“I Used to Think We Were the Same Person:” Disrupting the Ideal Nuclear Family Myth through Incest, Adultery and Gendered Violence in Taboo (2017-)

IF 0.3 Q4 CULTURAL STUDIES
D. Pedro
{"title":"“I Used to Think We Were the Same Person:” Disrupting the Ideal Nuclear Family Myth through Incest, Adultery and Gendered Violence in Taboo (2017-)","authors":"D. Pedro","doi":"10.14198/raei.2023.38.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The nuclear family consolidated its social status as the institution upholding the national, capitalist and moral values of Western societies in the long nineteenth century (Kohlke and Gutleben 2010, 1). Consequently, neo-Victorian literary and screen texts often try to challenge the idealised conceptualization of this institution by bringing to the fore its potential dysfunctionalities, such as monstrous or negligent parents, domestic violence, incest or adultery. This is the case of the TV series Taboo (2017-), which portrays a dysfunctional family whose foundations are based on colonialism, patriarchal violence and Oedipal relations. In this article, I examine Taboo as a neo-Victorian narrative of family trauma, which foregrounds and criticizes gendered violence, a phenomenon that was silenced in nineteenth-century literary and historical records (Lawson and Shakinovsky 2012a, 1). Moreover, I also scrutinise the incest trope, following Llewellyn’s three-fold approach (2010), based on a triangulation between ethics, aesthetics and psychoanalysis. Finally, I consider how Taboo reproduces the most characteristic traits of nineteenth-century adultery novels, so as to expose the sexual dissatisfaction of its female protagonist, Zilpha Delaney, and her desire to escape from her abusive and oppressive husband. As I show in this article, Taboo manages to disrupt the myth of the nuclear family as a natural and indisputable moralising institution. Likewise, at first, the series shows potential feminist and post-colonial drives, as it attempts to denounce nineteenth-century imperialist and misogynistic ideologies within the family. However, Taboo fails to grant its heroine independence and female empowerment in the end. This is so because it replicates the ending of nineteenth-century adultery novels, where the adulterous wife committed suicide after being rejected by her lover.","PeriodicalId":33428,"journal":{"name":"Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2023.38.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The nuclear family consolidated its social status as the institution upholding the national, capitalist and moral values of Western societies in the long nineteenth century (Kohlke and Gutleben 2010, 1). Consequently, neo-Victorian literary and screen texts often try to challenge the idealised conceptualization of this institution by bringing to the fore its potential dysfunctionalities, such as monstrous or negligent parents, domestic violence, incest or adultery. This is the case of the TV series Taboo (2017-), which portrays a dysfunctional family whose foundations are based on colonialism, patriarchal violence and Oedipal relations. In this article, I examine Taboo as a neo-Victorian narrative of family trauma, which foregrounds and criticizes gendered violence, a phenomenon that was silenced in nineteenth-century literary and historical records (Lawson and Shakinovsky 2012a, 1). Moreover, I also scrutinise the incest trope, following Llewellyn’s three-fold approach (2010), based on a triangulation between ethics, aesthetics and psychoanalysis. Finally, I consider how Taboo reproduces the most characteristic traits of nineteenth-century adultery novels, so as to expose the sexual dissatisfaction of its female protagonist, Zilpha Delaney, and her desire to escape from her abusive and oppressive husband. As I show in this article, Taboo manages to disrupt the myth of the nuclear family as a natural and indisputable moralising institution. Likewise, at first, the series shows potential feminist and post-colonial drives, as it attempts to denounce nineteenth-century imperialist and misogynistic ideologies within the family. However, Taboo fails to grant its heroine independence and female empowerment in the end. This is so because it replicates the ending of nineteenth-century adultery novels, where the adulterous wife committed suicide after being rejected by her lover.
《我曾经以为我们是同一个人》:通过《禁忌》中的乱伦、通奸和性别暴力打破理想核心家庭神话(2017-)
在漫长的十九世纪,核心家庭巩固了其作为维护西方社会国家、资本主义和道德价值观的机构的社会地位(Kohlke和Gutleben,2010,1)。因此,新维多利亚时代的文学和银幕文本经常试图挑战这一制度的理想化概念,突出其潜在的功能障碍,如可怕或疏忽的父母、家庭暴力、乱伦或通奸。电视剧《禁忌》(2017-)就是这样,该剧描绘了一个功能失调的家庭,其基础是殖民主义、父权暴力和俄狄浦斯关系。在这篇文章中,我将禁忌视为一种新维多利亚时代的家庭创伤叙事,它突出并批评了性别暴力,这一现象在19世纪的文学和历史记录中被压制了(Lawson和Shakinovsky,2012a,1)。此外,我还仔细研究了乱伦的比喻,遵循卢埃林的三重方法(2010年),基于伦理、美学和精神分析之间的三角关系。最后,我思考了《禁忌》如何再现19世纪通奸小说中最具特色的特征,以揭露女主人公齐尔法·德兰尼的性不满,以及她逃离虐待和压迫丈夫的欲望。正如我在这篇文章中所展示的,禁忌成功地打破了核心家庭作为一个自然而无可争议的道德机构的神话。同样,起初,该系列展示了潜在的女权主义和后殖民主义驱动力,因为它试图谴责19世纪家庭中的帝国主义和厌女意识形态。然而,《禁忌》最终未能赋予女主人公独立性和女性赋权。这是因为它复制了19世纪通奸小说的结局,在小说中,通奸的妻子在被情人拒绝后自杀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses
Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信