Casualty, Causality and Chivalry: the Myth of Chivalry and Racial Violence in Southern Literature

This honors thesis project uses history and literature to analyze the role of the myth of chivalry in mystifying racial violence and oppression in the American South. The central claim is that the myth of chivalry¿ and particularly the exaltation of the white woman¿ is a myth system used to justify racial violence, oppress white womanhood, and allow white patriarchy to maintain political, social and economic dominance. This project traces the role of literature, especially Sir Walter Scott¿s historical romance, in developing the foundational myths of a southern society based in violence, racial hierarchy and gender inequality. It then follows the role of white womanhood in this myth¿ the restrictions on miscegenation, the exaltation of pure white femininity, and the violent actions performed in the name of southern women. With this historical baseline established, this study then explores three works of historical fiction that attempt to subvert this mythology by critiquing and demystifying the myth of chivalry, while also offering counter-narratives to popularized history. These works are Charles Chesnutt¿s 1901 novel The Marrow of Tradition¬, which analyzes the 1898 Wilmington N.C. race riot, Gwendolyn Brooks¿ 1960 poem ¿A Bronzeville Mother Loiters in Mississippi. Meanwhile, a Mississippi Mother Burns Bacon¿ and Lewis Nordan¿s 1993 novel Wolf Whistle, two works about Emmett Till¿s tragic murder in 1955. This study, then, illuminates the intersection of literature and mythology, revealing how literature is useful for both creating and subverting myth¿and revealing how authors undertake this task.

The Cultural Construction Of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Sociopolitical Responses To Psychological Trauma In American And Vie

In my thesis, I incorporate both psychological research and personal narratives in order to explain why, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the United States officially recognized Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder while the Vietnamese government did not. The absence of Vietnamese studies on the impact of PTSD on veterans, in comparison to the abundance of research collected on American soldiers, is reflective not of a disparity in the actual prevalence of the disorder, but of the influence of political policy on the scope of Vietnamese psychology. Personal narratives from Vietnamese civilians and soldiers thus reveal accounts of trauma otherwise hidden due to the absence of Vietnamese psychological research. Although these two nations conspicuously differed in their respective responses to the prevalence of psychological trauma in war veterans, these responses demonstrated that both the recognition and rejection of PTSD was a result of sociopolitical factors: political ideologies, rather than scientific reasons, dictated whether the postwar trajectory of psychological research focused on fully exploring the impact of PTSD on veteran populations. The association of military defeat with psychological trauma thus fixed attention on certain groups of veterans, including former American and South Vietnamese soldiers, while ignoring the impact of trauma on veterans of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The correlation of a soldier¿s ideological background with psychological trauma, rather than exposure to actual traumatic experiences, demonstrates that cultural and sociopolitical factors are far more influential in the construction of PTSD than objective indicators of the disorder¿s prevalence. Culturally-constructed responses to disorders such as PTSD therefore account for the subjective treatment of mental illness. The American and Vietnamese responses to veterans suffering from PTSD both demonstrated that the evidence of mental health problems in an individual does not guarantee an immediate or appropriate diagnosis and treatment regimen. External authorities whose primary aims are not necessarily concerned with the objective treatment of all victims of mental illness subjectively dictate mental health care policy, and therefore risk ignoring or marginalizing the needs of individuals in need of proper treatment.