凱薩琳˙希季威克〈畸形男孩〉及《新英格蘭故事》中的失能、資本主義及共和主義

Abstract

在凱薩琳·希季威克的〈畸形男孩〉及《新英格蘭故事》中，失能構成作者敘述資本主義及共和主義的主軸。 約翰·馮·尼斯·葉慈的〈1824年州秘書對貧窮的救濟及處置報告書〉確立了效率及產能為慈善準則。兩年後，希季威克已將葉慈有關慈善的經濟化準則融入了〈畸形男孩〉。身體因佝僂病畸形的理查·雪博得在〈畸形男孩〉中以乞討之姿開場。然而，他受到的救助並非金錢。而是有關諸如勤奮及節儉等理財美德的建議。這樣以針對個人理財美德的建議代替金錢的救助方法顯示了慈善在1820年代的美國由基督教義務轉換成一種以財務考量優先的事業。基於這種經濟性考量的慈善，將雪博得的失能當作一種投資的對象，而非同情對象。經歷曲折後，雪博得在他工作的商店藉由展示他的畸形身體，將他的失能轉變成一幀吸引顧客的奇景，獲得不小的商業成功。於是，這種針對雪博得的經濟化慈善模式，便將失能由一種需要救助的疾苦轉換成雪博得最終能經濟獨立並晉級中產的原因。 莎莉·愛琪樂認為1812戰爭後，失能在美國小說中成為一種愛國及共和美德的標記，例如山謬·伍德沃的《自由的擁護者》以及詹姆斯·庫柏的《李奧納·林肯；或，波士頓的圍攻》皆是如此。然而，在希季威克的《新英格蘭故事》中，失能卻遏阻了共和美德的養成。1812後小說常見的失能是戰爭造成的肉體創傷，但是，在《新英格蘭故事》中，取而代之的是如今被稱為神經歧異性或神經多元性的心理失能。我分析的角色貝特，具有神經歧異性，而他的名字在英文中便帶有非理性的隱含意義，暗示了文本將神經歧異性視作反對理性的來源。貝特反對基督教的理性、私有財代表的經濟理性、共和母親主義的共和理性和現代精神醫學在美國剛啟蒙的理性。貝特使用的語言將帶有基督色彩的詩作變成具有神經歧異性的語言，甚至將之酷兒化。如此偏離常軌的行為，讓貝特招致巫術的控告。然而，接近文本尾聲時，敘事重申理性，撇除對貝特的巫術控告，轉而以班傑明·瑞許在精神醫學的新理論解釋貝特的行為。即便如此，貝特的神經歧異性仍無法被完滿解釋，而貝特最終也拒絕醫學的介入。文本最後安排讓貝特死去，對理性無法解釋及回歸常態的神經歧異性下達了嚴酷的判斷。

In Catharine Maria Sedgwick’s “The Deformed Boy” (1826) and A New-England Tale (1822), disability constitutes a main thread with which she weaves her narratives of capitalism and republicanism. J. V. N. Yates established efficiency and productivity as the precepts of charity with his “Report of the Secretary of State in 1824 on the Relief and Settlement of the Poor” (1824). Two years later, when Sedgwick published “The Deformed Boy,” she already infused Yate’s financial precepts with her eleemosynary tale. Richard Shepard, a rickets-ridden boy, begins Sedgwick’s story with implorations for alms. Yet, in place of pecuniary relief, Shepard receives advice on the improvement of economic virtues such as industry and frugality. This substitution of advice for alms signals the transition of charity in 1820s United States, from a predominantly religious duty to a matter of financial calculation. Caught in this shift, Shepard’s disability, rather than an object of pity that requires support, becomes a fleshly site of investment. After some tribulations, Shepard gains business success by displaying his disability as a bodily spectacle to draw customers to the shop where he works. Under the marketization of charity, disability thus transforms from a cause for alms to a reason for Shepard’s eventual independence and middle-class success. Sari Altschuler argues that, after the War of 1812, disability became a mark of patriotism and republican virtues in novels such as Samuel Woodworth’s Champions of Freedom (1816) and James Fennimore Cooper’s Lionel Lincoln; or, the Leaguer of Boston (1824). Yet, in Sedgwick’s A New-England Tale, disability undermines the attainment of republican virtues. Rather than a residue of war wounds (a common disability trope in post-1812 novels), disability in A New-England Tale assumes the form of a “craze,” a type of mental idiosyncrasy that today qualifies as neurodivergence. The neurodivergent Bet, whose very name suggests irrationality, opposes the rationality of Christianity, private property, republican motherhood, and empirical medicine. Bet’s language queers Christianity, converting Christian poetry into neurodivergent speech in a flourish that draws accusations of witchcraft. Although in its denouement, A New-England Tale seeks to reassert rationality by backtracking its accusations of witchcraft and framing Bet’s idiosyncrasies in light of the newest advances made by Benjamin Rush on “diseases of the mind,” Bet refuses to comply. Bet’s opposition to medical treatment ultimately brings her death, since the culmination of republican rationality and virtues, in the narrative of A New-England Tale, requires the removal of deviants like Bet.