Derechos y Deberes del CONCESIONARIO

In Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body, Elizabeth Ettorre associates reproduction with gender as concepts governing human interactions in our

contemporary society. Indeed, she explains, ‘Traditionally, gender has been viewed as society’s expectation concerning behaviour viewed as appropriate for members of each sex, male and female’. Ettorre continues,

similar to gender, reproduction as a component of culture is exhibiting signs of a social institution. As reproduction ascends as a social institution, it develops into a regulatory system, focused on the replication of bodies which must exemplify completeness (i.e. organs, limbs, torso, crania filled with brains, etc.), health, well-being, individual potential and future welfare. Reproduction represents an organisation of values, norms, activities and social relations that symbolise notions of able-bodiness, human survival, progress and individual potential.318

317 _{Shildrick, p. 4.}

318 _{Elizabeth Ettorre, Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body (London and New York:}

Ettorre’s explanation of the functioning of reproduction reveals the institutional

arrangements characteristic of Foucauldian theory: the reproducing individuals and the offspring are therefore subjected to disciplinary corporeal and behavioural norms. Indeed as Ettorre writes, ‘reproduction is a normative, standardising system, which disciplines, controls and scrutinises the actions of procreative bodies, both male and female’.319 The rules described by Ettorre reach beyond the reproducing subject to the results of reproduction: the children to be born equally are the focus of control and surveillance. As I have argued in previous chapters, we are witnessing the surveillance of all bodies – the reproducing bodies (mostly women’s), and those to be born. I will explore more specifically the case of the reproducing subject (via the character of Françoise) in my next part; here, however, my concern is to determine how the rules of reproduction impact on the children and their place in the Letertre family.

I shall focus first on Elise, who does not illustrate any of the requirements cited above by Ettorre, and whom I posit as a failed reproduction. She does not ‘exemplify completeness’ such as ‘crania filled with brains’– her father describes Elise as ‘une gamine à qui l’bon Dieu a juste oublié de donner de la cervelle’ (56). As far as mental health and well-being are concerned, what is stressed by her family is Elise’s inaptitude to meet standards of normality – she is deemed ‘débile’ (121) by her own mother, whilst in fact Elise is a victim of dysfunctional parenting. Finally, as a monstrous subject, her ‘individual potential and future welfare’ are indeed greatly affected by her overall condition. In Ettorre’s longer quote cited above, the use of the phrase ‘replication of bodies’ indicates a “focus” on continuity from the part of the genitors. The results of a successful reproduction must be in the image of their creator. When Elise’s mother explains, ‘Moi j’ai bien fait une débile et pourtant, je suis pas débile...’ (121), she defines her daughter as a failed reproduction, not in the image of her creators, and mentally retarded; moreover it is this last element (her handicap, affecting her behaviour) that will prove the main cause of Elise’s reproductive failure. As the next section will reveal, the focus here is not strictly on physical resemblance but more on personality, as there are clear expectations regarding the future (and function) of their children in the Letertre household.

Shildrick informs us that since the Renaissance, reproduction has been concerned with ‘the repetition of masculinist ideals of selfsameness [… and] the paternal principle’.320 _I

explore Lambrichs’s interpretation of these age-old ideals and the paternal principle, by analysing in the Letertre family the importance of the children’s abilities to fullfil predetermined functions.

I begin in this section with Jean, the first-born son who, in the light of his sister’s monstrosity and shortcomings, should be (it would seem) the prodigal son. One of the first elements we learn about Jean is his self-confessed desire to become a doctor (51), immediately followed by the avowed peculiarity of his ambition – ‘Il est vrai que rien, dans mon entourage, ne me prédisposait à cette carrière’ (51) – and the father’s disappointment – ‘mon père, agriculteur et éleveur en Normandie, eût certes préféré me voir embrasser celle de vétérinaire, qui lui eût au moins été de quelque utilité’ (51-52). If Jean does not strictly follow in the paternal path, his locally-reputed academic

achievements as well as the prospect of a prestigious profession reflect positively on the father and do him proud: Jean notes concerning his father, ‘l’idée d’avoir un fils

médecin, mon Dieu, ne lui déplaisait guère’ (52). When he comes back some years later as a qualified doctor, and accompanies his mother to the village market and meets again old acquaintances, his mother is (in Jean’s words) ‘fière comme jamais’ (298).

Therefore, in spite of a profession disconnected with the family business, it still seems for Jean to be a successful decision as he keeps his parents satisfied. From the parents’ perspective, they find other methods to maintain their power over their son. They establish new rules which, if they do not strictly translate the parents’ expectations for reproduction (Jean chooses medicine over farming), still enable the continuation of parental ascendency. Firstly, his mother arranges for his accommodation in Paris ‘par l’entremise d’une vague connaissance’ (52-53). Then, in the father’s last words of advice before leaving for Paris – ‘mon père me conseilla de réussir’ (66) – Jean immediately understands the consequences of potential failure: ‘le retour définitif à la ferme’ (66). Jean is displaced from one enclosed environment to another (and as I explore later from one constricting function to the next – from son to husband and prospective father – with comparable measures of pressure to succeed in each); as a medical student, he even confesses his impression to be working hard solely for his parents’ satisfaction and pride (81). Despite all this, disciplined Jean docilely remains under the yoke of his parents and meets their requirements. Even so, I would argue that

he still falls short of their concept of a fully successful reproduction because Jean fails to illustrate, in Shildrick’s words ‘the repetition of masculinist ideals of selfsameness [… and] the paternal principle’.321 However boastful the parents are of Jean’s prowess, this can never amount to the satisfaction of securing filial succession of the family’s agrarian legacy. As Jean fails to fulfill the expected function of a successful

reproduction, they recruit a new farm boy. In the subsequent father’s justification (almost to himself) – ‘Puisque mon fils me quitte, il faut bien que je trouve de l’aide ailleurs, non?’ (56, my emphasis) – the father expresses his sadness for Jean’s anticipated departure, and also for the loss of his son and “genetic” succession. Moreover, it is also possible to read the father’s realisation that the failures in reproduction might concern not only the offspring (Jean), but also himself, as the enterprise of reproduction here seems to have failed. Robert symbolically represents another attempt at a successful reproduction. He is introduced to Jean by the father: ‘je te présente Robert. Ton successeur’ (56). The young boy rapidly grows into his new role and becomes the spitting image of Jean’s father, but he is not presented as the physical mirror image of Jean’s father but rather as his alter ego (Robert also later shares a strong bond with his own son). Indeed, the two men share the same roof and the same professional activity, they dine at the same table, they share the same crude and vulgar humour (119), the same taste for illegal sporting activities (122), and they even share Elise (the father is, after all, the first to suggest Elise’s “favours” to Robert just as he is about the take his first meal with the family (57-58)). Robert occupies the place left vacant by Jean and embodies the image of the successful (replacement) son; as he evolves from farm boy to son-in-law (marrying Elise) he definitely dethrones Jean and becomes the unique heir to the Letertre estate. Jean speaks of Robert as ‘qui plus que moi eût pu être le fils de mon père’ (232). Despite his revolt in front of his

unexpected replacement, Jean is ultimately able to choose for himself his own path and to ‘quitter ces lieux au plus vite; ces lieux où chacun n’occupait sa place qu’à titre provisoire puisque tout le monde, apparemment, y était interchangeable’ (58). Through his unhappy childhood experiences, Jean ultimately learns that parents can impose onto their children their own desires, and define for them paths that may run counter to the children’s own individuality and predispositions. Even if Jean strays from his father’s professional path, and in spite of his indignation when faced with his sister’s treatment, I will later show that he reproduces mistakes comparable to his father’s, and that his

upbringing will greatly affect his own (unconscious) desire to counter his own childhood unhappiness.

In the final sections, I will show that in addition to being regarded as a failed reproduction by her parents, for Jean, Elise also fails to fill in the part of the sister. In their own individual ways, both the parents and the brother fail to respect Elise’s individuality and accept her difference, and they attempt to change her; they will try to reassign her to a different role, and even to cure her condition. As it will be revealed, contrary to Jean, Elise’s new functions let us envisage little liberation of the subject; instead, she remains confined within the boundaries of the farm and her life, as well as her body, remain the sole property of her family members.