In the Jewish world, circumcision has prompted many jokes that have found their way into the mainstream. On the internet you’ll find a lot of these Jewish jokes. Here’s one from Comedy Central’s Website; its entitled “Circumcision…At Your Age?”
Two men are sharing a hospital room. “What are you in for?” the first man asks. “I’m getting a circumcision,” his roommate replies. “Damn,” exclaims the first man, “I had that done when I was born and I couldn’t walk for a year.”
This joke hits on what we left off with in the last blog entry: the fact that Misha sees himself as the but of the joke because he – like Abraham, the first Jew to be circumcised – is to be circumcised at a late age: the age of eighteen. He likens himself to Dostoevsky’s “Holy Fool” – Prince Myshkin because he feels that his great love for his father led him into bad luck; which, for him, translates into a circumcision.
Whenever I discuss Freud’s notion of “castration anxiety,” I feel very awkward. How, I always wonder, will the class take it when I tell them that the image of a mutilated penis is constantly at the back of their minds.
To be sure, Freud, in his early work, associates circumcision with castration anxiety. In “An Outline for Psychoanalysis” he argues that “the primeval custom of castration” is a “symbolic substitute for castration.” And it “can only be understood as an expression to the submission to the father’s will.”
This submission to the father’s will (which we saw is a major part of Misha’s circumcision) is based on the fear that if he violates his father’s will, he will be punished. To be sure, the image of the mutilated penis is too much to see. Freud argues, however, that the endangered eyeball can become a substitute for the penis-that—daddy-may-cut-off. When framed in this manner, Freud’s reading of the “Sandman” story in terms of castration is literally an “eye opener” for my students. They see how, for Freud and for those psychoanalysts who followed him, the eyeball could relate to the penis in terms of a drive to see a “scopic drive” (or “scopophilia”). To be sure, vision is one of our greatest powers. (Aristotle, in the Metaphysics makes it the highest of all our senses; and Plato gives it the highest honor in his dialogues.)
The threat to the eyes is, for Freud, a threat to the penis. To illustrate, I show Un Chien Andalu, the 1929 film by Luis Bunel.
Paul, centuries before Freud, associated circumcision (and Judaism) with mutilation. We see this in his epistle to the Philippians 3:2:
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, though I also might have confidence in the flesh.
Following this, Paul tells of how it is the case that he, as a Jew, has left “the mutilation” (his physical circumcision) behind. He admits that he –as a Jew – must overcome his “confidence in the flesh” which he associates with circumcision. By calling it “the mutilation,” he distances himself from it. And this, as he moves on to something “higher” and more “spiritual” than the flesh (the circumcision) and the law (covenant) that is associated with it.
Freud may or may not have read Paul, but he did read psychologists that did associates circumcision with mutilation. In The Jew’s Body, Sander Gilman takes the work of Paolo Mantegazza (1831-1901) as an illustration of how these views entered into the medical literature. Mantegazza, notes Gilman, had a major influence on Freud.
Mantegazza’s words on circumcision suggest that circumcision-as-“mutilation” differentiates Jews from non-Jews and that this difference has political consequences. To be sure, he insists that the ticket – for Jews – to equality is to stop circumcision:
Circumcision is a shame and an infamy; and I, who am not in the least anti-Semitic, who indeed have much esteem for the Israelites…shout and continue to shout at the Hebrews, until my last breath: Cease mutilating yourselves: cease imprinting upon your flesh an odious brand to distinguish you from other men; until you do this, you cannot pretend to be our equal. (91)
What’s fascinating about this statement is that though it is said in modern times, it has been around since the Hellenistic period where –for a time period – it was against the law to be circumcised. Moreover, it reiterates the reading of circumcision as mutilation but in a secular as opposed to a religious context. Still, it is read as a form of violence and distinction. It is read as a barrier to “true” equality or spirituality.
This clip from Family Guy reminds us that the association of castration, Jewishness, and mutilation is far from gone.
All of the above is a preface to the close reading I would like to make of Misha’s circumcision in Gary Shteyngart’s Absurdistan. He sees his circumcision in Freudian terms (as a concession to his father – as I pointed out in yesterday’s blog) and in terms of mutilation. This prompts him to feel as if he has been “had” and is a Prince Myshkin (schlemiel) type. His negative descriptions of his circumcision, which in many ways echo Paul, distance himself from Judaism and form the basis of his literary “circumscription.” This “circumscription” will, like Paul’s powerful and negative words on Jewish circumcision, form the basis of his movement away from what he considers “prehistoric” Jewishness. His text marks his off and situates him within a different journey: one that will bring him back to America rather than Israel. As I will discuss, Misha’s textual journey to his other homeland emerges out of a recognition that he had become a circumcised-schlemiel. But this recognition is conveyed to Misha (and to us, his readers) by characterizing his circumcision as a form of mutilation.
These descriptions, this “circumscription,” and his recognition that he was a fool who was “had” will be the topic of my next blog entry.