Written by Oswald de Andrade and published in 1928 in the first edition of the Revista de Antropofagia, considered one of the most important works of the author and of the Anthropophagic movement. the Anthropophagus Manifesto criticized social, political, religious, and intellectual principles of western society and Brazilian colonization, proposing a diverse social arrangement based on indigenous anthropophagic cultures (NUNES, 1990). It carries almost one hundred years of critical fortune, which, inevitably, fomented a canonical reading of the work. In this reading, the Manifesto would be the claim of what is authentically Brazilian, and the anthropophagous indigenous would be the evocation of a typically national way of thinking (FIORIN, 2009; QUEIROZ, 1989). In common sense, this is the understanding of the Manifesto.
It is true that Anthropophagy has its nationalist facet, above all because of the prism of the week of 22, and also because of some texts of the Revista de Antropofagia that show this trait, for example:
"Nothing is more just than to exalt the Indian and take him as the legitimate national type. Denying him the true Brazilian standard, just because the Brazilian man is the individual-civilization that formed our history, and not the physical man integrated into the earth is, nevertheless, a mistake that everybody commits" (VIVACQUA, 1928, P.12, translated by the author).
However, there are alternative readings of Anthropophagy that have transformed the canonical interpretation of it and revealed other ways of reading it. Certainly, one of them is the approximations of the anthropophagic avant-garde with the post-structuralism ideas, which have been discussed since at least the last quarter of the twentieth century (SANTIAGO, 2008). Through these studies, the Manifesto’s perspective changes: what matters most is not the exaltation of a national identity, but the appreciation of otherness, of difference and contact (CAMPOS, 1992; PRYSTHON, 2008).
Although there have been several recent papers regarding the Manifesto, its new perspective, and its common sense interpretation (ALMEIDA, 2003; GUMBRECHT, 2011; SANTIAGO, 2008), it is still an open question how the critical fortune ended up creating one canonical reading of it. Therefore, this project proposal is to analyze how the text’s critical fortune has influenced the construction of a crystalized understanding.
One of the central figures of the modernist movement in Brazil, Oswald de Andrade became an almost unknown author in the national literary scenario in the mid-20th century. This erasure had consequences that have resulted “in the minimization, if not in voluntary obliteration, of the importance of the Oswaldian literary baggage” (CAMPOS, 1971, translated by the author). Eventually, in the second half of the 20th century, various cultural and intellectual fields - such as Tropicalism and Concretism, and, as said before, approximations between Anthropophagy and post-structuralism ideas – reclaimed his work, especially the Manifesto, one of his main literary productions (AZEVEDO, 2012). These late ideas on Oswald de Andrade’s text reopened the debate and questioned the reading of the Anthropophagy and the Anthropophagus Manifesto theretofore conducted (SANTIAGO, 2008).
Although these resumptions helped dismantle the idea of common sense that surrounded Anthropophagus Manifesto, there is still no research on how this common sense was profoundly established in Brazilian cultural knowledge. Although it may seem that there is no purpose in researching and systematizing the critical fortune of a work, it is important to note that its establishment process is as important as its final product. This is because, as with the course of production of a work of art, a look over time for the production of the criticism may reveal some "significant repetitions." From these repetitions, it is possible to establish some hypotheses about the production of literary criticism (CARDOSO and SALLES, 2007). In this sense, this work can contribute both to the systematization of ideas that helped to create a canonical interpretation of the Anthropophagus Manifesto, and to understand how a critical fortune is built. In other words, it is a matter of investigating and discussing the critical production from its "constructive movement," not its finished product.
ALMEIDA, T. V. DE. Crítica e devoração: canibalismo e mitologia cultural. ITINERÁRIOS – Revista de Literatura, n. 21, p. 27–33, 2003.
AZEVEDO, A. B.. Antropofagia – palimpsesto selvagem. 2012. Dissertação (Mestrado em Letras). USP, São Paulo, SP.
CAMPOS, H. DE. Miramar na mira. In: Oswald e Andrade - Obras Completas. 3a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1971. v. 2p. 3–29.
CAMPOS, H. DE. Da razão antropofágica: diálogo e diferença na cultura brasileira. In: Metalinguagem e outras metas. 4a ed. São Paulo: Ed. Perspectiva, 1992. p. 231–255.
CARDOSO, D. R. and SALLES, C. A. Crítica genética em expansão. Cienc. Cult. [online]. 2007, vol.59, n.1, pp.44-47.
FIORIN, J. A construção da identidade nacional brasileira. Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso. ISSN, 2009.
GUMBRECHT, H. U. Mordendo você suavemente: Um comentário sobre o Manifesto Antropófago. In: Antropofagia hoje? Oswald de Andrade em Cena. São Paulo: Realizações Editora, 2011. p. 687.
NUNES, B. A utopia antropofágica: a antropofagia ao alcance de todos. Rio de Janeiro: Globo, sd, 1990.
PRYSTHON, A. Revisitando a Antropofagia: os Estudos Culturais brasileiros nos anos 90. Revista FAMECOS, v. 9, n. 17, p. 101, 10 abr. 2008.
QUEIROZ, M. I. P. DE. Identidade Cultural, Identidade Nacional no Brasil. Tempo Social, v. 1, n. 1, p. 29–46, 1 jun. 1989.
SANTIAGO, S. O começo do fim. Gragoatá, v. 13, n. 24, p. 13–30, 2008.
VIVACQUA, A. A propósito do homem antropófago. Revista de Antropofagia. n. 7. 2ª dentição. p. 12, maio 1929.
The debate on whether access to cyberspace is a human right for citizens is increasing in our society. It can be argued that internet access is not a human right in the sense that food, water, and shelter are, but life is getting increasingly difficult if one does not have internet access. Recent research has pointed out that people without access to internet are 40% more likely to have more trouble in finding jobs and succeeding in their school life (Zuckerberg, 2013). Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that countries that heavily censored internet access have a very poor record regarding the more essential human rights as well (ONU, 2009). It is possible to say that denying someone internet access is the same as denying them free speech, which is also a fundamental right (Yousafzai, 2015). Although it seems that internet has been playing a bigger role in our society every day, one could claim that is too expensive providing a free and good quality internet for everyone. However, what is important is not that everybody can access internet from their houses, but making sure that access is not denied for anyone (Facebook, 2008; Google, 2011; Twitter, 2007). Those who cannot afford their own internet have the right to have a library, or wherever place that offers free internet nearby when they want to get online.
Imagine yourself as a writer: after a certain amount of planning time, you finally come up with a good idea for a story. So you take the time to write it down. Several times your text does not look good enough, so you think of new ideas and rewrite some passages. After a while, you check your text and change some more things. Then, you are satisfied: your story is ready. Finally, you submit your story for publication. Enthusiastic, you wait for the answer and after some time you get a short note saying:
Mr. Howells has handed me this story. I could not forgive myself if I make others as miserable as I have made myself.
This was the actual response that Charlotte Perkins Gilman received from the publisher of The Atlantic Monthly, the most prestigious magazine in the United States in the late 1800s, when she submitted her short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" in 1890. Eventually, the tale was published two years later in the New England Magazine, which motivated an enormous amount of positive as well as negative feedback to her writing. However, what does the story have in order to provoke such responses?
Gilman tells the story through the diary kept by an unnamed young wife and mother who is suffering from some type of psychological illness. As a result, she is enclosed in a large room lined in a hideous yellow wallpaper on the top floor of a strange house rented for the summer. As part of her recovery, she is prohibited by her doctor - who is also her husband - from engaging in any intellectual activity, such as writing, which can negatively influence her illness. Her true condition worsens steadily throughout the summer, coming to a dreadful conclusion when her delusions about herself and the alleged women trapped inside the yellow wallpaper led her into a dark and possibly final madness.
Due to its notability and success as a horror story, Gilman herself published an article in The Forerunner in October 1913 explaining why she wrote the tale and showing some of the contrasting responses she received:
"Many and many a reader has asked that. When the story first came out, in the New England Magazine about 1891, a Boston physician made protest in The Transcript. Such a story ought not to be written, he said; it was enough to drive anyone mad to read it.
Another physician, in Kansas I think, wrote to say that it was the best description of i incipient insanity he had ever seen, and --begging my pardon--had I been there?"
Gilman also pointed out in the article that the main reason why she wrote the story was that she herself had been put under a famous therapy called the "rest cure"—a regimen of total bed rest, confinement, and isolation. She had to dedicate herself only to domestic work and her child and "never touch pen, brush, or pencil as long as [she] live." It drags her, she said, to the edge of an "utter mental ruin." Still, Gilman managed to get better despite the medical instructions:
In this sense, the feedback Gilman received from the original audience as well as her own article about it may lead us to think that “The Yellow Wallpaper” is only a horror story about madness. However, the later critics, especially in the 1970s noticed something more about Gilman’s tale. In 1973, the Feminist Press reprinted a new edition of “The Yellow Wallpaper” and, according to Hsin Ying Chi, it shifted the way the critics read the story from the nineteenth-century perspective of a horror tale to a text full of gender politics. Since the 1970s people have been reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” through the lens of gender oppression that may drive women mad – for example, her husband’s dominant power over her and the suppression of her creative activities – and reaffirming a story that became today a symbol of the feminist movement in the US. And although Gilman never openly addressed women’s issues in her story neither in her article about it, she was an influential feminist of her time who fought intensively against women's inequality in north-American society.
If you like to read, no matter the genre, you need to know the great role women have in literature. This short list shows how important it is to make room for their creative minds that are capable of breaking paradigms and setting new standards before even knowing how important they could and would be.
Therefore, the chance of finding good stories and narratives by getting to know them is high. But as interesting as discovering her works is reading about their lives. So be sure to research and get to know a little bit more about each of the three women featured here. This is fundamental so that we can give more space to women in literature and focus on what matters most: good stories, which enlarge our view of the world and free us from our prejudices.
Matilde Campilho was born in 1982 in Lisbon. From 2010 to 2013 she lived in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and, according to her, this experience was the biggest influence for her first and only published poetry book Jóquei (2014). In an interview for mART magazine in 2016, Campilho said that “This book would not have existed — not in this way — if I hadn't lived in Brazil. And that is clear in the book, written in a double language, being the same [language], but with double accentuation.” She wrote about her “daily amazaments”, exploring a series of references – music, authors, films –, her personal feelings, and her observations of the streets. The result is a book written in a rhythmic poetic prose that creates a map “full of characters, heroes, micro-heroes, little corners in cities”.
Born in 1931 in the United States, Toni Morrison was the first black woman in history to win a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1993. Her work portrays themes such as race, beauty, and gender, with nineteenth and twentieth-century American women playing a major role. It is the story of people who were (and still are) left out of history. A retired professor at Princeton University, the author also worked as a publisher at Random House (one of the largest publishing companies) to help disseminating black literature. In 2015, in an interview for the NY Times she talked about the value of a black women writing about their stories: “In so many earlier books by African-American writers, particularly the men, I felt that they were not writing to me. But what interested me was the African-American experience throughout whichever time I spoke of. It was always about African-American culture and people — good, bad, indifferent, whatever — but that was, for me, the universe.”
Born in 1860 in the United States, Charlotte Perkins Gilman was an influential intellectual and feminist who fought intensively against women's inequality in north-American society. According to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Harvard University, in many of Gilman’s novels, short stories, poems, and nonfiction work, she portrayed the oppression suffered by women, and talked about the social changes she thought were necessary to achieve gender equality. Her most famous work is the novel “The Yellow Wallpaper”, considered a classic in feminist literature. It is the story of an emotionally fragile woman who is taken by her own husband to a therapeutic retreat in which the wall is clothed in a dark and scary yellow wallpaper. Gilman illustrates a woman's maddening process as a consequence of the sexist manner in which her family and society treated her.
Several studies regarding the relationship between money and happiness have led to the prevailing idea that money can buy happiness. However, it may be not as simple as it sounds because the key to being happy is not having money, but spending it right. According to Todd B. Kashdan (2010), a professor of psychology at George Mason University, there is a difference between spending money for materialistic and immaterial motives. On the one hand, when people spend money on tangible objects for themselves, they get a "short-term boost of happiness," which will not positively affect their general well-being. On the other hand, when people spend money on "experiential purchases" (defined by Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) as those "made with the primary intention of acquiring a life experience: an event or series of events that one lives through") they get a more intense and longer boost to happiness.
But why are life experiences better than objects at making people happy? One reason may be that people seem to feel happier when they think about an experience than when they think about things they bought. A survey administered by Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) in Cornwell University showed that when students were asked to think about one experiential purchase and one material purchase they were happy with, around 90% answered that they “mentally revisited" their experiential purchase more recurrently than their material one. It means, for example, that traveling to a new place can actively affect more happiness than buying a brand-new car.
Not only experiences have more substantial influence on our lives than material objects, but they also affect who we are. Although possessions can certainly be a part of our identities (mostly because it is a signal to others of our personality), experiences contribute to the construction of ourselves and our personal achievements. If family bonds are essential to a person, for example, spending money on activities with family can be a way to build them stronger. Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) demonstrated how people see the influence of their purchases on their individuality. Researchers asked a group of adults whether their experiential or material purchases had a more important role in defining who they were in their lives. 95% of them answered that their experiences had a bigger part in their own identities.
The question is: why do we still pursue material purchases instead of experimental ones? Maybe it is because things still make us happy, but only for a short amount of time. After that, we adapt to them and the need for new things will soon come along. This may happen because material purchases are external to us, differently from experiences. We are not our belongings, but an accumulation of what we have saw, the places we have visited, the people we have met and what we have done with our lives. Spending money on things may create satisfaction, but not a long-lived one capable of producing a real and stable happiness. In this sense, money is indeed a possibility for happiness that is often misspent because people want things they think will make them happy, but it usually won't.