Politeness, Perlocution and the Panopticon: a Pragmatic Stylistic Analysis of NVM Gonzalez’s “The Blue Skull and the Dark Palms”
In literature, especially fiction, dialogue is manipulated not to simply recreate human interaction in real life but to intensify the underlying dynamics of structure, meaning, and context. Dialogue entails from the reader an approximation of the character psyche in order to follow the pattern and undertones of the interaction. At the same time, the context also affects the psyche and interaction.
The Blue Skull and the Dark Palms by NVM Gonzalez is an example of what Pratt calls a mutual determination of context and subject. A pragmatic stylistics analysis of the speech acts in The Blue Skull would be incomplete if the larger context of the story is not considered.
Analysis of Ms. Inocencio’s language in the speech acts at the beginning of the story reveals an overuse of the politeness indicator “sir” which she uses after almost every utterance. This indicates her desire to please Mr. Vidal, the School Inspector, and not simply to be polite. This also emphasizes how she sees herself as subordinate, and even inferior, to him. Later on, in their first encounter at the school, she moves from short phatic utterances to more illustrative illocutionary acts like explaining her plans for the garden, the illocutionary force being to make a good impression.
Mr. Vidal, on the other hand, begins with a series of compliments to Ms. Inocencio. He also addresses her as Ms. Inocencio only once, and the rest is direct “you” address. This reveals his desire not to seem imposing and to establish a less formal and more familiar interaction with Ms. Inocencio.
The disparity in the disposition of the two is revealed in the dialogue they have after Ms. Inocencio mentioned the war. Her illocutionary act describes the school during and after the war, hoping to make a point about the school’s condition. The perlocution on Mr. Vidal instead is to discuss an intimate topic, the death of Pepito, Ms. Inocencio’s lover. He does this using an illocutionary act of clarifying a fact. He asks Ms. Inocencio, “Did you know him?” not to clarify but perhaps to get her to talk more. She, in turn, rejects and replies with an indirect illocution, “Pepito Malabanan, sir?” Mr. Vidal persists, “Do you think it’s ever possible…his being alive, his ever coming home?” And Ms. Inocencio answers, “I can’t say, sir.” The polite address at the end reveals she does not want to discuss the intimate connection she has with the man in question. Obviously, though, with his questions, Mr. Vidal is aware of it.
The aforementioned explains a hidden illocutionary force in Mr. Vidal’s being generous with compliments at the start. He wants a more personal relationship with Ms. Inocencio, and perhaps even to court her. Several breakdowns or turning points in their dialogues apart from the one above show this. When they were talking about Ms. Inocencio’s plans for the garden, he commends her then implies the possibility of the school getting closed, and how he can do a part in that. That has a perlocutionary effect on Ms. Inocencio of recognizing his influence and power even more. Also, when she leaves to join the praying, after the skull is discovered, he suggests subscribing to teacher journals, in one of which he has a contribution. The illocutionary intent is to impress her. Ms. Inocencio is not completely clueless to the advances, nor is she impervious. After their first conversation, she wonders if Mr. Vidal has a family.
On the night of the padasal for the skull, Mr. Vidal greets Ms. Inocencio with, “Do you think it would be possible to identify the skull?”—an obviously familiar rather than formal illocutionary act. She reveals, “I don’t know what to do, sir,” referring to both skull and her situation as Pepito’s beloved. Mr. Vidal then explains in detail what he has instructed and done about the skull, the perlocution on Ms. Inocencio being her seeing him as a chivalric man, a savior. When two women pass them to attend the padasal, she is reminded of her purpose and obligation and she says, “Don’t you think I should join them?” It is an indirect illocutionary act saying she should join them. It also suggests she considers Mr. Vidal’s opinion on whether she is obligated to go.
After she decides to leave the padasal, a liberation from her obligations tied to the hope of Pepito’s return, she goes to Mr. Vidal. All her utterances at that point onwards lose the polite address “sir,” a sign of change in the psyche. However, the shortness and fewness of her utterances in that scene show she has not completely yielded to Mr. Vidal. He, on the other hand, dominates the dialogue with directives, the perlocutionary act being to convince Ms. Inocencio to leave the barrio and become his protégée. She recognizes this, and allows him to draw her to him and put his arm on her shoulder. Her silence, however, signals that she is not totally free. In the end, she tells him the generic utterance, “It’s very kind of you,” and makes the issue final with “I must stay…”
Why were Mr. Vidal’s perlocutionary acts unsuccessful in the end despite Ms. Inocencio’s decision to be free at the padasal? The last sentence of the story, “The dark palms were staring at her,” serve as the clue. On her way to Mr. Vidal, she sees the palms waving as if to celebrate her freedom. But then she wonders if it was too easily won. The change in the personification of the palms, “waving” to “staring” shows that for Ms. Inocencio, the barrio residents are watching her. This is reminiscent of the concept of panopticon, wherein people think and feel they’re actions are being watched even if they are alone. This hinders them from doing forbidden acts by the community. This panopticon can be religion, tradition and culture, ideologies. For Ms. Inocencio, the barrio folk have been watching her every step ever since Pepito did not come back, and they continue to do so after the skull’s discovery. Even if she leaves for the capital, the people will talk about her and how she abandoned her betrothal. This underlying reason is shown in how she had said her last utterances: “as if someone were making decisions on her behalf.” “There—her tongue had uttered them!” emphasizes she does not claim it as an utterance from her but that her tongue had merely produced them.
Going back to Pratt, Ms. Inocencio’s case shows that the subject is not a fixed element. The subject builds the context of a speech act, or acts within a given one, and changes the context while she herself and her speech acts are shaped by a greater context entrenched in cultures, standards, and ideologies.
Leave a Reply