The Thin Line Between Camaraderie and Homosexuality in Regeneration

Within the novel Regeneration, there is a strong emphasis on the relationships presented between men, with Barker emphasising the idea of ambiguity between conflicting (or coexisting) feelings of camaraderie and romance. In this way, there is a thin line between ‘the right kind of love’ and something all together less platonic. Barker’s exploration of these competing perspectives allows Regeneration to comment on attitudes to homosexuality that were prevalent in the era of World War I, and to cast those attitudes against more modern and politically progressive responses to homosexual relationships.

Barker emphasises the idea of camaraderie in terms of hero worship in particular, by referring to the relationship Sassoon had with the other soldiers from the front line. Graves states that ‘the men worship him….And he loves them. being separated from them would kill him’ – referring to the forced separation that occurred due to Sassoon’s declaration. With this quotation, we get a sense of the camaraderie that exists between the men and the mutual respect and care which also seems to be a fundamental aspect of their relationships. As Sassoon was known for being brave, nicknamed as ‘Mad Jack’, he is worshiped by the men as they admire the sacrifices that he is willing to make. Though this is ironic as, in reality, Sassoon’s actions of recklessness were an attempt to get himself killed, showing how the definition of a ‘hero’ became synonymous for suicidal. While in any other context this may be perceived as cowardly, his behaviour is praised as the death would have been on behalf of the country. In the same way that the younger soldiers admire Sassoon, he too ‘loves them’ suggesting a genuine aspect to their friendships. As well as this, it implies that Sassoon acts as a fatherly figure to the men, in the way that he is anxious to be close to them, not unlike a parental figure. While it is Rivers who is often adopted as a father figure, Sassoon in his role as General also plays the role and looks after the younger men, thus highlighting their youth and innocence. While being separated from the men, and consequently the war zone, is actually what is keeping Sassoon’s safe and alive, Graves argues that it is being apart from them that is really ‘kill[ing]’ him. This shows the co-dependence that the men had in each other, acting as one anothers life lines during battle. Overall, this relates to the idea of trust and loyalty between the men during the war.

Camaraderie is also presented between Rivers and Sassoon, with their relationship extending past the point of being merely patient and doctor. This is shown when they are discussing Sassoon’s return to the front line, as River’s says ‘you know i’ll go on doing anything I can for you’. This implies that Rivers is acting as a parental figure by doing his best to ensure that Sassoon gets what he needs, as well as a bringing to mind the idea of protection. This is similar to how Graves puts his reputation on the line to help Sassoon after his declaration, with both men committed to doing whatever they can to protect Sassoon. The use of ‘you know’ suggests that a mutual understanding exists between the two, linking with the idea of trust. In addition to this, Sassoon’s previous reference to the officers as ‘them’, while he and Rivers are ‘us’ also shows this, in the way it creates the idea of sides; He and River’s are on the same side, loyal to one another. The fact that the enemy to Sassoon is no longer the Germans, but people of his own nationality, shows his attitude towards those in authority and the idea that the real enemy is internal. Contrastingly, he and Rivers have a strong bond, emphasising the idea of camaraderie, even outside of the trenches.

However, Barker seems to make an active effort to interlink the idea of homosexuality with platonic relationships, crucially referring to the lack of acceptance for romantic love between men. An example of such is shown when Sassoon says ‘This…this abominable thing must’ve been there all the time and he didn’t see it’, in reference to Grave’s negative reaction towards his friend being gay. The word ‘abominable’ is harsh, but represents the commonly held opinions of people at the time. In the time period it was illegal to be homosexual and love between men was perceived as only acceptable if it was strictly platonic. Contrastingly, a modern reader would be more accepting of the idea of homosexuality, therefore Sassoon’s phrasing is uncomfortable to hear, despite the fact that it was a common sentiment expressed during war time. It is interesting to note that the WW1 era attitudes and modern day attitudes to both homosexuality and war have essentially swapped over time. Most people today would view war as a negative thing, while during WW1, patriotism ensured that there was strong support for the war effort. More so is the idea of changing attitudes towards sexuality, and the idea that love between those of the same sex is now acceptable, regardless of whether it is platonic, while before it was not. Barker is perhaps creating this dramatic contrast between the past and the present in order to criticise the attitudes that perpetuated society previousy.

This modern prospective – that homosexuality is acceptable – is one which is put forward by Sassoon, dramatically contradicting with views of the time, as shown by Rivers’ scathing, or perhaps realistic, reaction. Sassoon states ‘I thought things were getting better’, showing that from his perspective love between men was becoming more widely accepted. In contrast, Rivers argues that ‘It’s time you grew up. Started living in the real world’. The age difference between the two is made obvious with this exchange, with Sassoon coming across as more ignorant to reality, as well as to the consequences that could arise should he stop ‘toe[ing] the line’. Rivers also seems to perceive the idea of acceptance of homosexuality as unrealistic by saying ‘grow up’, as if the wish to live openly is nothing more than an unattainable pipe dream that will never come true. At the time that the novel was being written, the age of consent had been recently lowered from 21 to 16 for homosexuals in the UK, showing that same sex relationships were being viewed as more equal to heterosexual relationships. Barker may had included Rivers cynicism as a contrast to the progress that had been made, creating the idea of hope, regardless of how bleak the future may appear. This is an idea that may extend to war, with many people believing that the horrific casualties of war would lead to a brighter future in the long run. Though not completely free from discrimination, the current situation for gay men and women alike is a step closer to the idyllic society that Sassoon longs for, and the society that Rivers doesn’t let himself believe in.

Lastly it is important to note the significance of the fact that the word ‘homosexuality’ is not mentioned throughout the entire novel, representing the stigma behind it at the time that the word and the sexuality was perceived to be something dirty. The ambiguous reference to ‘that kind of love’, though never stating same sex love explicitly, may represent the struggle that society had in accepting love between men, and may even mirror the internal struggle that those questioning their sexuality experienced themselves.

Overall, Barker presents the idea that camaraderie was a crucial aspect of life for men during World War One, focusing on the idea of hero worship and codependence, while also alluding to the concept of romance between the troops. In Regeneration, the line between platonic feelings and romantic feelings is presented as being thin, despite society’s attempts to ignore the latter. War in this conception promotes intimacy, alongside danger and despair.

Madness, Sanity, and Regeneration

In Regeneration, Barker presents the idea that there is a fine line between madness and sanity, in terms of the lack of differentiation between doctor and patient. The narrative, moreover, emphasizes the subjective nature of the word ‘madness’ itself. In this way, not only is madness explored in the context of Craiglockhart, but also as an isolated concept, questioning what it really means to be sane when the definition of such varies by era, culture, and person.

Barkers presents the idea of there being a lack of differentiation between Doctor and patient, in the way River’s self-diagnoses himself within the novel as being mentally ill himself, showing that the war was indiscriminate in the people that it impact. The quotation ‘War neurosis.’ Rivers said promptly ‘I already stammer and I’m starting to twitch’, shows that he has diagnosed himself as having the very thing that he is often trying to cure in his patients; shell shock. This fits with the idea that the concepts of madness and the symptoms such as ‘a stammer’ and ‘starting to twitch’ are so vague that really anyone could be considered mad, regardless of the actuality of their mental state. This vague definition links to the ambiguity surrounding shell sock and other psychological issues, showing that in the time period there was a lack of understanding about mental illness as a whole, and it was more used as an excuse. For example, Sassoon fit the criteria for having shell shock due to the stress he was under, the fatigue and the fact that he was upper class (who were believed to be more likely to get shell shock), therefore combined with his anti war ideologies, he is the perfect candidate to be sent to a mental hospital such as Craiglockheart. Madness is used as an excuse to suppress the things he is saying, showing that views that don’t conform to the general view of society are considered to be abnormal and wrong. This is shown by the quotation ‘Better mad than a pacifist’, which states that society would rather he was mentally ill than be against the war – as conveys the prevalent view at the time that the war comes first and no one should go against it. The fact that both the treater and the treated are arguably mad shows not only the breadth of the wars scope, but also highlights the thin line between madness and sanity in that not even the person who is trying to prompt sanity is truly sane himself.

Similarly, both Rivers’ and Sassoon’s madness is accredited to their anti-war sentiments and is arguably caused by them. Sassoon states ‘The maddest thing I ever did was under orders’, linking to the indoctrination of soldiers during WWI to just follow orders, despite the risk that would come with doing so, while Rivers’ madness is accredited to idea of spending time curing the soldiers just to send them to their deaths by participating in the war. In both senses, the two are perceived as being mad for being against the war, whereas perhaps the real madness is that those higher up can see the consequences, yet do nothing to stop them from happening. This is a perspective that a modern day reader may hold, due to hindsight and knowing that nothing productive will actually come from the countless losses of live, and this is also a sentiment expressed in My Boy Jack. The last scene of the novel shows Hitler coming into power, suggesting that the sacrifices made were futile and in vain, therefore it was madness to continue the fighting of the war that was supposed to end all wars, but obviously did no such thing. Overall, Barker emphasizes the idea of a thin line between madness and sanity through the representation of the characters Sassoon and Rivers.

Barker also calls attention to this conception by contrasting the characters Rivers and Yealland, to emphasize the subjectivity of the term ‘madness’. Hunt states that ‘You and Rivers [are] doing essentially the same thing’, referring to their common purpose and occupation, which is to cure the patient to the point that they can return to the front line. However, they use different methods, with Rivers focusing on talking therapy, and Yealland perhaps sharing Anderson’s sentiment that ‘Talking doesn’t help’ and using more forceful techniques. This is shown when he uses ‘electrodes’ to electrocute a patient into talking again. Despite their similarities, Hunt states that ‘I can’t imagine anybody less like Yealland – methods, attitudes, values – everything’, in reference to the more brutal methods aforementioned, though Rivers is the one considered to be mad, while many would consider Yealland to the be the mad one. Yealland treats his patients more like test subjects than anything else, and seems to have a lack of conscience, as shown in the quotation ‘Yealland actually looked gratified. He said, ‘Are you not glad to have made such progress?’. He is ‘gratified’ by the fact that his patient has started talking despite the pain he’s feeling, suggesting an absence of empathy, which is a characteristic commonly associated with psychopaths, as opposed to psychiatrists. Mindless hurting may link to the idea that the men in the war rarely feel remorse for what they have done, due to the fact that they are just following orders. Yealland’s focus in arguably more sane as he’s using any means possible in order to send the men back to the front line, while this is the idea that Rivers struggles with, and causes him to be against the war. Despite the violent methods, Yealland is considered to be the sane one out of the two due to that fact that he’s just doing his job, while a modern reader would regard him as sadistic, showing how madness is subjective and its definition alters over time.

However, in some ways Barker does present the idea that there is a clear divide between madness and sanity, namely in terms of the both the civilian and soldiers perspective of those with mental illnesses caused by the war. Anderson himself says ‘I suppose it is possible someone might find being locked up in a loony bin a fairly emasculating experience’, with the colloquial use of ‘loony bin’ being used as a form of disrespect to those in Craiglockhart, invalidating the fact that they have a legitimate problem. Despite being in the hospital himself, Anderson represents the view of society that those suffering from shell shock must be crazy, being less sympathetic than people generally are today. As well as this, Anderson seems to imply that emasculation is equal to madness, implying that once a male has lost their masculinity they too are considered to be abnormal. The idea that men must be strong and brave is an idea that is still held today, however it is perhaps less explicitly obvious. His use of ‘locked up’ is significant in that he feels like he is being imprisoned and punished for not being able to fight by being put in Craiglockhart and that they are being hidden from the rest of society due to shame. A reluctance to accept the repercussions of war is also mentioned later in the novel, when dismembered soldiers had been ‘pushed out here to get some sun, but not right outside, and not at the front of the hospital where their mutilation may be seen by passer-by’s’, showing that those who were considered ‘mad’ were segregated and hidden from the rest of society. In this way, the line between mad and sane is made explicitly obvious through the maintained separation of the two sides.

Overall, Barker presents the view that there is a thin line between madness and sanity. At least on the evidence of Regeneration, the two aren’t as uniformly separated as is to be expected. This situation is especially due to the subjective nature of defining both words and the wide scope of the impact that the war had, affecting everyone and essentially making everyone mad in one way or another, depending on the perspective of the person doing the diagnosis.

New Identities in Pat Barker’s Regeneration Trilogy

Pat Barker’s Regeneration Trilogy is a series of novels that explore various marginalized subjects in WWI-era Britain. Originally set in a mental hospital, she is particularly interested in exploring concepts of madness – how a society decides what constitutes madness and how the mad are subsequently treated. Through the use of two apparently insane protagonists, Siegfried Sassoon and Billy Prior, the author destabilizes traditional notions of madness and privileges the madman as a site of cultural subversion. In the trilogy, these characters represent emergent identities – a kind of knowledge that develops on the border of possible thought. Dangerous and frightening, these characters are marginalized by the cultural institutions of the time: the space they inhabit and their bodies become sites of cultural contest – spaces to be controlled. However, through several subversive tactics, these characters begin to ‘speak back’ at existing systems of control. They transform and ‘pervert’ the very institutions that attempt to regulate their mad behaviour, reaching their ultimate expression in Prior who is able to free himself (almost completely) of cultural limitations, free to cross cultural, psychological and personal boundaries in an apparently contradictory way. Barker, however, seems to argue that these contradictions are inherent in society itself.Throughout the trilogy, Barker explores that which exists ‘outside’ of a dominant cultural understanding. Foucault argues that at any given time, a culture is composed of certain ‘discourses’ or ways of understanding. These discourses, when combined, create an episteme which in turn creates difference. Through this difference, the subject develops a categorical understanding of the world and communication with other subjects is made possible. This is the simplest definition of ‘culture’ (Foucault, The Order of Things 45). Foucault’s primary argument is that this episteme is necessarily limited – it is impossible for any given culture to allow for every possible thought. However, on the peripheries of culture, on the ‘outside’ as it were, new combinations of thought develop: novel definitions, identities and understandings that push the boundaries of culture in new directions (Foucault, The Order of Things 67). It is on this periphery that the thematic action of the novels is enacted.These peripheral characters are always viewed as aberrant and damaged because of their countercultural behavior; if the culture of the novels dictate that a ‘normal’ person is attracted to people of the opposite gender and supports their country in a time of war, then those who fail to conform to these categories must be ‘damaged’ and in some way they are ‘mad’. The ‘mad’ subject follows the line that divides the discursively possible from the discursively impossible. Barker makes a point of recovering this madness and privileging its subversive potential, in the sense that Julia Kristeva uses in her essay, Black Sun:“The modern political domain is massively, in totalitarian fashion, social, leveling, exhausting. Hence madness is a space of antisocial, apolitical and paradoxically free individuation.” (Kristeva, Black Sun 11) The issue of same-sex attraction falls into this area, in part because many men in the novels admit to, or conversely deny, a sexual attraction to other men. What is important is that this attraction need not constitute an identity, but instead it can be constructed as such on the level of culture, as the culture develops ways of describing this attraction. In the novels this attraction is described in terms of its action, rather than as an identity. The use of the terms ‘sodomite’, ‘bugger’, and perhaps more importantly, ‘abomination,’ focus primarily on the sexual act rather than sexual preference. Towards the end of the Regeneration, Graves implies a very specific construction of homoerotic desire: “It’s only fair to tell you that … since that happened my affections have been running in more normal channels. I’ve been writing to a girl called Nancy Nicholson. I really think you’ll like her. She’s great fun. The … only reason I’m telling you this is … I’d hate for you to have any misconceptions. About me. I’d hate for you to think I was homosexual even in thought. Even if it went no further.”(Barker 176) In this example, Graves implicitly admits to some degree of homoerotic desire. Whether that desire actually led to a sexual act is beside the point. Deviance is located in the act as opposed to the subject. When these acts are willfully discontinued they are no longer an issue. The sexual relationship between Prior and Manning is discontinued with the return of his wife and children, and Manning’s fears of persecution, like those of Graves, are allayed. Ironically, a similar tactic of deflection is used when these acts are repeated. They are understood in terms of a psycho-clinical discourse that treats the deviance as symptomatic of some psychological malfunction. In the following example, Sassoon uses this concept of homosexuality as a malfunction when he tells Rivers about the outcome of a young gay man, Peter, after he was arrested:“Sassoon looked straight at Rivers. ‘Apparently he’s being sent – the boy – sent to some psychiatrist or other […] ‘To be cured.’ A slight pause. ‘I suppose cured is the right word?’ (Barker 180-81)Homosexuality as a category, then, is not constructed as an opposite to heterosexuality. It is something more like heterosexuality gone wrong. Considering the description of homosexuality by Sarah’s coworker in the munitions factory, the emphasis is on development; homoerotic desire is described as frustrated or false heteroerotic desire. As with Graves’ explanation regarding ‘normal channels’, this construction reinforces the notion of homoerotic desire as a perverted heterosexuality. As a result, the dominant culture of the novel creates a compulsory heterosexuality, even while declaring the necessity of love between men-at-arms. Men who have homoerotic desires or even engage in sexual acts with other men are thought to be heterosexuals, on some deeper, more genuine level: “But you know, he never had any sisters, so he never met any lasses that way. Goes to school, no lasses. Goes to university – no lasses. Time he finally claps eyes on me, it’s too late, isn’t it? It’s gelled.”(Barker 177-78) As Foucault says, “What is important is that sex was not only a question of sensation and pleasure, of law and interdiction, but also of the true and the false.”The reason for Sassoon’s commitment is also worth considering. He is essentially committed for his defiance of military authority, a position evidenced by his anti-war Declaration, which is taken as proof of his insanity (Barker 5-6). Specifically, he is determined to be suffering from neurasthenia or ‘shell-shock’. As with the case of homoerotic desire, this anti-war stance is viewed as some defect of character. At the beginning of Regeneration, Sassoon states: “‘You can’t put people in lunatic asylums just like that. You have to have reasons.’ [to which Graves replies,]‘They’ve got reasons’”(Barker 9). For the categories of ‘homosexual’ and ‘pacifist’, the novel raises the question: As opposed to what? There is, of course, no real alternative to homosexual or pacifist in the language of these characters unless it is a generalizing ‘normal’.Kristeva uses the term abject to describe these impossible half-identities. To her, the abject is that which exists somewhere between the subject (what ‘I’ am) and the object (everything that ‘I’ am not). The abject’s existence challenges the distinction between subject and object, and threatens to undo the subject’s perceived coherency (Kristeva, Powers of Horror 3-4). On an individual level, the abject is realized in bodily emission: blood, vomit, urine, shit and more graphically in the dismembered limb: “Abjection preserves what existed in the archaism of pre-objectal relationship, in the immemorial violence with which a body becomes separated from another body in order to be” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror 3). It is fitting then that the Craiglockhart facility is occupied by patients who are caught up with symbols of the abject; Anderson cannot stand the sight of blood, urinating on himself when his roommate cuts himself shaving, and Burns vomits uncontrollably when he eats. Prior develops a similar behavior that split his personality after seeing dismembered compatriots , creating a “new” Prior who attempts to excoriate his weaker self. While their subjectivity is threatened by their ‘mad’ deviance, the characters’ bodies respond by attempting to symbolically maintain their own subjective integrity. This highly technical and specific use of the word ‘abject’ plays on its more conventional meaning of ‘cast off’ or ‘excluded from the whole’. We can consider the half-identities mentioned above to be abject in the second sense as they are marginalized by the dominant discourse of the novels’ culture.Cultural abjection, like its psychological counterpart, is abhorred because it threatens the unity of the subject; specifically, it causes the subject to reassess itself and so it is ‘covered-up’ and excluded from cultural thought. However, it is precisely because the abject is so abhorrent that it cannot be directly approached. Repression of the abject is unpredictable and riddled with the inherent contradictions of the dominant culture, as evidenced in Barker’s depiction of the Pemberton Billing affair. The manifesto, ‘As I See It – The First 47,000’ is lashing out against these abject elements of society and effectively conflating them all into a nebulous ‘not us’. This is not an attempt to describe, but more so an attempt to cover up and ignore behaviors culture refuses to recognize. Here, Billing draws attention to numerous ‘abject’ groups: those who practice the “evils which all decent men thought had perished in Sodom and Lesbia”, who are encouraged towards anti-war sentiment by corruptive German agents through “fear of exposure” and located most specifically in London’s artistic community, affiliated with Robert Ross and Maud Allan.The political mechanisms aligned against these groups recognize a natural, progressive index between them; that is, to be one is as good as being another. This seemingly logical index reaches its most absurd expression in the ritualistic killing of Miss Burton’s dog – “It was a daschund. One of the enemy.” In this way, the specifics of the transgression are deferred, though not entirely, and the abject is covered up and made into a subversive German object which, while hated is describable, knowable, and killable, certainly having nothing to do with the homogenous, cultural ‘I’.Of particular importance to Barker in her exploration of these phenomena are concepts of space and boundaries. Barker is particularly adept at addressing the issue of boundaries within the relationship between Prior and Rivers. Her depiction of their relationship displays how that which is abstract and cultural can transition between mental and physical interpersonal zones. Dominant culture’s practices can attempt to control the abject through its ability to define space, through the ability to say, ‘Your body is such and we have created a territory in which you are allowed to exist.’ In this way, the abject begins to emerge as an object. Obviously, this does not occur universally or evenly across a culture. At its worst, the body is a site of control, a space in which dominant ideologies can reside; definitions and understandings are the individual organs, bones, and muscles that make up the body as a whole. Foucault suggests a similar concept when he says, “The soul is the prison of the body” (Foucault, Discipline and Punish 30). In his book, Foucault is particularly interested in the way a bodily act such as ‘sodomy’ can invite the creation of cultural consequences. Describing the creation of ‘the homosexual’ he says,“Homosexuality appears as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.”This is an evolution of the psychological definition described above, though in a more extreme form; what was previously abject becomes pushed into the realm of philosophical understanding. Through the course of The Regeneration Trilogy we see the various psychiatric, judicial and socio-sexual discourses of the time converge to create an emergent homosexual identity. Barker appoints Robert Ross to be the chief propagator, along with his host of homosexual writers and poets, of a perceived homosexual agenda; duly noted by his strong support for the Oscar Wilde play, Salome. From that point, all people seemingly associated with Ross, be it sexual or otherwise, are considered to be of the homosexual persuasion. In this instance, homosexuality is dispersed from the act of sex and becomes located in a range of behaviors and indicators. Characters in the novel begin to attribute a particular physicality to the homosexual male: he walks a certain way, speaks a certain way and even looks a certain way. The construction of anti-war sentiment is constructed similarly: it is some physically observable and physically-treatable disease. This concept is most vividly explored through the issue of electro-shock treatment. In many ways, electroshock therapy perfectly represents the attempt to transpose the cultural into the body by reducing human consciousness to a series of physically observable electrical impulses, and subsequently controlling that body. Barker explores this notion through the characters of Yealland and Callan, who are directly comparable to Rivers and Sassoon, respectively. Here, Yealland makes aggressive use of electro-shock treatment in an attempt to cure Callan’s mutism: “As soon as he could say words clearly at a normal pitch, he developed a spasm or tremor – not unlike paralysis agitans – in his left arm. Yealland applied a roller electrode to the arm. The tremor then reappeared in the right arm, then the left leg, and finally the right left, each appearance being treated with the application of the electrode. Finally the cure was pronounced complete. Callan was permitted to stand up.”(Barker 205) In this passage, Barker’s use of language is quite particular and mirrors Yealland’s dehumanizing brutality. The sentences, interrupted as they are by punctuation, take on the appearance of list. This reflects the way in which Callan’s body is anatomized by the treatment – he is reduced to his constituent body parts. Aside from the obvious cruelty of such treatment, it is worth considering what kind of statements this treatment makes about Callan’s body. He is his body, his body is deviant, and he is subject to bodily control by the dominant cultural powers. This method of electroshock treatment is an exertion of bodily control and psychological manipulation. When asked if he is pleased to be cured, Callan smiles. Yealland finds his smile ‘objectionable’ and therefore decides that he must be ‘cured’ of that. Of the various disciplinary mechanisms outlined by Foucault in his History of Sexuality, an important mechanism is what he terms ‘confession’, or the passive affirmation of the subject’s discipline: “The most defenseless tenderness and the bloodiest powers have a similar need of confession. The Western man has become a confessing animal.” (Foucault, History of Sexuality 59) So now the confessing subject, Callan, must speak back to his oppressor and affirm his oppression. In this way, he denied even an internal resistance to Yealland, and the doctor goes further to explicitly state, “You must speak, but I shall not listen to anything you have to say” (Barker 203).The asylum, or ‘mad’ space, is also worth considering as a space for discipline and control throughout the trilogy. Yealland’s National Hospital facility is a prime example of this control. Barker constructs the various spaces within the asylum to regulate the movement of patients. These spatial relations mold, shape and discipline the subject through the power of the gaze. In the opening chapters of ‘Eye in the Door’, Prior describes the panopticon-like surveillance of subversive prisoners: “He found himself looking at an elaborately painted eye. The peephole formed the pupil, but around this someone had taken the time and trouble to paint a veined iris, an eyewhite, eyelashes and a lid.”Foucault terms this situation as ‘the unequal gaze’: the constant possibility of being looked at. The actual presence of the unequal gaze is eventually unnecessary as the viewed subject eventually internalizes his or her own discipline and become ‘docile bodies’, a regulated part of the asylum (Foucault, Discipline and Punish 114-17). Yealland’s used the physical arrangement of his patients to suit some “desired impression of tidiness” (Barker 198). In this sense, the patients are decorative parts of the physical landscape within the asylum. They become an aesthetic to the viewer and enforce a certain discipline upon him. It seems that both Barker and Foucault, then, leave the reader with a decidedly negative outlook. The formation of the subject is created through systems of discipline and control. Even those positions that are superficially privileged by these systems of control are nevertheless implicated in them. Rivers describes both himself and Yealland as being similarly “locked in, every bit as much as their patients were.” However, both Sassoon and prior make use of tactical subversion that is comparable Michel de Certeau’s ideas of consumption as outlined in his essay The Practice of Everyday Life (Certeau). Therein, he describes the ways in which dominated subjects “make (bricolent) innumberable and infinitesimal transformations of and within the dominant cultural economy in order to adapt it to their own interests and their own rules.” That is, these emergent categories of ‘homosexual’ and ‘anti-war’ can use the very systems of control in a ‘perverse’ way and subtly reassert their own autonomy. We might take as an example the complex power dynamic that exists between Prior and Rivers, particularly their ambiguous parting at the end of the third novel. Having consented to therapy, and ‘played the game’, he maintains his moral opposition to the war effort but is nevertheless considered ‘fixed’: “Rivers saw that he had reached Sassoon’s file. He read through the admission report and the notes that followed it. There was nothing more he wanted to say that he could say. He drew the final page towards him and wrote: Nov. 26, 1917. Discharged to duty.” Officially, Sassoon is ‘cured’ and Rivers can find no way to express the complexities of his subversion. While Sassoon’s resistance is certainly felt, it is inexpressibly subtle and apparently in line with the discourses that prescribed his commitment at Craiglockhart.If the act of confession can act to discipline the confession subject, there is always a possibility for the confessing subject to speak actively, that is to speak back to the system of control. The title of the second novel, ‘The Eye in the Door’ plays on this concept. While the voyeur has the power to observe, he or she is always at least partly held in thrall by the spectacle – by the desire to see what is forbidden. This is expressed in part in the explicitly spectacular nature of London’s homosexual artists in their performance of Oscar Wilde’s Salome: “Against a yellow backcloth a woman draped in brilliant green veils writhed and twisted. She looked like an exotic lizard or a poisonous snake” (Barker 280.) The social taboo and questionable subject matter of this performance draws the viewers gaze to the forbidden object. In itself, the image of the ‘eye in the door’ recalls the guilty voyeur who looks on that which is forbidden. The characters of the novel are openly aware of the pun between ‘eye’ and ‘I’ (Barker 279). The emergent identity is viewed in its complete form, no longer abject or object, its undeniable existence threatens to become the subject: the ‘I’ in the door. For the first time, the identity becomes understandable. This kind of subversion is directly observable in the therapeutic relationship between Prior and Rivers. Prior continually undermines Rivers and perverts the direction of their relationship. At several points, Rivers is informally analyzed by Prior during their sessions – “Is that the end of my appointment for today, Mr. Prior? (Barker 88). In this way, Prior subverts the assumptions of his environment; namely that he is ‘mad’ and Rivers is ‘sane’. Rivers own stammer comes to stand for the incoherency of what is normal: the ‘madness’ that is hidden in cultural normalcy. Through what appears to be sheer force of intelligence and character, Prior transcends the cultural boundaries to which the other characters conform. He reflects all possibilities but settles for none of them at the expense of remaining contradictory; he is both homosexual and heterosexual, both for the war and against it. So multifaceted is his character that he seems to develop multiple personalities to account for his contradictions. I would argue that Barker does not construct his character as defective or ‘insane’ but rather as a truly radical and subversive subject, who embraces the existential fluidity of his character driven by absurdity towards his death. He approaches the area symbolized by the abject, “a version of the apocalypse […] the fragile border where identities do not exist or only barely so—double, fuzzy, heterogeneous, animal, metamorphosed, altered, abject.”In summation, Barker’s Regeneration Triology is a collection of texts that deal with issues of control and subversion – particularly as they relate to the ‘madness’ of emergent identities. Constructed on the edges of cultural thought, these subjects constitute the ultimate threat to dominant systems of power; in their inconsistency, they reflect the contradictions and arbitrary nature inherent in any cultural formation. They are therefore subject to marginalization and exclusion from mainstream society; ‘madness’ is written onto the space they inhabit and even onto their bodies. Their entire subject becomes a site of contest. Ironically, it is through this system of control that these emergent identities can articulate resistance. Characters like Billy Prior and Siegfried Sassoon are able to transform and invert the system even as they appear to be conforming to it. BIBLIOGRAPHYBarker, Pat. The Regeneration Trilogy. New York: Penguin, 1998.Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House, 1975.—. Dits Et Écrits 1954–1988. Ed. Daniel Defert. Vol. 2. 4 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1976.—. History of Sexuality. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.—. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Random House, Inc., 1994.Kristeva, Julia. Black Sun. Trans. Leon Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.—. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.Winterson, Jeanette. Written on the Body. London: Cape, 1992.

How Barker Establishes the Theme of Emasculation in Part 1 of ‘Regeneration’.

Masculinity, especially in the context of the early twentieth-century, can be defined through the ability to dominate and control. Throughout Part 1, Barker draws our attention to the way in which the war itself has become responsible for a situation in which thousands of men are broken, traumatised and in crisis. She does this through the characters W.H.R. Rivers, an exhausted war doctor, and his ‘shell-shocked’ patients. Among these are Burns, who cannot keep his food down after a disgusting experience, Anderson, a physician terrified by the sight of blood, and the mute amnesiac Prior. It is through Rivers’ treatment of these patients that Barker conveys the emasculating effect of life on the front line.

It is mostly from Dr Rivers’ point of view that Barker presents ideas about emasculation in Part 1 of Regeneration. Barker places Rivers, who was a real man with the rank of Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC), as the central character of ‘Regeneration’. This plays an important unifying function within the novel. For the most part, Rivers is the figure around whom all the other characters revolve. The treatment of his patients leads to his ultimate realisation at the end of Chapter 5 that ‘In advising them to remember the traumatic events that had led to their being sent here, he was, in effect, inflicting pain’, this pain being closely linked to emasculation. The men cannot again become ‘what it is to be a man’, when the treatment takes that away. Rivers himself does not feel emasculated, but Barker uses his point of view to give the reader insight into the emasculation of the patients in Part 1.

Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of an emasculated character in Part 1 of Regeneration is Billy Prior. In this case, Barker uses the symptoms of mutism and amnesia to present ideas about emasculation. In Chapter 5, when Barker first introduces us to Prior, he repetitively uses the note ‘I DON’T REMEMBER’ as well as the presentation of the note ‘NO MORE WORDS’ in response to Rivers’ assertion that he will regain his memory. These short sentences, which provide no medically useful information, evokes the question of whether Prior does not actually remember his service, or if he does not want to remember his experience as it will be emasculating. In this sense, Barker presents emasculation as something that Prior, and the patients in general, wish to avoid.

Of all the characters in ‘Regeneration’, it is Barker’s portrayal of Burns that most clearly expresses the emasculation caused by the horror of twentieth-century warfare. Based upon an actual figure treated by Rivers, Burns’ experience is repellent in the extreme, and even Rivers can find ‘no redeeming feature’ that will enable him to help Burns come to terms with it. When describing the surreal episode when he strips himself naked in the countryside outside Craiglockhart, Barker makes use of sensual imagery to relate the scene to experience of the frontline. She says that ‘he listened for the whine of shells’ and that ‘his fingers touched slime’. This shows how the content of his mind becomes imprinted on the landscape, transforming it into the image of the battlefield he cannot leave behind. It is clear that this scene links to the concept of emasculation when he ‘cupped his genitals in his hand’. The idea that ‘they didn’t seem to belong to the rest of him’ suggests that the war has emotionally castrated him and taken away his manhood. This is truly indicative of the emasculating effect of war.

Barker also establishes the theme of emasculation through the case of Anderson. His descriptions of his dream of being tied up in ladies’ corsets and beaten with a stick which has a snake coiled around it symbolically expresses Anderson’s deep anxiety regarding his masculine identity. The snake is a Freudian phallic symbol, but it also relates to his medical career. The RAMC, of which both Anderson and Rivers are members, uses as its emblem a staff with a snake coiled around it. The dream indicates that Anderson is emasculated, not only by his traumatic war experiences, but also by his inability to continue his everyday life away from war. The principal symptom of his war trauma, a deeply rooted phobia of blood, not only makes it impossible for him to continue to work as an army doctor, but also affects his long-term ability to provide for his wife and child which means that his position as the traditional masculine husband is jeopardised.

It seems that Barker’s purpose for the establishment of the theme of emasculation in Part 1 of ‘Regeneration’ is to convey the central paradox of war. Although being a soldier is a traditionally manly pursuit, it can deprive a man of his masculinity; causing surgeons to collapse at the sight of blood and courageous fighters to become weeping, trembling hysterics. Barker’s wide scope of characterisation means that most aspects of wartime emasculation are successfully conveyed.