Cross-Cultural Blog

Hi Wen Qi,

Your motive dealing with the ambivalence of the “exception” made for the individual in Kuo’s play seems very interesting—it seems striking to me as well! From what I understand, your thesis will first examine the implications of that exception. I thought that you could perhaps begin first by briefly validating the claim that the exception, in its singularity, confirms (paradoxically?) that “there will be no more such ‘exceptions’”. The reading written by Jacqueline Lo, which analyzes Kuo’s play, also offers useful insight on how the “exceptions” could be understood. You could perhaps build on her understanding of such “exceptions” in your paper.

I note that you mentioned an interest in exploring the People’s Action Party (PAP) style of governance in the 1980s—this would certainly give the paper an edge of added “real-life” relevance—and I am very keen as a Singaporean to read what you will arrive at based on your study of the PAP in the 1980s! Are you treading on dangerous political grounds here? On the basis of it making for potentially exciting reading, I certainly hope you are! It might be useful to spend some time thinking about Kuo’s own background as a political activist as well, such that his works might reflect certain ideologies (or not). I also think it would be crucial in your paper to emphasize the connections between “paternalistic” governance and how the illusion of (humane/ compassionate) exceptions comes into play in such a style of governance. Perhaps you could refer to studies dealing with how public policies have a direct impact on public opinion of the ruling party to strengthen the claim that the use of “exceptions” by the PAP significantly affects the public’s opinion of the government. How much of the PAP’s power as a long-standing single party government is derived from such policies? How applicable are such policies today given the growing awareness of their implications (an awareness displayed by Kuo, Lo, and increasingly, you and I)?

These are just some of my thoughts based on what you have written about your paper so far. Please feel free to clarify if I have misunderstood your intentions!

Hi Yvette, just some of my thoughts:

I think it’s crucial to keep in mind that Coffin is a fictional text, and may even be better seen as an allegory to show the contest between the individual and the government over spaces in general. But the practices of burials are a fact in Singapore. Maybe you could distinguish that you’ll be dealing with this “fact”?

I was thinking that a possible counterargument might be the government entitles burial plots to accommodate other religions or beliefs that don’t practice cremation, because if it suddenly bans burial practices Singaporeans would be unhappy and think that the government doesn’t respect tradition (as in Coffin!). Hence, the government also allows burial sites because of “public sentiment” (Kong & Yeoh 66).

How does owning a burial plot strengthen the individual’s sense of national loyalty and identity? That is something rather interesting to explore. But is there anything in Coffin that suggests that the individual feels a greater sense of ownership and loyalty to the state by having a burial plot? Instead of feeling a deeper sense of loyalty to the state, the grandson seems like an ingrate who is more unhappy with the authorities for not being humane enough to give him more burial space. He also seems more resigned, than nationalistic and happy, to following the state’s wishes. But one could also argue that the grandson is now even more compliant to state policy, because he doesn’t wish to go to heads with the government again.

Maybe you could also think about if the grandson exhibits the same kind of attachment and belonging, as Tay describes, to the grandfather’s burial site. I think it is possible to examine further how this “unplanned space” is memorial to the grandson. But does the grandson feel more rooted to Singapore through this “unplanned space”?

I also think a problem you may encounter is that the play focuses a lot on the tension between the individual and state, and not much on the topic on burial practices, hence there might not be enough material in Coffin to work on. But I could also be wrong!

Hope these comments are helpful and good luck!

Hi Pamela,

I think it is very interesting to use local poetry to analyze the personal trauma that stem from the deviation in the state’s motive for urban planning and the individual actual utilization with the planned spaces. Each work of poetry represents an individual and his unique perspective on the struggle to reconcile these differences. However, I think that “trauma” seems to be a strong word to use in your motive and hence, can evoke negative feelings of constructed spaces to the readers. Perhaps you can contemplate words like resignation or reluctance and show that this resignation tends towards trauma later on in the paper or you can qualify this trauma in the motive itself. Also, for your thesis, you can factor in why the divergence arises to make the thesis stronger.

Even as literature allows one to explore the poets’ responses, can there be other alternatives (sources/reasons) for you to consider? Since some of these poets are established professionals in their disciplines, could they have written articles which depict their thoughts? (eg. Tay) Also, I find that Teo Pin Pin’s Moving House which portrays urban planning from the viewpoint of a family and the trouble they went through seems to be related to your thesis. Just a suggestion: since you are going to examine the socio-cultural context from which the emotions arise, you can try using the responses of 2 poets reacting to the same context to show that even the “trauma” experienced are of different nature.

Hope that the comments will be useful. I really look forward to your paper!

Pamela:

Yes, I agree that looking at local poetry is potentially going to be a very interesting way of focusing on the tension between constructed spaces and a sense of home. I wonder if you could be a little more specific as far as your proposed argument is concerned: are you thinking of particular texts, and particular responses? It seems quite abstract at the moment. I would be concerned about focusing the argument further. Concerning your motive (your reason for writing: the puzzle or problem that you've noticed), I am not sure I understand the compulsion to pleasure that you have identified: e.g., why must the individual find pleasure in constructed spaces?

Best of luck with your drafting!

Johan Geertsema

Wen Qi:

Your idea of investigating more closely the context of the 1980s to help focus your reading of the play The Coffin Is Too Big for the Hole seems really useful. Will you be considering newspapers, perhaps to see what was said about Kuo Pao Kun, the author of the play, at the time? You could try Factiva or LexisNexis (available from the Central Library website).

I think you're quite right to consider the nature of the "exception" in the play, and to try to understand better what this exception signifies. Pamela's comment on the paradoxical effect of the exception seems spot on. In other words, trying to understand what the exception means in the play potentially gives you a strong motive (research problem).

Good luck with your drafting of what seems like it might turn into a fascinating paper!

Johan Geertsema

Yvette:

I think Wen Qi's given you some really useful feedback (thanks Wen Qi!). In particular, you need to bear in mind the issue of genre, as she mentions. Kuo's play is, precisely, a play, and what it does cannot in any simple way be transferred to what we call "fact." In other words, the play is not a documentary -- though, of course, it is true that even documentaries work to construct certain versions of the "real." Perhaps because of the issue of genre, I am not really at the moment able to see how your ideas for the essay relate to The Coffin. You do not refer to the play at all in your paragraph on your ideas for the paper. So it's not clear how your idea for a question -- why does the state not simply make cremation compulsory -- relates to the text that you say is your focus for the paper, namely The Coffin.But the idea that there is a certain pleasure in ownership, and that this is used by the state to political ends, certainly seems worth exploring, as long as you're able to link it to your source/s.

Good luck with your drafting!

Johan Geertsema

Hi Pamela, Wen Qi and Yvette,

I enjoyed reading about your projects on Singaporean literary works and their relationship to planned and unplanned spaces. I feel my ignorance most strongly – I don’t know of these works. But now, because of your projects, I am motivated to read these texts!

Pamela – I am intrigued by your project to examine poetry’s vision of the traumatized individual who seeks pleasure in constructed spaces that he or she might ultimately call home. From a cross-cultural context, I would compare the works in your anthology to modernists such as T.S. Eliot's the Wasteland . He’s definitely a poet of trauma, urban life, and a need for home. William Carlos Williams has an epic work called Paterson that deals very differently with the individual in the urban space. What theorists will you turn to in order to build your socio-cultural context? I very much look forward to reading your paper – one question; do you write poetry yourself?

Wen Qi and Yvette – thanks for the plot summary of Kuo Pao Kun’s play The Coffin Is Too Big For The Hole .

Yvette – my question for you concerns your thesis, which I find very well formulated. Do you see a subversive pleasure in the planning conducted by the Singapore Government? I’m wondering because of your claim that it “entitle[s] the citizens, allowing the individual the pleasure of ownership.” How is pleasure of ownership connected to national loyalty? Where, in Singapore, does the individual end and the nation begin? This is a big question in America.

Wen Qi -- I’m very interested in the way you build off the common interpretation of “The Coffin” as “the individual’s triumph of resistance against the government” because it allows you to cast the government as portraying “itself as humane and understanding” even “paternalistic” -- my question for you is whether you think this was an encouraged resistance. If so, what are the consequences? How does this “exception” strategy both increase and threaten the government’s ethos? Finally, I must say that I appreciate your articulation of how you will substantiate your paper through looking at the Singapore context in the 1980s – we call this kairos in rhetoric.

I very much look forward to learning more about your projects, Wen Oi and Yvette!

Alyssa O’Brien
Stanford University