Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Literature Discipline and Power: Sherlock Holmes and the Crime Fiction

2012

(This draft, ostensibly inspired by my enthusiasm for Foucault then, derives from a postgraduate special paper I wrote in 2010. The journal, Contemporary Discourse, part of the Literary Insight Forum, published from Maharashtra, India, was seeking brief development-of-thought papers in literary-critical studies. They accepted it. Unfortunately, I could not get time to develop it into a fuller article. Sometime in the future may be. Anyone interested in Sherlock Holmes studies or in crime fiction may find the directions, or the references, useful.) This paper attempts to understand the rise of crime fiction in 19th C Britain as something integrally related to the importation of statistical reasoning and the rigorous practice of routine disciplining of the body in contemporary everyday life. Tracking Foucault's and Hacking's contributions, the paper situates the fictional figure of Sherlock Holmes in the dialogue between the normal and abnormal and the criminal and the detective, thereby inviting questions on the gaps in reason-making in everyday life in late-Victorian Britain.

DRAFT COPY Sourit Bhattacharya Literature, Discipline, and Power: Sherlock Holmes and the Crime Fiction Broadly speaking, statistical reasoning is a form of producing truth claims based on the calculation of large numbers. What it aims is the production of a narrative of the average or the “Normal.”1 In our current times, statistical rationality is everywhere – in the world of medicine, health, and life insurance or even in the question of “individual choice.” It “produces” life, or to take a relevant term from Zygmunt Bauman, the ‘liquid modern sociality,” since it is based on the “taming” of the chance factor which “haunts” the practices of our everyday life.2 This form of ‘truth’ arose in critical thought in the 19th century, parallel with the growth of industrial capital and bureaucratic system. The “system” oriented life needed a clinical monitoring of society. Now, the previously unnoticed territories came under purview as 'disciplines' started to emerge. But these disciplines did not work as part of sovereign power leaving their marks of oppression on the civic/civil bodies, but functioned, on the other hand, in a ‘capillary’ formation in order to keep the bodies in perpetual tension – to make it both subjected and productive.3 In manipulating this capitalistic, utilitarian logic, the aberrant or the abnormal was to be always kept in proper gaze and control. It was the belief in the essential disorder in society and a symptomatic recovery through rationality and statistical accounts that the practice of “governmentality” (cf. Foucault) went through a rapid change. But does this mean that the science of probability could eradicate the symptoms of “recalcitrance” within? This draft of a paper traces this problem by asking whether the rise of crime fiction, specifically Sherlock Holmes, in the late 19th century England was the enactment of statistical reasoning in literature; whether crime fiction could act as a form of exercising power; and if there is a space of criticism in the dialogic tension between ‘writing’ and ‘constructing’ in the logic of crime fiction. Discourse of crime: What is crime? Broadly, it is the violation of some norm the society has adopted as the “standard” for human behavior and conduct. The question of what is “normal” and what is “abnormal” became important in the 19th C as particular disciplines started establishing standards and norms by separating them from the “aberrations.” The biological and physical sciences initiated the discourse, while the numerical sciences consolidated it. As I use the word “discourse,” I mean the way certain elements were brought under a rubric to establish and forward a particular way of thinking. The crime discourse was a study of behavioural science; and the crime fiction its result. The rise of Sherlock Holmes is intricately related with the popularity of the Newgate booklets which contained the biographies of criminals soon to be dispatched.4 In “Illegalities and Delinquency,” Foucault informed us how the production of biographies of the criminals was associated with the “construct” known as the “delinquent.” When the moral injunctions became part of the commercial uplift, the construct went through rapid changes, deepening the effect of the metaphor in human mind.5 With the emergence of a policing system and the crime investigation department, crime not only became impregnated in society but also a “case” to be examined and documented.6 The Question of Detection: “Watson, You only see, but do not observe.” This is one of the most oft-quoted sentences for discussing Holmesian brilliance. The question of investigation lies not in following logic, but observing the process of logic, and in doing that constructing logic itself. The discourse of crime fiction lies in moving backward. Some crime has taken place and the investigator has to move back and find who did it and how. In this process, it is not the apparent, but the most insignificant that will be counted as valuable. The terrains of the disordered will be permuted and combined to give it a form of order. The minutest clues and intimations, the details, should be noted so that a form of deductive rationality could be applied and the “probable” could be transformed into the logic of the scientific. The clue must fall within the “law of large numbers” to claim the statistical regularity, and, thus, “tame” the world which apparently looks chancy.7 Mass Production and Power: Within a few months after the first installment of Sherlock Holmes had come out in the Strands magazine, the detective became an icon. It was such enthusiasm on the part of the readers that he had to be called back from death. In fact, many believed that Sherlock Holmes was a real character, while Doyle, the architect, a fictional one.8 The mass publication industries and the then electronic media, i.e. the radio, theatre and the films inaugurated and firmly established the “celebrity status” of the detective.9 It was not because Holmes followed an instrumental rationality of the Enlightenment order, but because, he brought re-enchantment into this disenchanted world by combining reason with imagination. Every detail of one’s life is important. This claim, backed by such brilliant scientific analysis, could fit both into the scientistic discourse of capitalist flavour of the time and the search for the “wonderland,”10 what the fin-de-siècle movement was trying to aestheticize in “the philosophy of as if.” To probe further, Holmes bridged the gap between the administrative and the non-administrative, and in doing so, helped in producing more “docile bodies” that could easily be monitored, since they were, by the logic of a criminal, always-already self-monitoring. Rationality, urbanism, consumerism and nostalgia for a lost world order based on primitive communal relationship were so well explored in these stories that they could be mobilized further for analyzing deeper power relations and the control over the body by the State. The Location of the Detective: This is what brings us to the important question: who is Sherlock Holmes? What is his social position? He is a misfit in society, has concealed and isolated himself from all social orders, is deeply addicted to cocaine, carries inexplicable experiments, and is interested in crime and criminology. Such a depiction promptly makes us ask: isn’t he, by definition, an abnormal? In fact, in carrying forward the investigation, he can also, as he says, “flex the law a bit.” Isn’t it then interesting to see it is the abnormal who encroaches the terrains of the normal to locate the “other” abnormal “bodies” and bring them under the purview of law in the name of a “case study”? This discovery takes the Foucauldian logic of normal-abnormal to a further step where the abnormal not only defines the normal, but proclaims that it can never be traced since it is beyond the gaze of law, and since it constantly transforms, takes disguise, and camouflages within the domain of legal power. In that sense, this recalcitrance or asymmetry in social and scientific body makes some “productive” space for resistance.11 Writing and Constructing: Arthur Conan Doyle had yielded to deeper spiritualism when the rationality of Sherlock Holmes was inscribing marks on the age. Did it spoil Holmes’ popularity? Not in the least. Because the rhetoric of crime fiction functions in transforming and re-constituting language.12 Crime detection is like following a chain of signs, endless in order. Holmes is the master signifier who can bring the play into a limit of cognition. Why does the logic work? Since crime detection follows the very basic logic of subject-object relationship: the re-entry of the subject into a world of signs. The cognition is repeated, but with the play within. Thus this re-cognition, or re-assurance of “interpellation,” re-constructs the body, thereby both disciplining it and implanting the knowledge of endless play of events within. It is not only a demonstration how metanarratives are produced from the logical constitution of the mininarratives, but also a recognition that there can never be a consolidating mininarrative since the latter is the domain of constant play and transformation. The result is the world we live in: the age of detail (statistical reasoning) and the ethic of ‘risk management’. Crime fiction thus contains a large spectrum of “events,” a careful study of which may lead us to understand how a structure is created and how the possibility of its existence resides on the artful covering of certain threats, which loom large waiting to be discovered. This dialogue also suggests the paradigmatic shifts in the discourse of power. In fact, a dialogue with statistical forms of reasoning can bring out the loopholes in the process of reasoning itself, thereby inviting a seminal question: what is the reasonableness of reason? Though there is no ‘reason’ as such to believe that the “discoveries” will always be revealing or, in a sense, a gazer’s delight (as crime fiction underlies a deep gendered dimension, which requires a completely separate focus though), we may at least hypothesize that such a study can lead us to a deeper engagement with the structure of capitalism and its excess. References: The question of “Norm” was brought to notice in the critical studies of social and economic life in the late 19thC with an impetus of defining nature through calculation and atomic structure of the physical sciences. For a better understanding, see S. N. Ganguly, Logical Positivism: A Theory of Meaning (New York: Allied Publishers, 1967) Bauman analyzes the relations of systems and individual choices of the present age in terms such as “sociality,” a category comprising disorder and pattern, random choices and chance associations, responsibility and bystanding qualities, where an event is both reduced to statistical guarantee and produced by multiple “packaging” of it. See, Zygmunt Bauman, Intimations of Postmodernity, (London: Routledge, 1992) Michel Foucault, “Docile Bodies,” Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. by Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1977) For a fuller understanding of how the heavy moralistic underpinnings of The Newgate Calendar became a space for sheer commodification of crime, both in structure and in the content ( through the introduction of ‘sensational novels’) see Heather Worthington, The Rise of the Detective in the Early Nineteenth-Century Popular Fiction (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005) Michel Foucault, “Illegalities and Delinquency,” Discipline and Punish, pp. 257-293; Foucault also talks about the production of biographies and the verbalized, scripted marks of power in “The Life of Infamous Men,” in P. Foss and M. Morris (eds.) Power, Truth, Strategy (Sydney: Feral Press, 1979) As the study of various forms grew, the method or ‘correct training’ became very important. Soon it was clear that any study must follow: classification, differentiation, hierarchization, homogenization, and exclusion via the means of precise documentation, analysis and supervision. This statistical analysis and examination made human life a “case.” See, Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp. 170-95 Carlo Ginzburg has written on the use of clues and intimations and the writing of history in an influential essay, “Morelli, Holmes, Freud: Clues,” in The Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Pierce, ed. by Umberto Eco and Thomas. E. Sebbok (Bloomington: Indiana university Press, 1988); for the development of statistical reasoning and the calculation logic, see Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) As Jacques Barzun noted, “this has happened in no other books and no other characters in recent times. It’s a phenomenon.” Jacques Barzun, “The adventures of Sherlock Holmes: A Radio Discussion,” in Phillip. A. Shreffler (ed.) The Baker Street Readers: Cornerstone Writings about Sherlock Holmes (Westport: CT, 1984), p. 25. David Vincent, Literacy and Popular Culture: England 1750-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989) For a study of Holmesian narrative as a reaction against realism and a return to the Gothic, see Patrick Brantlinger, The Reading Lesson: The Threat of Mass literacy in Nineteenth Century British Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). On the rebuttal of this argument, see Nicholas Daly, Modernism, Romance, and the fin-de-siècle: Popular Fiction and British Culture, 1880-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999). On the application of logic as the “scientific use of the imagination,” see T. S. Blakeney, Sherlock Holmes: Fact or Fiction (1932; New York: Otto Penzler Books, 1993). The exploitation of the term ‘wonderland’ and its relation with scientific rationality is deftly dealt in Lorrain Daston and Katherine Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750 (1938; Cambridge MA: Zone Books, 2001). “The philosophy of as if” is a phrase taken from the philosopher Hans Vaihinger who discussed the utility and relevance of factionalism in real life. Foucault has himself noted that power is not a one-sided hegemonic flow in any discourse. “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines it and express it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.” Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol.1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley, (New York: Pantheon, 1978), pp.100-01. For a study of crime fiction, language, and the process of re-constitution, see Lisabeth During, “Clues and Intimations: Freud, Holmes, Foucault,” Cultural Critique, 36 (1997): 29-53.