Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Animals of Wonderland

TITLE: | The Animals of Wonderland: Tenniel as Carroll's Reader| SOURCE: | Criticism 45 no4 383-415 Fall 2003| The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://wsupress. wayne. edu/ ROSE LOVELL-SMITH WHEN JOHN TENNIEL was providing 42 illustrations for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in 1864 he was in his mid-forties, an established illustrator and a Punch cartoonist.At that time C. L. Dodgson and Lewis Carroll were equally unknown as authors, for adults or children. Tenniel, on the other hand, already had a professional understanding of the visual codes and illustrative techniques of his day, and already had an audience–an adult rather than a child audience–who would expect from him a certain level of technical proficiency, humor, and social nous.Tenniel's illustrations should therefore interest us today not just for their remarkable and continuing success as a felicitous adjunct to Carroll's text, but also as the first–arguably, the best–Victorian reading or interpretation of Carroll's text. After all, as a reader Tenniel enjoyed considerable advantages, including his personal position and experience, his access to the author's own illustrations to the manuscript version of the story, and access to the author himself.In his study of illustration in children's literature, Words about Pictures, Perry Nodelman has argued that â€Å"the pictures in a sequence act as schemata for each other†Ã¢â‚¬â€œthat is, all the expectations, understanding, and information we bring to reading an illustrated book, and all the information we accumulate as our reading proceeds, â€Å"becomes a schema for each new page of words and each new picture as we continue throughout a book. (FN1) If this is so, all Tenniel's choices relating to subject matter, size, position, and style of i llustration must come to operate, as we proceed through Alice in Wonderland, as a kind of guide to reading Carroll's text. An examination of Tenniel's opening sequence of illustrations as they appeared on the page in the 1866 edition of Alice in Wonderland(FN2) will therefore begin to reveal Tenniel's preoccupations, the kind of interpretation of Carroll's text he is nterested in making. As William Empson pointed out in 1935, two aspects of Alice are traditional in children's stories: the idea of characters of unusual size (miniatures and giants) and the idea of the talking beast. (FN3) Tenniel's opening drawing, the White Rabbit at the head of chapter 1, draws on both these traditions. The rabbit occupies a point between animal and human, simultaneously both these things and neither of them, an implication hardly made so firmly by Carroll's text.The rabbitness of the rabbit is emphasized by the meadow setting, the absence of trousers, and the careful attention paid to anatomy and p roportion. But the rabbit is slightly distorted towards the human by his upright posture, his clothing and accessories, his pose, and his human eye and hand. Less obviously, Tenniel also extends Carroll's text by offering information about the size of the rabbit. From the grass and dandelion clock (a visual joke) in the background the reader grasps the rabbit as rather larger than normal bunny size: about the size of a toddler or small child, perhaps.As this illustration was invented by Tenniel (Carroll's headpiece illustration shows Alice, her sister, and the book), the contrast is clear between Carroll, whose picture draws attention to the frame of the story, to the affectionate relationship of sisters, and thereby to Alice's membership of the human family, and Tenniel, who selects a traditional story idea that shifts the focus another way, toward a mediation between different kinds familiar from those many forms of art in which animal behavior is used to represent human behavior. In further illustrations, Tenniel offers more images suggestive of unusual relative size. The second picture, page 8, shows Alice too large to go through the little door. On page 10 she holds the bottle labeled â€Å"DRINK ME† which will shrink her; on page 15 she is growing taller, with the text elongated to match. Then comes page 18, where the frame and larger size suggest that here is an important picture. In it the human/animal rabbit and the idea of Alice's unusual size occur together.Alice looks gigantic in relation to the hallway, and the White Rabbit, normal size for the hallway (it appears) but perhaps (in that case) outsize for a rabbit, is much reduced from the importance he assumed in the first illustration and is shown fleeing from her terrifying figure. The pool of tears illustration on page 26 also relates to these themes. Here a fully clad human, Alice, is depicted much the same size as the unclothed mouse with which she swims.Note, too, that in the text, Alic e frightens the mouse away as she had previously frightened the rabbit, although this time it is by talking about her pet, her cat Dinah. The reader who ponders this opening sequence of illustrations might reflect that Alice would also be frightened of Dinah if she met her while still mouse-sized. The schemata, then, direct the reader towards a cluster of ideas in which animal fears and anxieties about survival are connected with images of lesser or greater relative size. FN4) Tenniel appears to have arrived at this interpretation independently: while he does frequently follow Carroll's designs closely in the subject and overall approach to an illustration (Michael Hancher provides some useful opportunities to make comparisons),(FN5) of the pictures just discussed only the one of Alice growing taller at the head of chapter 2 very much resembles a parallel drawing in Carroll's manuscript.Moreover, when Tenniel does follow Carroll in choice of subject he usually makes significant chan ges in treatment: Tenniel's Alice, for instance, having slipped into the pool of tears, is very much more alarmed than Carroll's Alice. (FN6) Edward Hodnett, who reviewed Tenniel's work for the Alice books picture by picture, makes rather slighting remarks about several of the designs in this opening sequence: those on pages 8 and 10 are â€Å"too matter-of-fact to be necessary,† the â€Å"elongated Alice stands merely looking round-eyed,† and the second vignette of Alice swimming with the mouse â€Å"makes the first superfluous. (FN7) Hodnett seems to me to have missed the point. These designs are in my view extremely consistent in seeking and developing a particular nexus of ideas. Despite the evident connection between many Tenniel illustrations and Carroll's own illustrations, then, this is clearly Tenniel's own interpretation. But if this is so, what is to be made of it?My thesis in this paper is that through his animal drawings, Tenniel offers a visual angle on the text of Alice in Wonderland that evokes the life sciences, natural history, and Darwinian ideas about evolution, ideas closely related by Tenniel to Alice's size changes, and to how these affect the animals she meets. (FN8) As I will show, this is partly a matter of Tenniel's â€Å"drawing out† an underlying field of reference in Carroll's text. I will also argue, however, that when Tenniel's approach to his animal subjects is compared to that in earlier and contemporary illustrated natural istory books, the viewer is conscious of resemblances which indicate that Tenniel's pictures are best situated and read in that context. The effect of the initial sequence described above, for instance, is that as chapter 3 unfolds Alice's encounters with various different creatures, the illustrations begin to re-create Alice itself as a kind of zany natural history for children. Our post-Freudian view of Alice in Wonderland tends to be of a private, heavily encoded, inward exploration or adventure.But Tenniel's reading, I would argue, offers us an outward-looking text, a public adventure, a jocular reflection on the natural history craze, on reading about natural history, and on Darwin's controversial new theory of natural selection. I will return to Tenniel as reader later, but in order to establish that this interpretation is no mere add-on but a genuine response to the text, I must first deal with science, natural history, and evolutionary ideas as themes that Carroll himself originates.Interest in contemporary ideas about the animal kingdom is signaled early on in Alice in Wonderland, in chapter 2, when Alice finds that the well-known children's recitation piece â€Å"How doth the little busy bee† has been mysteriously ousted from her mind by new verses that celebrate a predator, the crocodile. Carroll's parody of Isaac Watts's pious poem for children(FN9) thereby establishes his book's reference to a newer, more scientific view of nature–appro aching a controversially Darwinist view.It does this by mocking and displacing the worldview often called natural theology. According to natural theology, a set of convictions much touted in children's reading, God's existence can be deduced from the wondrous design of his creation. The universe is benign and meaningful, a book of signs (like the industrious bee) of God's benevolent and educative intentions just waiting to be read by humans. Carroll's crocodile, all tooth and claw, signifies other things: amorality, the struggle for existence, predation of the weaker by the stronger.Readers of Alice in Wonderland are also likely to notice that the animal characters do not behave or talk much like animals in traditional fairy tales or fables. They are neither helpers nor donors nor monsters nor prophetic truth-tellers, the main narrative functions of animals in traditional fairy tales,(FN10) but nor are they the exemplary figures illustrative of human fallibilities and moralities fam iliar from fables. They do not teach lessons about kindness to animals, as animals in children's stories often did, and they do not much resemble the creatures in nursery rhymes or jingles or Edward Lear's nonsensical poems either.Instead, they talk, chopping logic, competing with Alice and each other, and often mentioning things â€Å"natural† animals might be imagined to talk about, like fear, death, and being eaten. I think Denis Crutch is also roughly right when he points out that there is in Alice a hierarchy of animals equivalent to the Victorian class system but also suggesting a competitive model of nature: the white rabbit, caterpillar, and March Hare seem to be gentlemen, frog and fish are footmen, Bill the lizard is bullied by everybody, hedgehogs and flamingos are made use of, and the dormouse and the guinea pigs are victimized by larger animals and by humans. FN11) William Empson's 1935 essay notes how Carroll's ideas and manuscript illustrations associate evolut ionary theories with Alice in Wonderland. (FN12) This is a crucial point and, I believe, the best explanation for the presence of so many animals in Wonderland. It was after all Carroll who put a dodo, best known for being extinct, into the text,(FN13) and Carroll who first included an ape, that key symbol of evolutionary debate, in his drawing of the motley crowd of beasts in the pool of tears.But Carroll's evolutionary reference is much more extensive than Empson found it, for a Darwinist view of life as competitive struggle is also promoted by Alice, who–apparently unconsciously, as if she really cannot help it–repeatedly reminds us that in life one must either eat or be eaten. Alice will keep talking about Dinah to the little creatures she meets who are the natural victims of cats (26-27), she has to admit to the pigeon that she herself has eaten eggs (73), and in the Mock Turtle scene she has to check herself rather than reveal that she has eaten lobster and whiti ng (148, 152).The Mock Turtle, of course, is a very creature of the table, while Dinah the predator, the aboveground cat, has a place maintained for her in Wonderland by the Cheshire Cat, a friendly but slightly sinister appearing and disappearing cat whose most significant body part is his grinning, tooth-filled mouth (he grins like the crocodile, as Nina Auerbach has noted). (FN14) The â€Å"little bright-eyed terrier† of which the aboveground Alice is so fond (27) also has other-selves in Wonderland, Fury in the Mouse's Tale, the puppy in chapter 4.Moreover, the Mouse's Tale–the next poem in the book after the crocodile poem–talks about predation as if it were a legal process. The reader should therefore take the hint and connect the animal â€Å"eat or be eaten† motif elsewhere in the story with the trial scene in the last stage of the book. Carroll has the White Rabbit make this association of ideas when he mutters â€Å"The Duchess! The Duchess! Oh my dear paws!Oh my fur and whiskers! She'll get me executed, as sure as ferrets are ferrets! † (41). This is one of those moments when Alice reveals its ferocious undercurrent. The White Rabbit here anticipates legal execution as simultaneous with the process of being prepared for table: that is, these â€Å"civilized† human behaviors are proffered by Carroll as analogous to predation by a â€Å"natural† enemy, ferrets.Alice herself, by kicking Bill the Lizard up the chimney (an incident memorably illustrated by Tenniel in a very funny picture) and by looking on approvingly while the guinea pigs are so unkindly treated in court, inverts the theme of kindness to animals established in more orthodox children's literature like Maria Edgeworth's tale of â€Å"Simple Susan,† where a girl's pet lamb is saved from the slaughterer's knife. FN15) In Alice in Wonderland there is humorous delight in the misappropriation of the creatures in the croquet scene, and the re are many other versions of a cruel carnival in the book: for instance, Alice imagines herself being set to watch a mousehole by her own cat. She also resents â€Å"being ordered about by mice and rabbits† (46)–a phrase that suggests the â€Å"world upside down† of carnival but which might also be taken as summing up the new evolutionary predicament of humanity.Fallen down the rabbit hole from her lordly position at the top of the Great Chain of Being, Alice instead finds herself, through a series of size changes, continually being repositioned in the food chain. The importance of the theme of predation, â€Å"the motif of eating and being eaten,† is such that it has attracted a number of commentaries. It is fully described by Margaret Boe Birns in â€Å"Solving the Mad Hatter's Riddle† and by Nina Auerbach in â€Å"Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child. (FN16) Birns remarks in opening her essay that â€Å"Most of the creatures in Wonderland ar e relentless carnivores, and they eat creatures who, save for some outer physical differences, are very like themselves, united, in fact, by a common ‘humanity. ‘† Birns therefore even cites a crocodile-eating fish as a case of â€Å"cannibalism,†(FN17) quoting in support of this idea Alice's â€Å"Nurse! Do let's pretend that I'm a hungry hyaena and you're a bone! (Looking-Glass, 8). She also remarks that Wonderland contains creatures whose only degree of self-definition is expressing a desire to be eaten or drunk, and offers other comments on scenes in Through the Looking-Glass where, as she puts it, â€Å"food can become human, human beings can become food. â€Å"(FN18) I do not always find â€Å"cannibal† readings supported by the parts of the text in question.Auerbach also makes claims about cannibalism, but a little differently, referring the idea of â€Å"eat or be eaten† back to Alice, her â€Å"subtly cannibalistic hunger,†(F N19) the â€Å"unconscious cannibalism involved in the very fact of eating and the desire to eat. â€Å"(FN20) Auerbach associates this interpretation with Dodgson's own attitude to food. But textual support for the quality Auerbach calls Alice's cannibalism seems lacking. Alice does not really eye the other animals in her pool of tears with â€Å"a strange hunger† as Auerbach suggests,(FN21) nor do the Hatter and the Duchess â€Å"sing savage songs about eating† as Auerbach claims. FN22) To describe a panther eating an owl as cannibalism, Auerbach(FN23) must assume (like Birns) that the creatures in Alice are definitely to be read as humans in fur and feathers. My argument is that they need not be so read: the point might be their and Alice's animal nature. Nor does the food at Queen Alice's dinner party at the end of Through the Looking-Glass â€Å"begin to eat the guests†(FN24) as Auerbach claims, although food does misbehave in Looking-Glass and the Puddin g might have this in mind (Looking-Glass, 206).Overall, however, in my view the preoccupation of Alice in Wonderland with creatures eating other creatures is much better accounted for by the â€Å"more sinister and Darwinian aspects of nature†(FN25) which Auerbach and Birns(FN26) also recognize as a part of the Alice books. I now return to my main argument, that Tenniel's illustrations pick up on but also extend this Darwinist and natural history field of reference in Carroll's text.As already noted, Tenniel's drawings of animals do not stylistically suggest a â€Å"children's fairy tale†(FN27) but rather produce Alice as a kind of natural history by resembling those in the plentiful and lavishly illustrated popular natural histories of the day (see figs. 1 and 2). My argument therefore differs from Michael Hancher's, which emphasizes social and satirical contexts by comparing pictures of various Wonderland and Looking-Glass creatures to those in Tenniel's and others' Punch cartoons. FN28) While Hancher establishes the relationship with Punch as an important one, however, the most convincing animal resemblances he reproduces from Alice in Wonderland (I am not here concerned with Through the Looking-Glass) amount to only two pictures, the Cheshire Cat in a tree resembling the â€Å"Up a Tree† cartoon of a raccoon,(FN29) and the ape on page 35 of Alice resembling the ape in â€Å"Bomba's Big Brother,†(FN30) Tenniel's frog footman and fish footman are Grandvillian figures with animal heads but human bodies, and also evidently suggest social commentary.But they stand apart from the argument I am presenting here because no effort is made by Tenniel to present them as animals. The satiric side of Tenniel's animal illustrations in Alice, hinted at by echoes of Punch, is never very dominant, then, and should not be seen as precluding another field of reference in natural history reading.The scope, persistence, eccentricity, and variety of t he natural history craze–or rather, series of crazes–that swept Britain between 1820 and 1870 are described for the general reader by Lynn Barber in The Heyday of Natural History and by others in more specialized publications, and need not be redescribed here. (FN31) The importance of illustration in contemporary natural history publishing, however, is central to my argument and must be touched on briefly.Even in the midcentury climate of Victorian self-improvement and self-education, the volume of this well-established branch of publishing is impressive: the standard of illustration in popular periodicals and books was high, and sales were also impressively high in Victorian terms. Rev. John George Wood, according to his son and biographer Theodore Wood, a pioneer in writing natural history in nontechnical language, had reasonable sales for his one-volume The Illustrated Natural History in 1851 and very good sales for Common Objects of the Sea Shore in 1857.But when R outledge brought out his lavishly illustrated Common Objects of the Country in 1858 it sold 100,000 copies within a week of publication, and the first edition was followed by many others, a figure worth comparing with Darwin's more modest first-edition sell-out of 1,250 copies–or, indeed, with Dickens's sales of Bleak House (1852), which were 35,000 in the first two years.The result of Wood's success was a much grander publishing venture by Routledge, Wain and Routledge, a three-volume The Illustrated Natural History with new drawings including some by Joseph Wolf: volume 1 (1859) was on mammals, volume 2 (1862) on birds–the frontispiece is reproduced in figure 2–and volume 3 (1863) on reptiles, fish, and mollusks. FN32) Wood's astonishingly prolific career as a popularizer, however, of which I have described only a tiny fraction (he was dashing off such productions as Anecdotes of Animal Life, Every Boy's Book, and Feathered Friends in this decade as well), is in line with much other more or less theologically inclined and intellectually respectable natural history publishing in the 1850s and 1860s, often by clergymen.Children were important consumers of such books and periodicals and sometimes are obviously their main market, and a number of fictional works, such as Charles Kingsley's The Water-Babies (1863) and Margaret Gatty's Parables from Nature, of which the first four series appeared between 1855 and 1864 (that is, in the decade prior to Carroll's publication of Alice in Wonderland), capitalize on the contemporary conviction that natural history was a subject especially appropriate for children. (FN33)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Tenniel connects his Alice and natural history illustration by a number of stylistic allusions.He borrows the conventional techniques of realism, such as the cross-hatching and fine lines used to suggest light, shade, and solidity of form in the Mock Turtle's shell and flippers, or the crabs' and lobster's claws. Accu racy in proportion and a high level of anatomical detail are equally important. As can be seen by comparing figures 1 and 2, too, the grouping of subjects may also be suggestive–a point first noted by Narda Schwartz, who also drew attention to the resemblance between the etching of the dodo in Wood's three-volume natural history and Tenniel's dodo. FN34) Also significant is the way Tenniel's design showing the creatures recently emerged from the pool of tears includes a rather furry-haired Alice among, and on a level with, the beasts and birds. Carroll's own pictures for the pool of tears sequence have the quite different effect of separating Alice from the animal world, a point 1 will return to. Another Tenniel habit that suggests natural history illustration is his provision of sketchy but realistic and appropriate backgrounds.Here Tenniel's viewpoint sometimes miniaturizes the reader, setting the viewpoint low and thus letting us in on the ground level of a woodland world magnified for our information (compare figs. 3 and 4). When Alice stands on tiptoe to peep over the edge of a mushroom, when she carries the pig baby in the woods or talks to the Cheshire Cat, Tenniel uses a typical natural history technique, placing a familiar woodland flower–a foxglove–in the background in such away as to remind the reader of Alice's size at that time.Similarly, Tenniel makes use of the difference between vignettes for simple or single subjects, and framed illustrations, including full-page illustrations, for larger-scale and more important and complex subjects, in a way that very closely resembles a similar distinction in natural history illustration–popular natural histories like Wood's tend to use large, framed illustrations to make generalized statements, showing, for instance, a group of different kinds of rodent, while vignettes present an individual of one species.And above all, although Tenniel certainly endows his creatures with perso nality and facial expressions, his animals, unlike his humans, are never grotesques. In fact, nineteenth-century natural history illustration also delights in endowing the most solidly â€Å"realistic† creatures with near-human personality or expressiveness, a quality that Tenniel builds on to good effect, for instance, in his depiction of the lawyer-parrots, which remind one of Edward Lear's magnificent macaws (see figs. 5, 6, and 7).Thus while Tenniel's animal portraits reflect the Victorians' pleasure in their expanding knowledge of the variety of creatures in the world, they also faithfully reproduce the contemporary assimilation of this variety to familiar human social types, a sleight of hand of which Audubon, for example, is a master: his Great Blue Heron manages also to subtly suggest a sly old gentleman, probably shortsighted, and with side-whiskers. In the visual world inhabited by Tenniel, then, the differing works of Audubon and Grandville (the latter could depict a heron as a priest merely by giving the bird spectacles) slide together.Where few of Tenniel's successors have been able to resist the temptation to turn the animals in Alice in Wonderland into cartoon or humorous creations, though, it is Tenniel's triumph that he drew his creatures straight, or almost straight: the Times review of Alice in Wonderland (December 26, 1865) particularly noted for praise Tenniel's â€Å"truthfulness †¦ in the delineation of animal forms. â€Å"(FN35) It was, indeed, his skill in drawing animals that first established his reputation as an illustrator, when he provided illustrations for Rev. Thomas James's Aesop's Fables in 1848. FN36)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Can sources for Tenniel's remarkable animal drawings be more precisely identified? An early biographer of Tenniel records his acknowledgment that he liked to spend time observing the animals at the Zoo. (FN37) However, comparisons between pictures reveal that in addition Tenniel almost certainly con sulted scientific illustrations or recalled them for his Alice in Wonderland drawings. For example, in the mid-eighteenth century George Edwards produced a hand-colored engraving of a dodo which, he wrote, he had copied from a painting of a live dodo brought from Mauritius to Holland.The original painting was acquired by Sir Hans Sloane, passed on to Edwards, and given by him to the British Museum. (FN38) In 1847 C. A. Marlborough painted a picture of a dodo, which is now in the Ashmolean Museum (it was reproduced on the cover of the magazine Oxford Today in 1999). And in 1862 the second volume of J. G. Wood's The Illustrated Natural History includes a picture of a dodo. (FN39) Compare all these with Tenniel's dodo (figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11): they surely either have a common ancestor or are copies one from the other. The dodo is a special case in that Tenniel could hardly have studied one at the London zoo.But I wish to put forward a claim that Wood's 1851 one-volume and, later, expan ded three-volume Illustrated Natural History were very probably familiar to Carroll and the small Liddells and also to Tenniel, not only because Wood's dodo illustration is a possible source for Tenniel's but because these volumes also display smiling crocodiles, baby eagles in their nest, and the lory,(FN40) as well as illustrations of numerous more familiar animals that appear in the words and/or pictures of Alice, including the edible crab, the lobster, the frog, the dormouse, guinea pigs, flamingos, varieties of fancy pigeon, and so forth.Given the compendious nature of Wood's works, this is hardly surprising, of course. But Wood must be favored as the source of animal drawings most probably known to Tenniel for the further reason that Wood illustrations often quite strongly resemble Tenniel illustrations, as readers may judge by comparing figures 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, to the toucan, eagle, and crab from Alice (see fig. 1) and the lobster and dormouse (see Alice in Wonderland, 157 and 97). (FN41)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  No matter how good Tenniel's famous visual memory, he is unlikely to have drawn such a menagerie without some research.Hancher noted the strong resemblance between a Bewick hedgehog (from the General History of Quadrupeds, 1790, often reprinted) and the evasive croquet-ball hedgehog at Alice's feet on page 121. (FN42) Bewick's hedgehog, however, had already been recycled by William Harvey for Wood's one-volume Illustrated Natural History where Tenniel is equally likely to have seen and remembered it: all three hedgehogs have the same dragging rear foot (see figs. 17, 18, and 19). This is another case, like that of the dodo, where scientific natural history illustrations have been copied, recopied, or reworked for reprinting.A similar argument could be presented about the large number of depictions of sinuous flamingos that Tenniel might have consulted. The volume of contemporary natural history publishing for children and adults, the evident cont emporary interest in illustrations of animals, and the resemblance between Tenniel's and contemporary natural history drawings have important implications: the resemblance indicates that Tenniel is here creating the context within which he wants his pictures to be read.He shows us that he saw (and wanted the viewer to be able to see) Carroll's animals as â€Å"real† animals, like those that were the objects of current scientific study and theories, at least as much as he saw them as Grandville or Punch-type instruments of social satire, or fairy-tale or fable talking beasts. (FN43)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In line with his scientific interpretation, then, Tenniel in illustrating Alice in Wonderland intensifies Carroll's reference to Darwin's theory of evolution by carrying out his own visual editing of the Carroll illustrations in the manuscript.Tenniel makes the ape appear in two consecutive illustrations: in the second, it stares thoughtfully into the eyes of the reader–appea ring to claim kinship. Tenniel includes among the creatures in these illustrations on pages 29 and 35 a fancy pigeon, perhaps a fantail or a pouter, which should in my view be taken as a direct reference to Darwin's argument from the selective breeding of fancy pigeon varieties in chapter 1 of The Origin of Species. FN44) A visual detail that Tenniel introduced into the book, the glass dome in the background to the royal garden scene on page 117, looks like the dome at the old Surrey Zoological Gardens(FN45) and therefore constitutes another reference to the study of animals. And as already noted, Tenniel does not reproduce Carroll's rather lonely image of Alice abandoned by the animals, which would have had the effect of separating her human figure from the animal ones and thus emphasizing Alice's difference from them.Instead, Tenniel provides two images of Alice among, and almost of, the animal world, developing a radical implication of Carroll's text of which Carroll himself was possibly unaware. On the other hand, Carroll's interest in predation, in the motif of â€Å"eat or be eaten,† is not one on which Tenniel expands. No doubt it would have been thought too frightening for children: one must recall the care taken by Carroll over the positioning of the Jabberwocky illustration in Through the Looking-Glass. FN46) But while Carroll's text here develops emphatically–albeit peripherally–some ideas that Tenniel could only leave aside, Tenniel's recognition of the importance of such themes is strongly demonstrated by the puppy picture. This illustration is a particularly large one, dominating the page (55) on which it appears. It is framed, and therefore gives an impression of completion and independent significance, very different from that given by the more common vignette with its intimate and fluid relationship to the text.These things make it probable that the puppy scene and its illustration were especially important in Tenniel's re ading of Alice in Wonderland. Yet commentaries on Alice in Wonderland tend to ignore the puppy scene, perhaps because critics are often most interested by Carroll's verbal nonsense, and the puppy is speechless. Indeed, Denis Crutch disapproves of the puppy as â€Å"an intruder from the ‘real' world† and Goldthwaite takes up this point, commenting that the puppy was Carroll's â€Å"most glaring aesthetic mistake in †¦Alice†Ã¢â‚¬â€œneither seems to have noticed that the hedgehogs and flamingos are also not talking beasts. (FN47) Another reader of Tenniel's illustrations, Isabelle Nieres, takes a similar line, remarking that â€Å"the full-page illustration is perhaps placing too much emphasis on Alice's encounter with the puppy. â€Å"(FN48) But what Tenniel's puppy illustration encapsulates, in my view, is the theme of the importance of relative size. Here is Alice's fearful moment of uncertainty about whether she is meeting a predator or a pet. As reader a nd Alice will discover, the puppy only wants to play.But Alice is â€Å"terribly frightened all the time at the thought it might be hungry, in which case it would be very likely to eat her up in spite of all her coaxing† (54), and Tenniel's illustration with the thistle in the foreground towering over the tiny Alice, like many of his memorable illustrations, primarily signifies her anxiety. Later, too, Tenniel's choice of the lobster as the subject of a drawing is a visual reminder of the transformation of animals into meat: it brings the viewer uncomfortably close to recognition of kinship with the devoured, so human is the lobster and so warily is his eye fixed on the viewer's.The lobster is another illustration that Hodnett found an inexplicable presence in the text: the song in the text â€Å"provides insufficient excuse for an illustration,† he remarks. (FN49) My analysis of Tenniel's composite verbal/visual Alice in Wonderland is very different. Possibly going we ll beyond Carroll's conscious intentions, Tenniel offers a Wonderland that concurs with the evolutionist view of creation by showing animals and humans as a continuum within which the stronger or larger prey upon the smaller or weaker.The implication–one many readers of Darwin were most reluctant to accept–is that if animals are semihuman, humans may conversely be nothing but evolved animals. Alice's extraordinary size changes–in which Tenniel is so interested–therefore play a significant role in this new world, for as I already pointed out, it is through her series of size changes that Alice finds herself continually being repositioned in the food chain.Wonderland is truly the place of reversals: its theme of a world upside down is traditional, as Ronald Reichertz has reminded us in an illuminating study that positions Alice in Wonderland in relation to earlier children's reading. (FN50) Size changes can represent the topsy-turvy, of course. But while Al ice has some recognizably Jack-in-Giant-land experiences–like struggling to climb up the leg of a table–and some Tom Thumb experiences–like hiding behind a thistle–what is so weird or Wonderlandish about her story is not her sudden growth spurts but that she transforms rapidly from the small to the large and vice versa. FN51) Alice's body changes at times suggest being outsize and aggressive–for example, when she is trapped in the White Rabbit's house and terrifies the little creatures outside, or when she is accused of being an egg-stealing serpent or predator by the pigeon. But she is undersized and therefore vulnerable when she slips into the pool of tears or when she meets the puppy. (FN52) The size changes connect back to â€Å"eat or be eaten† where the dangers of large and small size, a theme especially horrifying to children, is a traditional one, found in tales of giants and ogres, Hop-o' my Thumb or Mally Whuppie. FN53) But as we h ave seen, the Tenniel/Carroll Alice in Wonderland links forward to ideas of predator and prey, eat or be eaten, and the â€Å"animal† nature of humanity, all recently given new urgency by Darwin. A contemporary illustration worth pondering that deals with these important ideas (it appeared at almost exactly the time of the publication of Alice in Wonderland) is the cover of Hardwicke's Science-Gossip: A Monthly Medium of Interchange & Gossip for Students and Lovers of Nature (January 1866).This cover represents (see fig. 20) the scientific technology that interested Carroll, as well as, more sentimentally, the small creatures and plants of woodland and seashore that are a part of the â€Å"natural history† background. These subjects, however, make a mere frame to the central illustration, both grisly and amusing, which is a depiction of the chain of predation, eat or be eaten, in action. One could hardly ask for a more succinct visual summary of this important element in the contemporary contexts of Alice.Recognition of this theme will, as well as accounting for lobster and puppy illustrations, also account for the otherwise somewhat puzzling centrality of Dinah and the Cheshire Cat in Carroll's text. Nina Auerbach quotes Florence Becker Lennon's insight that the Cheshire Cat is â€Å"Dinah's dream-self,† and certainly one or the other is more or less ever-where in Wonderland. (FN54) I think the reason for this must be that this familiar household pet best emphasizes the paradoxical difference between being large, in which state the cat is a delightful little furry companion, and being small, in which state the cat might kill you and eat you.In the Darwinian world, size can be the key to survival. And yet, Carroll selected a smiling crocodile to stand for the new view of creation. The cruelty of the Darwinian world is, in his view, somehow inseparable from delight. To suggest a context for this unexpected but quintessentially nineteenth-ce ntury state of mind,(FN55) a comparison may be made here between Carroll's poetic vision of his particular predator and Henry de la Beche's 1830 cartoon of life in A More Ancient Dorset; or, Durior Antiquior (see fig. 1). De la Beche was English despite his name, and was the first director of the British Geological Survey. According to Stephen Jay Gould, who includes it in his preface to The Book of Life, de la Beche's spirited cartoon, simultaneously grim and humorous, was â€Å"reproduced endlessly (in both legitimate and pirated editions)† and is an important model, becoming â€Å"the canonical figure of ancient life at the inception of this genre. â€Å"(FN56) In short, this is the first dinosaur picture.Victorian paintings of nature (showing a similar pleasure to Carroll's in his crocodile) do tend to center on hunting and predation–see The Stag at Bay–and de la Beche's influential image, Gould explains, became a thoroughly conventional depiction of prehi story, first, in showing a pond unnaturally crowded with wildlife (rather like Carroll's pool of tears), and second, in depicting virtually every creature in it as â€Å"either a feaster or a meal†(FN57)–something one may also feel about Carroll's characters.Particularly striking is the gusto, the pleasurably half-horrified enjoyment of bloody prehistory, in de la Beche's cartoon, which in my view is very comparable to the enjoyment of the image of the devouring crocodile in Lewis's brilliant little parody. A slightly unpleasant gusto also animates Alice in Wonderland, a book that fairly crackles with energy although the energy has always been rather hard to account for.While on the official levels of his consciousness Carroll â€Å"stood apart from the theological storms of the time,†(FN58) is it possible that the news of evolution through natural selection was, on another level of his mind, good news to him as to many other Victorians, coming as a kind of ment al liberation? Humanity might well have found crushing, at times, the requirements of moral responsibility and constant self-improvement imposed by mid-Victorian ideals of Christian duty.Alice, for one, young as she is, has already thoroughly internalized many rules of conduct, and Alice's creator, equipped as he was with what Donald Rackin has called a â€Å"rage for standards and order,†(FN59) revels in the oversetting of order (as well as disowning this oversetting thoroughly when Alice awakens from her dream). The exhilaration of an amoral anti-society in Alice in Wonderland may be, therefore, in part the exhilaration of a Darwinist dream, of selfishness without restraint.As we all know, Alice's route out of Wonderland is to grow out of it. In closing this essay a final suggestion may be made about Carroll and his self-depiction in Wonderland. If the book is full of expressions of anxiety about relative size–and the dangers of largeness and smallness–this ma y not merely be because a new theory of evolution by natural selection had enlivened this ancient theme. Possibly Carroll had adapted this theory as a private way of symbolizing for himself the anxieties and dangers of his relationship withAlice and the other Liddell children. In Morton N. Cohen's biography Lewis Carroll, a table numbers the occurrences of guilty self-reproach and resolves to amend in Carroll's diaries and shows how these peaked at the time of his deepest involvement with the Liddell family. (FN60) Is it possible that Carroll, far from suffering a repressed interest in little girls, consciously acknowledged and wrestled in private prayer with his own impossible desires?It seems to become ever more difficult, rather than easier, to read this aspect of Carroll's life. In a recent Times Literary Supplement (February 8, 2002), Karoline Leach argues that Carroll's friendships with children were emphasized in his nephew Stuart Collingwood's biography to distract attention from the potentially more scandalous fact of the older Carroll's friendships with mature women.A letter in response by Jenny Woolf, on February 15, points out that Carroll's sisters continued to recognize Carroll's women friends, so obviously perceived these friendships as chaste, but reminds us of the possibility that Dodgson may have cultivated girl children as friends because of their innocence, because they were sexually â€Å"safe† to him, rather than because they were dangerously enticing.A response to this position, of course, would be that the assiduity with which Carroll cultivated friendships with small girls seems out of proportion to such a purpose. Whatever the truth of these matters, it appears to me that Carroll, distressed by the emotional battles documented in his diary, might well have developd a set of imaginative scenarios in which a little girl's growing up or down is reversible according to her own desire: this offers one kind of explanation of some of the more mysterious events of Wonderland.The dangerous but exhilarating aspects of Carroll's relationship with his little friends seems to fit neatly into a â€Å"tooth and claw† model of society, too, for each party to such a friendship, although acting in innocence and affection, has a kind of reserve capacity to destroy, to switch from pet to predator. Carroll might even have dramatized himself as a beast in a Darwinian world in relation to these little girls who are never the right size for him.At times he is only the pet–a romping, anxious-to-please, but oversized puppy. But there are other times when he might fear becoming the predator, a crocodile whose welcoming smile masks the potential to devour. And conversely, of course, Carroll's beloved little friends had the monstrous capacity to destroy him, morally and socially, if he should ever overstep the boundaries of decency and trust.Tenniel, presumably unaware of any secret underside to Carroll's life, was anyw ay debarred by Victorian regard for children as viewers from depicting the savage underside of Alice. But by referring the reader outward to current controversies and current interests in the natural sciences, he has succeeded wonderfully in rendering in art both Carroll's, and his own, grasp of the importance of a new worldview, and of the explosive anxiety and exhilaration to which it gave birth. ADDED MATERIAL ROSE LOVELL-SMITH

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Hypercompetition

Jouma! of Marketing Management, 1997, 13, 4 2 1 ^ 3 0 Evert Gummesson Stockholm University, School of Business, Stockholm, Sudden In Search of Marketing Equilibrium: Relationship Marketing Versus Hypercompetition This paper is a discussion on work in progress conceming tke development qf relationship marketing (RM). It is particularly focused on the concept of marketing equilibrium which is a marketing management correspondence to market equilibrium, the traditional concept of neoclassical economic;. The paper starts with a brief introduction to the author's approach to RJ4.It proceeds with a summary of the concept of marketing equilibrium. The next section is a discourse on hypercompetition, a partiailarly intense type of competition that has been observed by several authors. RM offers a marketing theory based on collaboration with various stakeholders through long-term relationships, customer retention and loyalty. In contrast, hypercompetitiett claims that customers uHU switch bet ween suppUers at an inaeasingly faster rate and that competitors will become increasingly hostile to one another.Two basic questions are raised: do RM and hypercompetition represent two conflicting but coexisting trends that arc both growing in intensity? and How can this coexistence or conflict be conceptually handled? Tlie aim qf this paper is not to be complete and provide an answer, only to draw the reader's attention to hypercompetition as an opposite trend to RMand to offer a platform for further analysis and constructive and reflective scholarly dialogue. The 30R Approach to R M The 30R approach to RM is the outcome of an ongoing research project on â€Å"the new markedng† (Gummesson 1994, 1995). 0R refers to thirty reladonships that were found to exist in marketing. During the research process, three core variables stood out: relatiorahips, networks and interacdon. A consequent definidon of RM then became â€Å"RM is marketing seen as reladonships, networks and inter acdon†. The 3ORs wiU not be listed here, but their basic structure wiU be given. A distinction is made between market reladonships (reladonships between actors in the market such as suppUers, customers, compedtors and intermedieiries), nd two types of non-market reladonships which exercise an influence on market reladonships, but are not part of the market propier. These are mega reladonships (reladonships in society, above the market reladonships, such as reladonships to governments) and nano reladonships (reladonships inside organizadons, such as intemal customer reladonships). Services markedng and ttie network approach to industrial marketing have provided the primary theoredcal impietus for the author to explore the shortcomings 0267-257X/97/050421 + 10 $12. 00/0  ©1997'nte Dryden Press 422Evert Gummesson of traditional marketing management theory. ^ Both theories were bom in the 1970s and have continued to giow in importance. The author's idea to merge the two goes bac k to 1982 and has since been pursued and broadened (Gummesson 1983, 1987, 1995). The term RM, however, was not used in a general sense until about 1990 (see e. g. Christopher et al. 1991; Groru-oos 1994; Gummesson 1994; Hunt and Morgan 1994; Sheth 1994). Instead, terms Uke long-term interactive relationships, interactive marketing, network approach and a new concept of marketing were used.My resejtrch approach is theory generating and based on comparative, qualitative analysis and syniiieses between data from inductive, real-world studies^ received theories and new theories in the process of development. Marketing Equilibrium This section is an introduction to the general concept of marketing equilibrium and a discussion on certain aspects of the equilibrium. Marketing equilibrium is a serendipitous outcome of the author's research on RM. The concept is further elaborated in Gummesson (1995, 19%). The three forces of marketing equilibrium are competition, collaboration and regulatio ns/institutions.Although Western economies are repeatedly referred to as market economies with free competition as their ethos, in reality they are mixed economies in which competition coexists with collaboration and regulations/ institutions. Marketing equilibrium contends that a sound market is the outcome of an optimal combination of the three forces of competition, collaboration and regulatiorw/institutions. As all kinds of equilibria in dynanuc envirorunents are unstable, it is a matter of heading toward a moving target, orJy rarely reaching it and only rarely staying there for any longer period of time.Whereas traditional marketing management literature primarily deals with competition, RM highlights collaboration. Collaboration implies that aU parties actively assume responsibility to make relationships functional. The author's conclusion is that: The focus on collaboration is the most important contribution from RM, with an impact on both marketing management and economics, and that collaboration in a market economy needs to be treated with the same attention and resped as competition. Although the third force, regulations/institutions, is not the theme of this paper, a few words will be said about it.Regulations indude both formal regulations through legislation, and informal codes of conduct through culture; institutiorts are both formal authorities whose task is to ascertain that regulations are enforced, and phenomena such as the family or religion that enforce a certain behaviour. In marketing rhetoric, regulations/institutions—and to a large extent also collaboration— are treated with suspidon and as inhibiting competition and the dynamics ^Inputs to the 30R concept also came from traditional marketing management, sales management, quality management, orgaruzation theory, and other areas. The term real world data is iised here instead of empirical data. Thereasonis that too often researchers in business subject mistake empirical for qiiantitative, while in the geiieral language of sdence empirical refers to all types of data, whrther they come as qualitative, quantitative, or in any other format. In Search of Marketing Equilibrium: Rdationship Marketing vs Hypercompetition 423 of an economy. In narketing practice, however, they are ubiquitous. Douglass North, Nobel Prize laureate in the economic sdences in 1993, has shown that regulations/institutions are dynamic and necessary elements of a narket economy (North 1993).Marketing equiUbrium attempts to see the role of marketing management in the context of sodety and on an industry and economics level. It should not be confused with the market equiUbrium of neoclassical theory of economics (also referred to as microeconomics or simply price theory). ^ In neoclassical economics, the core variables are supply and demand balanced by the invisible hand of price in a market of free competition. The market is assumed to be striving in the direction of a longterm equiU brium in which aU prices are equal and all products are standardized. Customers and suppliers are anonymous masses.Companies and industries are not managing their production and sales, they are orUy adjusting to exogenous market influences. All deviations from this idealized model axe referred to as unwanted imperfections. Although marketing management is offen described as an adaptation of neodassical economics, it is blatantly obvious from even a simple real-world study of markets, industries and individual companies, that a different foundation for a marketing management theory is imperative. For example, services which constitute anything from 60 to 90% of today's economies (depending on definition) are not considered.The assumptions of neoclassical economics are simply not vaUd. There are signs that the interest in coUaboration is gaining ground not only in real business life but also in marketing theory; the most obvious being the upsurge of literature on RM and related subjec ts such as customer loyalty and alUances. Brandenbui^er and Nalebuff (1996) introduce the term â€Å"co-opetition†, which is a combination of co-operation and competition. They show that game theory is one possible way of exploring this combination (â€Å"the prisoners' dilemma†).Gray (1989) points to coUaboration as a solution to multi-party problem and says (p. 54): â€Å"Despite powerful incentives to collaborate, our capacity to do so is underdeveloped†. In the same spirit Senge (1990), in his treatise on learning organizations and the need for dialogue says (p. 10): â€Å"Interestingly, the practice of dialogue has been preserved in many â€Å"primitive† cultures†¦ but it has been almost completely lose to modem sodety. Today, the prindples and practices of dialogue are being redbcovered and put into a contemporary context†.EMalogue UteraUy means â€Å"tlunking together† There is ein extensive literature on competition both in mark eting and economics. Particularly the books by Porter (1979, 1985) have received the attention of marketers. No effort wiU be made here to review the various aspeds of competition; the treatment of competition will be directed to its role in the marketing equilibrium and to the properties of hypercompetition. In market economies, competition is hailed as the driver of economic evolution and a necessary condition for wealth. The customer is given a choice, and a supplier can never be sure to have the customer in its pocket.ITiis is a traditional view advocated by the business community, and to an extent also by the pubUc sector in many countries where deregiilation and privatization have become foreeful strategies. The countries of the Westem world—the capitalist sodeties—are not genuine ^See Hunt and Morgan (1995) for further analysis of the shortcomings of neoclassical theory. 424 Evert Gummesson market economies. They are mixed economies in which market forces and re gulations have entered into wedlock. In totally unregulated markets only few can obtain the necessities of life.For example, free markets give large corporations the freedom to offset competition, and those who cannot compete on the labour market are left to charity or misery. The opposite—total regulation — leads to rigidity. There is no general formula that tells us in what projx)rtions individual discretion and collective regulation should be mixed. Every market and period have to find their own specific solution. Competition is a driver of certain types of change. Even if RM puts emphasis on collaboration, I would like to see RM as a synthesis of competition, collaboration and regulations/institutions.The issue is which combination of these will create the balance—the marketing equilibrium — in each sptedfic situation. If either of the three forces becomes unduly powerful, the economy will suffer; regulations/institutions is the sole force of a planne d economy. To some extent there is a naive belief in competition to set everything right. The global wave of privatization and deregulation is a reaction in markets that have become stified. It is an effort to find a marketing equilibrium. Bureaucratic and legal values have often led to a misguided interference by politidans and an unreal belief in centralized control of sodety.Although the term deregulation implies that regulations are abandoned, it is a search for more adequate laws and institutions which can become supportive to constructive forces of sodety and hold back destructive forces: Deregulation is reregulation! Some of the more conspicuous results from deregulation are found in the split up of Bell in the US and national telecom operators in many countries have lost their monopoly; the privatization of British government bodies such as the British Rail and the Airport Authority; and the most dramatic of all, the breakdown of the communist planned economies.However, nobo dy so far has been able to overview the long-term effects of deregulation and privatization. There are necessary elements of the market economy that competifion and the free market forces do not master. They can be expressed in two paradoxes. The first paradox says: regulations are needed to secure that free competition will not be curbed. In spite of adl sweet talk about competition, every individual company or industry prefers to be spared the hazards of competitions (but they consider it essential for other comparues and industries). The second paradox says: The purpose of competition is to get rid of competition.Competition attempts to reduce the infiuence of other suppliers by lower costs and prices, differentiated and difficult-tocopy offerings, or dominance of selected market niches. Hypercompetition The ideas on a new type of competition will be assembled under the umbrella concept of hjfpercompetition. They are taken from many sources, among them D'Aveni (1994), Hamel and P rahalad (1994), Moore (1996), and Verbeke and Peelen (1996). The term hypercompetition was first found in D'Aveni and the ensuing discussion on hypercompefition is mainly based on his concepts, but the comparison with RM strategies and the conclusions are my own.In marketing management and strategy, the recommendation is usually advanced that companies should build a sustainable competitive advantage, thus limiting In Search of Marketing Equilibrium: Relationship Marketing vs Hypercompetition 425 price competition or even creating a monopoly-Uke situation. Hypercompefition is the opposite: a company should actively disrupt status quo and the current competitive advantages, both its own and those of competitors, in an environment of hypercompetition, advantages are rapidly created and eroded.Hypercompefition trends are identified in four arenas of traditional competition (D'Aveni 1994, pp. 13-17): /. Cos/ and quality arena For example, upstarts Uke Southwest Airlines attack estabUshe d carriers by slashing costs or enhancing quaUty, thus lowering the bottom of the market and raising the top of it. This behaviour counteracts the RM strategy of frequent flyers' programmes. 2. Timing and know-hot/' arena The first mover in the nnarket may create an advantage and sets up impediments to imitation. Followers quickly try to overcome these, fordng the first mover to change its tactics.The know-how exploited by one company is imitated by another and imitation becomes faster and faster; eventually the innovator cannot recapture its R&D investment. 3. Strongholds arena Companies create entry barriers to keep the competition out Entrants circumvent the barriers, giving rise to a series of attacks and counterattacks. This is currently happening in inten:ontinental air services between major American carriers and national European carriers. The current war for mastery over the Intemet, with Microsoff and Netscape as the combatants, is another example. 4.Deep pockets arena Thi s means having more money than the competition. The finandally stronger and usuaUy bigger companies can endure price competition from smaUer companies. The latter, however, can caU upon govemment regulations and form aUiances with others, thus balancing out the financJal advantage. In marketing equilibrium, regulations is one of the balancing forces, and alliances is a collaborative RM strategy. For example, Microsoff's financial advantage has been counteracted by the aUiance between IBM and Apple. Information technology is a driver of hypercompetition.By using databases it is possible, and wiU be more so in the future, to quickly survey prices and other conditions, and select the best combination at each point of time. Purchasing then becomes close to the system of exchanges. But even if comparisons of suppUers are made easier for customers, so many conditions are not comparable, for example, to 426 Evert Gummesson what extent can you trust the supplier. Trust and security are basi c condidons for collaboradon and trust has proven to be a driver of business in all types of sodedes (Fukuyama 1995).D'Aveni concludes that the battle for comp>eddve advantage is eventuaUy driving the market back into a price-compieddve market. The outcome is the neodassical long-term equilibrium, although the road to this equiUbrium goes via marketing equilibrium and not just via price adjustments. He refers to the old compedfive equilibrium as looking stable because it moved so slowly that it appeared stable. Hypiercomp>eddon is a coristant state of disequiUbritim. D'Aveni deploys a revised 7Ss framework to propose hypiercompeddve strategies.The original 7Ss — designed by the McKinsey consulting company—comprise seven factors for success: structure, strategy, systems, style, skills, staff, and shared values. Successful hypiercomp;eddve firms need a new set of Ss in order to create disrupdon (p. 31ff). The first new S is stakeholder satisfacdon, referring to new ways of creating satisfied customers and a modvated eind empowered work force. The second is strategic soothsajdng â€Å"a process of seeking out new knowledge necessary for predicting or even creating new temporary windows of opportunity that compiedtors wiU eventuaUy enter but are not now served by anyone else† (p. 2). The comparafive advantage of these two factors is â€Å"†¦ the abiUty to win each dynamic strategic acdon with compiedtors† (p. 32). The third and fourth Ss are spieed and surprise, both capabiUdes for disrupdon. The hypercompeddve company both reacts more quickly and is proacdve, thus taking the market with surprise. The final three are tacdcs for disrupdon. Shifting the rules includes new ways of sadsfying the customers and playing the marketing game with a new set of rules. Signals refer to announcements of strategic intent with the purpose of stalling acdons and misleading compiedtors.For example, a preannouncement of a coining product may make cus tomers wait to see the new version and postpone planned purchases of competing products. Simultaneous and sequendal strategic thrusts â€Å"†¦ are used by hypercompieddve firms to harass, paralyze, induce errors, or block compiedtors† (p. 34). Several acdons are taken at the same dme in combinadons that make it difficult to understand what a compiedtor is actuaUy up to. In summary, whereas RM strives for stabiUty through long-term reladonships, hypercompieddon strives for continuous disrupdon at an increasingly faster rate.In RM, security is found in stabiUty; in hypercompeddon it is fotind in the ability to continuously counteract instabiUty. The RM concept is by many authors broadened to comprise more than the suppUer—customer dyad,'* for example, reladonships through alUances which is a way of counteracting hyp>ercompieddon. The imaginary organizadon^ is a network-based company which transcends the tradidonal organizadonal boundaries. It can more freely acquire Jind drop resources through outsourcing (or rather: resourcing) instead of investing in tradidonal growth (intemal or through acquisidon); the advantage of the deep pocket is thus offset. †¢See Christopher et al. (1991), Kotler (1992), and Hunt and Morgan (1994), who have approached marketing as relationships with a series of stakeholders. This is in line with the 30R approach, but flie 3ORs go further and also establish relationships based on other than the stakeholder dimension. ‘See Hedberg et al. (1994). Other terms representing the same phenomenon are virtual organizations, boundarykss organizations, and rwtwork organizations. In Search of Marketing Equilibrium: Relationship Marketing vs Hypercmnpetition 427D'Aveni (1994) discusses the role of co-operation and collusion and says that they should only be used for hypercompetitive purposes. They are not long-term relationships, they are merely temporary strategies. He lists a number of generic instances of hypercompet itive use of collaboration (pp. 338-339): to gang up against others groups; to limit the domain of competition; to biuld resojirces; to buy time; to gain access; and to leam. Hunt and Morgan (1995) suggest a comparative advantage theory of competition within a marketing management paradigm, and they present a devastating critique of neoclassical economics.D'Aveni's conclusions are contrary to Hunt and Morgan's; he rewrites neoclassical theory, using marketing management theory as a lever. Interpreted in my terms, we depart from the original and simple form of neoclassical market equilibrium, go through a phase of marketing equilibrium, and arrive at a more sophisticated level of market equilibrium. Hjrpercompietition goes beyond the neoclassical theory of perfect connpetition and restores it on a new level. Through a series of disruptive moves, where competitive advantage is surpassed, an escalation toward perfect competition develops.This means that we are back in transaction marke ting, the very evil to which RM is held to be the antidote. Conclusions for Discussion This paper has dealt with certain aspects of marketing equilibrium, one of several RM issues that preoccupy the author's nund during the ongoing research joumey into the world of RM. ‘The paper is limited to the two trends of collaboration, advanced by the RM concept, and hypercompetition, advanced by authors on strategy and competition. A paradox is seemingly a contradiction; it is not in actual fact a contradiction. An oxymoron is a combination of two phenomena that cannot be combined.So the first question in the beginning of the paper could be rephrased: are RM and hypercompetition forming a paradox or an oxymoron? When I read up on the current literatxire on competition, I found that the â€Å"new† competition was described as more fierce and faster than ever before. It had affinity with marketing warfare which was in vogue in the 19S0s. It certainly seemed contradictory to the RM idea of long-term relationships and collaboration. In my present state of ignorance the answer is: within the concept of the marketing equilibrium, both competition and collaboration coexist. They can do so and will do so.Our attention has to be directed to both of them. When competition becomes hypercompetition, collaboration may become hypercollaboration. Could it be that hypercompetition is the current driver of the upsuiging interest in RM and that RM tries to neutralize the effects of hypercompetition? To be Continued As this is work in progress, the issues that have been presented are not complete and the views are tentative and wiil be further studied. Among other issues concerning marketing equilibrium that are also being studied are the following: Tlie marketing equilibrium which has so far been described could be seen as 28 Evert Gumntesson partial marketing equiUbrium. The RM researdi project is suggesting an extention into complete marketing equilibrium. It consists of a synthesis of RM and the theory of imaginary organizations where not only the market but also the organizations (suppUers, customers, competitors and others) and sodety are included in a network of interactive relationships (Hedberg et al. 1994; Gummesson 1996). In traditional marketing management and economics, the market is outside the company and n «rketing activities are directed toward extemal customers.But there are also markets inside the company and marketing activities take place between intemal customers. This is laid bare in the treatment of the nano relationships of the 30R approach. Both intemal and extemal customers interact in networks of relationships. The boundaries between the â€Å"inside† and the â€Å"outside† have dissolved and both can be seen as parts of the same networks. Another area is the black economy with tax evasion, bribery, fraud, and organized crime as additional and disrupting forces of competition. One of the relationships in the 30R approach is named The Criminal Network.For example, Blumberg (1989) has pointed out that the strength of the market economy — competition and the profit incentive—encourages fraud. It pays to cheat! He calls this the paradox of the market economy. Everybody is familiar with it from jobs and private consumption, but it is swept under the carpet in marketing theory and textbooks. The Literature prefers the idealized image: competition as the driver to create customer satisfaction and customer perceived quality; to give customers everything they want and are willing to pay for; and to offer numerous options for consumers.Customers are asked about satisfaction and quality, but their knowledge is limited and the ignorance of the customer is exploited. Neither market economies through competition, nor command economies through regulations, have proven themselves capable of handling environmental and ecological issues. What has been achieved is primarily the outcome of vo luntary pressure group activity and law enforcement. Competitive forces have clearly not provided enough incentive for the market to innovate and reinnovate in the field.One of the relationship in the 30R approach is The Green Relationships, adding a relationship angle to environmental issues. Probably most of the achievements for a long time will only come through legislation (regulations), tight control and litigation (institutions). Can the marketing equilibrium conceptually include environmental and ecological issues? After the Paper Presentation: An Addendum In the discussion following its presentation, the paper was criticized on two points in peirticular: (1) The choice of the term â€Å"marketing equiUbrium†.The critics said — and some were dearly provoked by the term — that it gives the wrong connotation and that the term is so heavily committed to neoclassical economic theory that people will not be able to see my point. Suggested substitutes were â₠¬Å"dynamic balance† or â€Å"optimal combination†. EquiUbrium, it was claimed, conveys the idea that such a state exists and it is just a matter of time {long-term, though) before it is reached. In defence of the term {but I intend to give it more thought) I would like to claim that equilibrium can be perceived as dynamic and unattainable, but still have a value n Search of Marketing Equilibrium: Relationship Marketing vs Hypercompetition 429 in providing direction, although the journey is a never-ending journey. Perhaps the provocation as such is o( value. When a new thought or term is met with aggressions from several established scholars it may have hit a sore spot; it may even be important. The original intention was to show that equilibrium from the idealized and imrealistic assumptions of neoclassical theory could be supplemented by a marketing management-oriented equilibrium based on real-world premises.Neoclassical economics currently seems to be no more than a computer game for adult entertainment and career boosting under the disguise of â€Å"sdence†. To me, the contrast between â€Å"market† and â€Å"marketing†, designating an economics versus a management approach but still indicating affinity, makes the term expressive. Whatever term I choose, however, I am confident that economists and â€Å"me-too† researchers wiU not be impressed. 2. â€Å"Hyper† was claimed by Americans to mean â€Å"too much†, for example a hyperactive child is active to a degree that implies mental and/or physical disorder.The British perceived it as â€Å"very much†, for example a hypermarket which is a bigger European version of a supermarket. Maybe this is evidence of the validity of Oscar Wilde's statement that â€Å"England and America are two countries separated by a common language†. On the other hand, maybe â€Å"too much† is also a correct interpretation. For many of us, hypercompetition i s probably too much. Personally, it makes me nervous. References Blumberg, P. (1989), The Predatory Society, New York, Oxford University Press. Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B. J. (1996), Co-opetition, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press. Christopher, M. , Payne, A. and Ballant)Tie, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing, London, Heinemarm. D'Aveni, R,A. (1994), Hypercompetition, New York, The Free Press. Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust, New York, The Free Press. Gray, B. (1989), Collaborating, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. Gronroos, C. (1994), â€Å"Quo vadis, marketing? Towards a relationship marketing paradigm†, Joumal of Marketing Martagement, 10, No. 4 Gummesson, E. 1983), â€Å"A New Concept of Marketing†, paper presented at the 1983 EMAC Annual Conference, Institut d'Etudes Commerdales de Grenoble, France, April. Gummesson, E. (1987), â€Å"The New Marketing: Developing Long-term Interactive Relationships†, Long Range Planning, 20, No. 4, pp. 10-20. Gum messon, E, (1994), â€Å"Making Relationship Marketing Operational†. The International Joumal of Service Industry Management, 5, No. 5, pp. 5-20. Gummesson, E. (1995), Relationsmarknadsforing: Frdn 4P till 30R (Relationship Marketing: From 4Ps to 3ORs), Malmo, Sweden: Liber-Hermods (forthcoming in English).Gummesson, E. (1996), â€Å"Relationship Marketing and Imaginary Organizations: A Synthesis†, European Joumal of Marketing, 30, No. 2, pp. 31-44. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994, 430 Epert Gummesson Hedberg, B. , Dahlgren, G. , Hansson, J. and Olve, N. -G. (1994), Imagindra organisationer (Imaginary Organizations), Malmfi, Sweden: Liber-Hermods. Hunt, S. D. and Morgan, R. M. (1994), â€Å"Relationship Marketing in the Era of Network Competition†. Marketing Management, 3, No. 1, pp. 9-28. Hunt, S. D. and Morgan, R. M. (1995), â€Å"The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competitionâ⠂¬ , Joumal qf Marketing, 59, April, pp. 1-15. Kotter, P (1992), ‘Total Marketing†, Business Week Advance, Executive Brief, Vol. 2. Moore, J. E (1996), The Death of Competition, Chichester, UK, Wiley. North, D. C. (1993), â€Å"Economic Performance Through Time†. Stockholm, The Nobel Foundation, Prize Lecture in Economic Science in Memory qf Alfred Nobel, Stockholm, December 9. Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, New York, The Free Press. Porter, M. E. 1985), Competitive Advantage, New York, The Free Press. Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Sheth, J. N. (1994), â€Å"The Donnain of Relationship Marketing†. Handout at the Sectmd Research Conference on Relationship Marketing. Centre for Relationship Marketing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, June. Verbeke, W. and Peelen, E. (1996), â€Å"Redefining the New SeUing Practices in an Era of Hyper Competition†. Paper presented at the workshop Relationship Market ing in an Era qf Hypercompetition, Erasmus University and EIASM, Rotterdam, May.

Monday, July 29, 2019

The Family Album: Questioning Memory.

The Family Album: Questioning Memory. â€Å"After 17 years I’m back in Shanghai and all along, my memory has been playing tricks† (Otsuka, 2006:33). Why do we take images for family albums? We take them to remember people as they were. Traditionally in portrait photography, it has been a point of argument whether a photograph can or cannot reveal the true sense of a person, their personality or inner self. To me the photograph is merely surface – a likeness -, it is what the photographer or archivist wants to be seen, and holds no deeper resonance.In addition, not only do we want to remember, we want to acknowledge our existence, and in the future, be ourselves remembered as an essential part of the family unit. It is not only about belonging, but about leaving a trace of ourselves that will be around long after we are gone: photographs are tokens of immortality. The family album both represents what has to be continued and perpetuates the myth of the ‘happ y family’, which can be construed in multiple ways depending on the viewer and their motives.The portrayal of the ‘happy family’ is dependent on the various stages of editing – the photographer decides who is included or left out, tells the subjects where to stand or sit, and when to say â€Å"Cheese! † The collator then decides which photographs are worthy of going into the album and which will be left in a box, or thrown away. The editing and archiving follow perceived ideologies of family history, reflecting the editor’s own purpose and personal viewpoint. Claire Grey believes that history is always a personal account (Holland Spence, 1991: 108).But do these photos help us remember or do they alter or replace the real memories of what happened and who the people in the photos really were? In this essay, I will attempt to explain why I believe that the memories imbedded in the family album are constructs, falsehoods. I am going to look at i mages from six photographers as well as my own family albums to ascertain the accuracy of memory generated by image. In looking at a family album, do I take other people’s and family member’s recollections and apply them to my own history?Collective memory can twist the truth and often construct altered variations. As stories pass from one generation to the next, they are prone to fabrication and exaggeration. Lorie Novak states, â€Å"Our own images are often tied up in family legend with conversations about family photographs frequently accompanied by embellishment and invention. Photographs and the narratives they inspire can become substitutes for memories of actual events† (Hirsch, 1999: 26-27).She also wondered whether the information omitted from her own family album shaped her memories and studied this concept in her work (Hirsch, 1999: 15). Maybe this is the same for Ingrid Hesling, who, at the age of 16, found out that she was adopted – I wonder if this new information changed her memories or merely her perception of her memories: it would appear those that were once fond became bitter. She questioned her entire childhood leading her to create work using a combination of old family photos, text and her own contemporary images.Her work is an investigation into how memory can be altered depending on how you relate to the history behind it and the images documenting it. Analysing Numbers (Figure 1), the eye is drawn immediately to the smiling child clutching her toys, an image taken from the family album, then to the accompanying photo, and finally to its contents, the numbers – which symbolically do not reach 16 – and the text. The emptiness behind the child and the distance between her and the numbers – enhanced by the strong horizontals – metaphorically represents the separation from the truth.The child and toys have connotations of family, comfort and home, whereas, the numbers suggest conformi ty, lack of individuality and belonging, – being a number without identity. The subject matter is not immediately obvious until the text (both within and out of the image) is included. The initial impression of happiness is underscored and then submerged by a sense of unease, of anger and of betrayal. The original photo should evoke happiness but the viewer becomes disturbed when the opposite occurs. Is this family image therefore a fabrication, just because the way we see the memory has changed?Were things left out of the Hesling family album images in order to conceal the truth from her? In my own work, I use the family album aesthetic frequently. I seek out, analyse old family photographs, and try to apply them to my work. It fascinates me when I find images of myself as a child that I have never encountered before. I automatically try to locate any memories associated with the image, despite the fact that they do not exist for me, as I was too young, and attempt to rememb er stories I may have been told about the photograph.But this is not a true memory – it is assimilated from my family’s collective memory. Jo Spence said that searching for memories within family photographs, was impossible (Holland Spence, 1991:203). Trish Morrissey is a photographer who looks at ‘the family album as fiction’, carefully constructing the conventions and cliches of the domestic snap shot; thus, courting reality by the act of staging. In this way she has created a generic family album, to which anyone can relate: her family album has become everybody’s family album and countless others now share the memories.Anne McNeill states in her essay on Morrissey’s work that the images in the ‘shoe box’ are not the ‘official’ history of the family, but â€Å"the ones that got away† (Morrissey, 2004:23). This is an interesting concept, in that the family deem some images more important than others: ‘ proper’ images are displayed on top of the TV or framed for the wall, whereas the pictures that could be perceived as being more ‘real’, of everyday life, are put away in a box or packet to be perused at times of reminiscence.I am attracted to Morrissey’s work because of the questioning nature of her images. In September 20th, 1985 (Figure 2), with her sister in the other role, she meticulously recreates the original connection between the subjects as well as the peripheral details. However, in contrast to most family photos, the people in her images rarely smile, forcing the viewer to concentrate on the gestures and body language and use them to interpret and reveal hidden tensions between family members. Such underlying tensions tell more of the history and context than smiling faces.Staging allows the viewer to witness Morrissey in the act of constructing photographic meaning. Colour draws the eye to the teenage subject, her expression, and then to the contrasting expression of the older woman. The title includes the date – confirmed by the style and fashion – however as it is known that the images are reconstructed and were taken more recently than the title states, this inclusion generates more questions than answers. She questions the truth of the family album. Her images constructed as generic examples, using, and according to, her memories and the original photos.But how accurately can these be recreated when personal memory and current emotions are present? The reconstruction becomes a new history of her and her sister. Then we realise it is, and always has been, about her relationship with her sister, and this in turn, makes the viewer question the validity of all family album images: the allusion to unacknowledged family tension and the fallacy of the ‘happy family’. She questions the legitimacy of the entire tradition of the family album. Tim Roda is another artist who recreates personal histori es using his memories.Roda uses his family to recreate definitive life-changing memories and moments from his life: his son assumes his childhood role and he becomes his father. This strikes a chord with me as my current work revolves around the ideas of role reversal – child becoming adult and vice versa. Roda’s Untitled (Figure 3) initially caused me confusion and distress, as if a still from a horror film: it is dark, shadowy, and menacing. It is obviously and unapologetically staged, but why? It makes me ask questions. What is it about?It is a narrative, but is it fact or fiction? The camera is used to record a moment in time that balances between memories and constructed commentaries, yet it is a documentation of real events for the people taking part in the image making. Although his family are the immediate subjects, the work is filled with metaphorical reverberations of family history and childhood memories. Initially the composition leads the viewer to the man . What is he doing? Then the attention is drawn to the child with sharp shears, then to the birds hanging from the ceiling.These birds give a context to the image and place it somewhere that is recognisable. The man appears to have been hunting and is subsequently preparing the animal for cooking. The scene suggests that that they are country people, perhaps poor and living off the land: the father now teaching the boy by passing on traditions and skills. But is this a true memory or a corrupt, idealised memory? How much of it has been exaggerated or changed from the reality of the past? How would we know? Miyako Ishiuchi, in contrast, photographed her late mother’s belongings.She never got on with her mother but was distraught at her death, leading her to create a series of images as a memorial and tribute: a catalogue of personal belongings, objectified in the images, but subjectified in the photographer’s mind. In this way Ishiuchi sought to create an emotional conn ection, a sense of personal closeness and history, she never had when her mother was alive. The image is slightly off centre: does this reflect the true relationship? Despite this, the images remain clinical and objective: the daughter becoming the photographer and archivist of her mother’s possessions, using them to create a pseudo family album.Although Figure 4, an image from the Mother’s’ Series, is skeletal and ghostly, its forensic detail alluding to death, it is very simple and beautiful, with connotations of family love and loss – in some ways a memento mori. It is aesthetically pleasing, like still life, but ‘still death’. The image is deeply personal and yet it holds universal meaning. She strives to seize a point of contact between the past and present. The meaning of this single image is not obvious when viewed on its own, however becomes clearer when viewed with the others in the series.It is a highly emotive collection of images, reminding me of my own mother’s death, my relationship with her and how I dealt with her possessions and my memories of her after she died. One of my favourite photographers of the moment is Chino Otsuka. She has approached the questioning of the family album image in a new and unique way. At first glance, 1976 and 2005, Kakamura, Japan (Figure 8) appears to be an actual family album photograph, perhaps of a mother and daughter, maybe a holiday snap. However, once you are made aware of the digital alteration, it becomes much more interesting and poses many questions about the context.Otsuka includes verses in her book, which help to explain her intentions: â€Å"One by one, I retrieve fragments of memories and paste them all together† (Otsuka, 2006:37). This has double meaning: the ‘pasting’ both psychological as well as physical. The final image is a construct both as a photograph and as a memory. At first glance, she could be taken for the child’ s mother, sister, or aunt. It makes me question familial roles and place within the family. She has created time travel: â€Å"Past becomes present, the present becomes the future, back and forth, travelling in time† (Otsuka, 006:31). This makes us question, if we could go back, what would we do, say or change? In actuality Otsuka photographed herself in 2005, replicating the correct light conditions, and then digitally compositing the new image next to herself as a child. The original image was perfectly symmetrical, with the child in the centre. The addition of the adult shifts the balance. But what balance has changed? Is it merely the symmetry or is it rather the balance of power and control? Here because the adult and child are the same person, the family album becomes a mockery.She speaks of memory, â€Å"Until I look for it, it will hide forever [†¦] Just when I have forgotten it, it comes into sight and when I finally catch it I realise how much of it has escape d† (Otsuka, 2006:39). She is questioning her own memory and realising her memory lies to her. Even the recreation of the memory will eventually be corrupted. Here she categorically states that nothing can be received at face value. The apparent truth may in fact be corrupt, but to accentuate her belief in this dishonesty she has tainted it further.She may in fact remember the original memory but has replaced it with a falsehood. This event never happened, could never happen, it is an impossibility: a visual paradox. As my attention is drawn first to the child, then the woman, then the shadows, I seem to be searching for a reason to disprove the truth of this image. Why is the knowledge that it is fake not enough? Am I still so programmed to accept the photograph as truth, that I must find proof that the photograph is a lie? How then do these photographers’ interpretations of the family album reflect in my response to the images in my own?Through family photos, I place m yself within my family’s history. If they, as I believe, mean nothing, then how does that in turn affect how I view my history and my memories? ‘Christmas’ (Figure 9) was taken at my father’s parents flat in Glasgow, in1972. It is not unusual in any way. It does not differ greatly from other family album images. In fact, the majority of families have very similar images in their collections. I, at three years old, stand between my grandparents, seemingly being presented to the camera, with my mother and father (and the dog) at the back.My father, an amateur photographer, would have proudly taken the photo using the self-timer, explaining the not-quite perfect stance of the subjects. I assume it is an individual image, and not part of a series, although through the nature of editing – as spoken about previously -, other images, taken at the same time, may have been discarded or lost. This means that I am unable to build a picture of the whole holiday : it is merely a captured moment in time. My eye is first drawn to myself, perhaps looking for recognition, then to my Grandparents and my mother – all three of whom are now dead -, then to my father.The image was taken in the tradition of family portraiture to commemorate the family being together (our family lived abroad and only visited Scotland occasionally). You would expect this to be a happy time, however, my grandfather and I – who reputedly enjoyed and sought out being photographed – are noticeably uncomfortable. On closer inspection, I can see that we are not in fact the happy family my father wished to depict. It reminds me of Trish Morrissey’s work, where the tensions between family members are apparent despite the fake smiles attempting to cover up the real feelings.However, this image was intended only for family viewing, so why the faking? All the people in this picture will have been aware of the reality. Who are they faking for? I presume it can only be the tradition of smiling for the camera and a subconscious conveyance to future generations of family and friends that we were the archetypal ‘happy family’. Certain things in the image trigger my sensory memory, such as the material of the seat, the curtains and carpet, but I have no visual memory of this time.Roland Barthes wrote about his sensory memory being triggered by an image: â€Å"[my mother] is hugging me, a child, against her; I can waken in myself the rumpled softness of her crepe de chine and the perfume of her rice powder† (Barthes, 1982: 65). I found an image of myself aged six that I had previously not seen, and although I do not remember the photograph being taken, I do recall the texture, colour and smell of my dress, and associated images of my Mother leaning over the sewing machine making it. Are all these fake memories?Even if I cross-referenced with someone else that was there, their memory would be different as it is as per sonal to them as my memories are to me. To me this is the truth, as it is all I have. Is it better to have some believed memory, no matter how untruthful, than no memory at all? Looking to my own, more recent, family album images I have noticed that the family album has recently begun to change in style and content, partially due to the onset of digital cameras and computers. It is no longer merely portraiture but also has a documentary style. Gone are the formal (or informal) posed portraits of individuals and family groups.People now take more pictures of their friends and family candidly, when the subject is unaware of the image being taken. These may not be intended for the ‘official’ family album, but are most family’s more personal ‘shoe box’ pictures. This raises the question of whether the memories associated with these images are related to differently by both the photographer and the subject. Are these recalled memories more ‘realâ₠¬â„¢ than formal, posed images? As photography changes in our digital and computer based society, so does the way we take, edit and construct images for the family album.There are now fewer mistakes made when taking images. Only a few years ago, films were shot and printed, and all the images were kept, even the mistakes (cut off heads, fingers in shot, badly exposed, etc), whereas, now, with digital technology, the editing is done in camera. The ‘bad’ or unacceptable shots are deleted and re-shot before printing (if they are printed at all). There is now also a mass profusion of images, whereas before, due to cost of film and printing, families were more selective with their image taking, and consequently saved every image, however ‘bad’.Images now, are more likely to be kept on disc, losing the tactile quality we associate with photographs. The family album is becoming no longer a literal book of images. They are spread throughout cyberspace on social net working sites. Has this given the family album less value? Certainly the extended family can now have instant access to the family album, but are they really interested in any other images but their own? Why do we insist on sharing our most personal family moments with anyone and everyone?Again, I think it is about portraying the ‘perfect, happy family’ as well as spreading our immortality as far and wide as possible before we die. These modern methods of image dissemination negate the importance and relevance of the family album as a historical document, and we cynically become blase about images in general. In Umberto Eco’s book, The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, the protagonist is struck with almost complete memory loss, and in attempting to reconstruct his personal history, he comes to realise that he cannot rely on other people’s remembrances.He is shown a photograph of his parents, and states, â€Å"You tell me that these two were my parents, so now I know, but it’s a memory that you have given me. I’ll remember the photo from now on, but not them† (Eco, 2005: 24). He then retreats to his old family home and spends all his time in the attic, attempting to regain his memories, but only discovers that memory once lost cannot be regained, merely re-learnt: â€Å"Our memory is never fully ‘ours’, nor are the pictures ever unmediated representations of our past. [†¦ we both construct a fantastic past and set out on a detective trail to find other versions of a ‘real’ one† (Hirsch, 1997: 14). Similarly, Mier Joel Wigoder speaks of placing this photograph (Figure 12) of his father and grandfather on his desk, in place of an image of himself and his father that never existed. It is not his memory as he was not there, but it is a memory he wishes he had. He has invented a memory (or a fantasy? ) for himself based on a photograph taken before he was born. However, it is possib le that all memories are created in this way.I have looked at other people’s family photos and used them to prompt my own memories of similar times, places and people. As Heather Cameron says, â€Å"Our memory [†¦ ] is a constant process of writing and rewriting, crossing out, overlapping images and distortion. It shifts and flows and moves without a fixed foundation† (Cameron, 2002:6). Nan Goldin believed that by taking photos of her friends and family, she would be able to retain her own memories of them and not be influenced by the memories of others (Goldin, 1986:9), but even in her candid style that seems impossible. Annette Kuhn states, â€Å"Family photographs are supposed [†¦ to evoke memories that might have little or nothing to do with what is actually in the picture. The photograph is a prop, a prompt, a pre-text [†¦ ] but if a photograph is somewhat contingent in the process of memory production, what is the status of the memories actually p roduced? † (Kuhn, 2002: 13). When I recall some memory or look at old photos of myself when I was young, I could just as easily be remembering a particular thing because my Mother had related it to me when she was alive. However, I may be seeing these memories through rose tinted glasses, editing out the bad times before I can recall them.Personal family photos are not the only ones to generate an emotional response, and photographers such as Morrissey use this to effect. September 20th, 1985 (Figure 2) elicits an emotional response in me, making me laugh by triggering my own personal memories, remembrance of my own family album images and experiences: creating a transferrable memory. Everyone has some images similar to this in their collection. It makes us reassess our own memories and question them. The family album forms the basis of a pictorially gilded game of Chinese Whispers, as family stories and histories are passed down the generations.Memory is ever changing depende nt on the viewer or narrator’s state of mind and intentions, and these stories, intentionally or not, become distorted, exaggerated or even fabricated. This is not memory – it is learning, and the learning gradually replaces the real memory until, finally, it is completely lost in the past and the faked history becomes legend. Everything is not always as it seems in the family album. Smiles are often faked (even in unhappy, tense situations), and everyday tensions and power struggles between family members are hidden, the very act of taking a posed photograph is essentially faking the memory at its conception.Thus family albums can be seen as fiction, a subjective story rather than, if there is such a thing, an objective history. The photograph can merely show what was in front of it at a specific moment in time, but the mind takes this information and runs with it, creating stories around the image – â€Å"In short, to remember is to reconstruct, in part on th e basis of what we have learned or said since† (Eco, 2005: 25). ———————– Figure 2: Morrissey, T. 2004. September 20th, 1985. Figure 3: RODA, T. 2004. Untitled.Figure 4: ISHIUCHI, M. 2002. (‘Mother’s’ Series). Figure 7: ISHIUCHI, M. 2002. Mother’s #24. Figure 8: OTSUKA, C. 2005. 1976 and 2005, Kakamura, Japan. Figure 9: PIPE FAMILY ALBUM. 1972. Christmas Figure 12: WIGODER FAMILY ALBUM. 1942. Louis and Geoffrey Wigoder walking down Westmoreland St, Dublin, 1942. Figure 1: HESLING, I. 2000. Numbers. Figure 11: BEST FAMILY ALBUM. 2008. Untitled. Figure 6: ISHIUCHI, M. 2002. Mother’s #33 Figure 5: ISHIUCHI, M. 2001. Mother’s #55 Figure 10: BEST FAMILY ALBUM. 2007. Untitled. ———————– 3