for another time. In summation: we wear our sanity, a wear our sexuality, our gender, our emotions, and so forth, but they are not our own, but rather something arbitrary and illusory. What is "sane" is defined without cause. So I suppose once someone is no longer in agreement with society and its arbitrary standards, then that person's mask of sanity begins to slip. Perhaps Adam and Eve's ignorance and bliss were only masks that, once they were peeled off by the serpent - the serpent who promised to open their eyes, so that they may "know good and evil" and be like God himself - they lost their innocence, just as Bartholomew lost his skin. Perhaps innocence is only a mask that we lose as we grow up, and then we have to start to make new masks to pretend/act as if we still are innocent.
No comments:
Post a Comment