In Jane Bennett’s introduction to her book, Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things, she emphasizes that “we need to cultivate a bit of anthropomorphism—the idea that human agency has some echoes in nonhuman nature” (Bennett xvi). How have we seen this theory at work in texts we have already encountered in class thus far? How does this related back to Bennett’s idea of “thing-power” (Bennett xvi)?
ENGL 365 | Medieval Object Ecologies
Dr. Myra Seaman | Fall 2014
I’m still struggling to connect with the concepts presented in the preface, but one object from “Guigemar” seemed to have many human qualities: the boat. The boat navigated between Gugemar’s land and his lady’s several times, seeming to lead them right where they needed to be. It drew people into it on sight, seeming almost to seduce them, as if it knew what they needed. This draw did not seem to be subjective, lending some credibility to Bennett’s theory of “thing power”. It also completely changed the lives of those who encountered it. One could almost say that the boat itself made “Guigemar” happen. Consider the story without the boat: Gugemar is injured and left alone. He dies. The end. Or maybe someone finds him and takes him home. He then wanders around his homeland aimlessly. As for the lady? She’s still locked in her gardens.
This is a really difficult text to get on board with, so my answer will probably not be a good one, but bear with me. In our discussion of the texts, not necessarily the texts themselves, have shown a likeness towards objects, not necessarily inanimate objects, but those are certainly included. In our discussions we have given certain objects and words so much meaning that might otherwise be overlooked. And I think Bennett is taking that a step further, boarding on the radical view of thing-power.
In the texts we’ve read so far, there’s definitely a connection between the human agency of the characters and that of the objects surrounding them. As mentioned in a post above, the boat in “Guigemar” acts as if under complete control of its actions, propelling the story forward and taking control of the characters’ movements. The pair of lovers meet, fall in love, are separated, and are eventually reunited, all thanks to the boat and its strange sense of will. The hind itself that cursed Guigemar, while not being inanimate, is still non human and directly alters the knight’s life and kick-starts his journey for love. Guigemar doesn’t have much of a choice in this matter, as his will never heal otherwise.
Likewise, in Sir Cleges, the berries grow against the odds and present themselves to Cleges, beginning his journey (with help from his wife) to go see the king and eventually reclaim his fortune and honor.
In both cases, the journey’s start and its ‘happy ending’ are all based around certain objects’ manifestations of will that guide the characters along in ways that other humans are unable to.
I think the “thing power” can easily be the animism or animalism found in Eastern beliefs and a mindset we have as children, that all things are alive. That could be the truth, instead of seeing objects as a tool or an extentions of ourselves, they could have their own energies and desires. But then the ultimate conclusion of the arguement can be in the question of AI in a machine, if it is thinking, can we consider it sentient?