11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y.

Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 1/9
Rhizomes Issue 20 (Summer 2010) Michael Y. Bennett
The Minoritarian Linguist in Translation:
Homebody/Kabul's Answer to Deleuze and Guattari
Michael Y. Bennett
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Abstract
This article develops two parallel lines of thought: 1) f irst, it examines Tony Kushner's Homebody/Kabul through the lens of
Deleuze and Guattari's idea of the minoritarian linguist; and 2) then, just like the map in the play marked "Grave of Cain?," I
argue that this play is about what it means to conceptualize the world with a question mark attached to it. Like translation,
where everything is inaccurate because a true translation is impossible, Kushner posits a world (with a metaphoric question
mark attached to it) where everything is utterly unknowable. Knowledge is gained only through translationspersonal, literal,
social, cultural. And thus, although much is lost in these translations, so much is gained in these hybrid moments. What I am
arguing in this article is that Homebody is a minoritarian linguist whose own language is a f orgotten language, but she speaks
in English. What she creates is a minor language that is marked by its hybridity. Homebody's own unique lingual position
mimics the art of translation, with its possibilities and impossibilities. Translation becomes a metaphor f or cultural hybridity. As
a minoritarian linguist, perf ormance yields power, but the inability to perf orm at Homebody's comf ortable level turns out to
have disastrous consequences. Because Homebody is imagined, I argue, as "Homebody?" in Af ghanistan (similar to "Grave
of Cain?), Kushner's play ultimately asks the question that Deleuze and Guattari never ask or answer themselves: what
happens to a minoritarian linguist when read in translation? In a line f rom the play, Kushner suggests that the results of
translating a minoritarian linguist are "bloody, beautif ul." Homebody becomes "Homebody?" when read in translation and is
theref ore susceptible to being "traumatically separated."
Introduction
[1] Tony Kushner's prescient play, Homebody/Kabul, was written only shortly bef ore September 11
th
. "The play takes place
in London, England and Kabul, Af ghanistan just bef ore and just af ter the American bombardment of the suspected terrorist
training camps in Khost, Af ghanistan, August 1998. The f inal scene, Periplum, is set in London in the spring of 1999." [1] The
play is divided up into two acts. Act I is a lengthy monologue by a verbose housewif e named Homebody, who talks about
Af ghanistan and her desire to go there. The plot in Homebody/Kabul takes a rather complex turn af ter Homebody's lengthy
monologue. In Acts II and III, the reader f inds out that Homebody's lif e came to an end in the most brutal way on the streets of
Kabul, where she ventured by herself . Finding out about Homebody's death, her husband and daughter go to Af ghanistan to
retrieve the body only to be given the runaround by the Taliban concerning the location of her body. While Homebody's
husband, Milton, gets high on opium and other narcotics with a British aid worker, her daughter, Priscilla (who is f ull of doubt
about her mother's death) meets a Tajik Af ghan Esperantist poet named Khwaja who helps her f ind out that her mother is
actually alive and well: f aking her death in order to marry a "pious Muslim man of means." [2] Priscilla is told of Homebody's
reasoning: "She wish to remain in Kabul, not to see you nor the f ather of you, her husband of the past." [3] Khwaja arranges
f or Priscilla to meet the wif e that Homebody replaced, Mahala. Mahala corroborates the story that Homebody is in f act alive
and living with her Muslim husband. Mahala wants Priscilla to take her back to London. Priscilla does not want to but is
eventually convinced to try to take Mahala back to London. For his help, Khwaja, also through much convincing, gives Priscilla
some of his Esperanto poem to deliver to a f ellow Esperantist in London. When Priscilla, Milton, and Mahala are f inally ready to
depart f rom Af ghanistan, the Taliban search their belongings and f ind the Esperanto poems in Priscilla's suitcase. The Taliban
say that they are not poems but Tajik inf ormation in codes concerning the placement of weapons, and they claim that Khwaja
is a spy. Thinking Mahala has more papers, the Taliban threaten to kill her. Eventually talking the Taliban out of killing Mahala,
Priscilla and Milton are told that the story that Mahala told them about Homebody was made up: "They have tell you this
woman is wif e of Muslim man, Kabuli man who have marry dead British woman, she have not die . . . This woman is Pashtun
woman, crazy woman, who she is? She is doctor wif e, Doctor Qari Shah." [4] Bef ore the three are allowed to go f ree, they
are told that Khwaja has been arrested and executed. Almost a year later, we f ind out that Mahala is living with Milton in the
same house that Homebody once lived in.
[2] As Jenny Spencer argues, much of the plot of Homebody/Kabul hinges on translation and the dif f iculties surrounding it.
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 2/9
[5] The need f or translation serves as a plot device where conf usion can abound. But much more central to the play, the
need f or translation is only one of the symptoms plaguing the two clashing cultures. Priscilla and Milton are not merely having
trouble f inding out where Homebody is because they are having trouble getting a decent translation: the poor translations are
only symptomatic of the impossibility of translating one culture to another, performing cultural hybridity. It is in both the f ailure
and attempt of translation that, at least, some hope is born in this play. True, most meaning is lost in translation, but there is
something new that is created in the act of translating. In this play, Mahala's new lif e represents that new creation: the
byproduct of two cultures coming together. Homebody/Kabul recounts translation as tragedy, but f rom that tragedy springs
hope and growth.
Translation, Minor Language and Hybridity
[3] In their chapter, "What is a Minor Literature?" in Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari discuss
Franz Kaf ka's "geopolitical triangle of German-Czech-Jews" by noting how "people [in Prague] reproached [the Jews] f or not
being Czechs, and in Saaz and Eger, f or not being Germans." [6] What this means is that Kaf ka was in a very unique lingual
situation: he was a minoritarian linguist. In an indirect response to Benjamin, Deleuze and Guattari discussed the
untranslatability of language. Instead of relying on the task of translators, being a Jew, living in Czechoslovakia and writing in
German, Kaf ka wrote "minor literature:" "A minor literature does not come f rom a minor language; it is rather that which a
minority constructs within a major language." [7] Deleuze and Guattari note the three characteristics of a minor literature and a
minoritarian linguist. First, f or Kaf ka, writing becomes an impossible activity, an impossible one to avoid, and it is also
impossible to write in German. [8] It is impossible f or Kaf ka to write not in German because then he will f eel cut of f f rom his
German Czech territory. It is impossible f or Kaf ka to write in German because then he will not be speaking to the masses but
only the oppressed minority. And it is impossible f or Kaf ka not to write because, as an oppressed person, he must develop a
national consciousness by means of literature. Second, everything f or a minoritarian linguist is political: "the f amily triangle
connects to other trianglescommercial, economic, bureaucratic, juridicalthat determine its values." [9] And third,
everything within a minor literature takes on a collective value. Because minor literature comes f rom a minority, there is not an
abundance of voices where each voice can be heard separately. In this case, each voice takes on the voice of the masses.
And "because collective or national consciousness is 'of ten inactive in external lif e and always in the process of break-
down,' literature f inds itself positively charged with the role and f unction of collective, and even revolutionary, enunciation."
[10] The minoritarian linguist, then, f inds it impossible to speak and not to speak in a major language, is always political, and
always speaks collectively. They have the unique position of subverting the major language and culture by using the major
language to work f or their own purposes. This is a powerf ul move that avoids the need f or translation and the pitf alls that
accompany it. The author controls the original language. This admixture of minor culture and major language produces a
culturally and literally "hybrid" text.
[4] The idea of hybridity works nicely with the current conversations surrounding the play: there is a f ocus on geopolitics and
history. Spencer argues that translation becomes the point of contact between cultures and serves as a "broader trope f or
contemporary geopolitical struggles." [11] Judith G. Miller also sees the global scope and conf lict of the play. Miller argues that
the play gives of f f eelings of a murky international scene, a global f uture without a vision and, "an inability to locate and name
the 'enemy.'" [12] Framji Minwalla examines the collision of a personal, private history and a sociopolitical, public history. [13]
A similar collision can be seen in M. Scott Phillips' argument that the play explores a cultural and political apocalypse as a
"binary opposition" is created "between a consumer-driven western imperialism and a misogynistic anti-western theocracy
represented by radical Islam." [14] The struggle of binaries can be seen f urther in Catherine Stevenson's argument that the
play constantly deals with the "central dialectical struggle between past and f uture, stasis and progress . . . [that helps to]
dramaticize acts of creative negation." [15] This article f its into the conversation by addressing aspects of geopolitical
hybridity through the trope of translation.
Homebody as a Minoritarian Linguist
[5] It needs a bit of explaining as to how Homebody is a minoritarian linguist. Af ter all, Homebody is British and is addressing
us in English. Kaf ka, meanwhile, was Jewish and instead of writing in Czech, the language used where he lived, Kaf ka
wrote in German. Homebody's minoritarian position becomes the most obvious when she begins talking about the guidebook
to Af ghanistan. For Homebody, her language is that of the "guidebook. Its f oxed unf ingered pages, f orgotten words:
'Quizilbash.'" [16] Homebody is deterritorialized because her words come from another time. And though the place may be
the same physical location (England), it is dif f icult to argue that late 20
th
century England is the same place as 17
th
century
England, f rom where words like "gigantine" come. Thus, her native language of f orgotten English words is deterritorialized by
time and, thus, by place. The language of 17
th
century England (metaphorically like Kaf ka's Czech) is subsumed by the
dominant language, 20
th
century English (metaphorically like Kaf ka's use of German).
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 3/9
[6] She, however, does not address us entirely in her native language of f orgotten and made-up English words (like
"Quizilbash"). She tries to address us in modern Englishcreating a story and a minor literature that "doesn't come f rom a
minor language; it is rather that which a minority constructs within a major language." [17] The resulting language that she
creates is a hybrid between f orgotten and made-up English words and modern English that is structured around modif iers
and modif ying clauses. She is "a person who uses words like gigantine," a nearly f orgotten and obscure version of gigantic,
making her "impossible-to-clearly-comprehend." [18]
[7] Furthermore, her monologues spin to the political, because as Deleuze and Guattari say, "its cramped space f orces each
individual intrigue to connect immediately to politics." [19] This same word, "Quizilbash," stirs up the f eeling of something "So
lost; and also so f amiliar." [20] It is in this gesture of connecting the here and the thereby connecting that which is "lost" to
that which is "f amiliar"that Homebody asserts individual agency:
The home (She makes the gesture) away f rom home. Recognizable: not how vast but how crowded the
world is, consequences to everything: the Macedonians, marching east, one tribe displacing another... [21]
Homebody's lif e, even in the comf ort of her home, her most natural environment, is thereby connected to the Macedonians.
That which is lost, "the home away f rom home," is still connected to Homebody. And, in f act, as Homebody argues, her
actions today can even af f ect the past, as there are "consequences to everything." [22] This inevitability of the political
inf used in her language is f ollowed by one collective enunciation af ter another:
What af ter all is a child but the history of all that has bef allen her, a succession of displacements, bloody,
beautif ul? How could any mother not love the world? What else is love but recognition? Love's nothing to do
with happiness. Power has to do with happiness. Love has only to do with home.
Where stands the homebody, saf e in her kitchen, on her culpable shore, suf f ering uselessly watching others
perishing in the sea, wringing her plump little maternal hands, oh, oh. Never joining the drowning. Her f eet,
neither rooted nor moving. The ocean is deep and cold and erasing. But how dreadf ul, really unpardonable,
to remain dry.
Look at her, look at her, she is so unf orgivably dry. Neither here nor there. She does not drown, she...
succumbs. To Luxury. She sinks. [23]
Homebody's minoritarian language becomes clear. She has created a hybrid language that is both political and speaks
collectively; however, Deleuze and Guattari's analysis of minoritarian linguists and literatures f alls short. What I think Tony
Kushner seems to address that Deleuze and Guattari do not address in Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature is what happens
when Kaf ka, f or example, is read in English and not in German, or more specif ically, what happens when a minoritarian
linguist, such as Homebody, is translated.
[8] In her home in London, when telling the dream-like tale of her af f air with the Kabuli hat vendor, Homebody controls her
language. She speaks, as she describes it, "Elliptically. Discursively." [24] But once she is in Kabul, where she must rely on
translations, her self -acknowledged limited knowledge of Farsi makes lingual control unavoidable. Translation becomes,
The touch which does not understand is the touch which corrupts, the touch which does not understand
that which it touches which corrupts that which it touches, and which corrupts itself . [25]
In Kabul, Homebody becomes the child who, through translation, has stepped in f ront of the gaze of the public window,
exposing her dislocationsexposing "the history of all that has bef allen her, a succession of displacements, bloody,
beautif ul." [26]
[9] Homebody is susceptible to these dislocations because, even though she is a minoritarian linguist, she cannot be a
powerf ul minoritarian linguist in Kabul. What, however, is a minoritarian linguist? Minoritarian linguists would answer the
f ollowing questions "no," only because they have created their own language f or themselves:
How many people today live in a language that is not their own? Or no longer, or not yet, even know their
own and know poorly the major language that they are f orced to serve? [27]
The minor linguists, rather, create their own language by subverting "the major language that they are f orced to serve," by
subverting it f rom within.
Becoming "Homebody?"
Cain is the f ounder of a city as well as a f ratricide, the f ather of the arts as well as the f irst person to usurp
God's power of determining mortality, the f irst person to usurp the role of the angel of death.
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 4/9
Tragedy is the annihilation f rom whence new lif e springs the Nothing out of which Something is born.
Devastation can be a necessary prelude to a new kind of beauty. Necessary but always bloody. [28]
[10] Cain serves as a reoccurring symbol of tragedy in Tony Kushner's Homebody/Kabul. As Kushner wrote in his essay,
"An Af terword," f ound af ter Homebody/Kabul, Cain represents a paradox of sorts. Even though he is the f irst murderer, the
f irst destroyer, the arts and all of its creations, sprung up through him. The resting place of Cain, as legend has it, is
somewhere in Kabul. The tragedy of Cain, then, comes to symbolize the tragedy of Af ghanistan. The tragedy of Cain is the
extended metaphor of which meaning is derived in this play. As, ultimately, an extended metaphor, this parable locates its
theme in the map of Kabul. Priscilla, having possession of her mother's guidebook tries to f ind the Grave of Cain. However,
her mother wrote a question mark next to Grave of Cain. Khwaja, Priscilla's guide, comments:
Yes. This says, not "Grave of Cain," but rather, "Grave of Cain?" She was pursuing a rumor. On no of f icial
map is there ever a question mark. This would be an entirely novel approach to cartography. The implications
are prof ound. To read on a map, instead of "Af ghanistan," "Af ghanistan?" It would be more accurate, but."
[29]
The question mark is puzzling on a map because a map is supposed to be authoritative. Thus, the question mark denotes
uncertainty. The Grave of Cain becomes, not a def inite place, but a rough idea. If the grave cannot be located with precision,
it may not exist, and theref ore the nature of the grave itself is lef t in doubt. Reading Af ghanistan as "Af ghanistan?" dislocates
the very nature of the country. The country is not a set place, but a rough idea, one without solid def inition. So too, then, is
Homebody. If Homebody cannot be located with precision, she may no longer exist, and thus Homebody's nature is lef t in
doubt. Homebody is an amalgam of memories, artif acts she lef t behind, and rumors. She is impossible to locate and thus she
must be read with a question mark, f or she is a shif ting and indef inable idea, just like the Grave of Cain.
[11] Because of Homebody's physical transplantation, the plot hinges on interpretations and translations. Like the many literal
translations in the text, Homebody is a body who is f irst transplanted and then necessarily translated. Besides the translation
that was needed due to her journey, we are told by Priscilla that, "She was a mother who demanded interpretation." [30]
Indeed, as the plot suggests, the word "Homebody" needs as much interpretation and translation as the story that is being
told about Homebody to Priscilla and Milton (through translation). So how exactly does Homebody become "Homebody?"
[12] At a October 24, 2002 lecture on translation, translators, and translating at the University of Massachusetts Amherst
called "The White Company: The Construction of English Ethnicity in the Nineteenth Century," Robert Young caref ully pointed
out (though he was by no means the f irst to say it) that the respective Latin and Greek roots of the words translation and
metaphor have the same meaning: "to carry or bear across." (The Oxford English Dictionary shows that roots of both
words contain the verb "to transf er." Robert Young must have been acting as a bit of a translator himself , f or only metaphor
has the root meaning "to bear, carry.") But he went f urther than other scholars by calling metaphor a "creative lie," implying
the same f or translation.
[13] The key to metaphor, and thus translation, is that they are open signif iers that are socially and historically determined, and
they even af f ord an opening f or agency. Of course, I am ignoring the "lie" inherent in these two words. There are countless
instances where the lie is intentional (speaking of translations). There are also countless instances where good-f aith
attempts have been lies. It is these good-f aith attempts that are interesting because they adhere to Foucault's f amous maxim
everything is not bad, but dangerousf or, "The basic error of the translator is that he preserves the state in which his
own language happens to be instead of allowing his language to be powerf ully af f ected by the f oreign tongue." [31] What
can be translatable then becomes a lie.
[14] In London, Homebody is a powerf ul linguist whose control of her own language f irmly helps her establish her own
identity. In some way, she perf orms her identity through language, but her language also perf orms her identity. She claims to
have no control over her speaking, saying that she has read too many books and they are responsible f or her manner of
speech, however she makes it very clear that, besides one dreamy love af f air, only books have broached her, books which
she f reely read on her own. Since she acknowledges that her speech might be dif f icult to understand, she is constantly
rephrasing her own phrases. She acts as her own translator, translating "f or readers who do not understand the original."
[32] Thus, she ensures that she is correctly understood, that nobody can read her incorrectly. However, one time she does
let something slide without attempting a translation:
There is an old Af ghan saying, which, in rough translation f rom the Farsi, goes: "The man who has patience
has roses. The man who has no patience has no trousers." I am not f luent in Farsi, of course, I read this, and
as I say it must be a rough translation. [33]
Unlike other times when the reader may question her meaning, she at least acknowledges the question mark by attempting to
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 5/9
rephrase a line; here, the question mark remains. Though she may be able to remove, or at least acknowledge, a question
mark in her version of English, when she f aces a translation, the question mark is not even addressed.
[15] Theref ore, in Af ghanistanwhere 1) it is dif f icult to tell a translation f rom a "creative lie," and 2) Homebody is not present
she, her actions and her body are translated (by a number of translators with varying degrees of talent in translating)
without the question mark being consideredhow else can she be read other than "Homebody?"
[16] Though the United States is never the center of action, or even remotely close to it, Homebody/Kabul is about countries
like the United States, countries f illed with minoritarian linguistshybridizers of language. The play, then, is about how bodies
who are constantly putting up a f ight against Universal Drif t are read in translation. It is particularly revealing then that
Homebody is not even American. The United States' touch, "the American bombardment of the suspected terrorist training
camps in Khost, Af ghanistan, August 1998""a touch which does not understand"is translated so poorly that it conf uses
those being touched to the point where even dif f erent nations become indistinguishable. The United States, a country whose
potential f or being a minoritarian country of language and literature is great, becomes the "United States?": just as Homebody
a minoritarian linguistis translated to the point where she becomes "Homebody?" "Homebody?" is a wavering idea: one
that cannot be pinned down and def ined with any certainty.
[17] There is something wholly uncontrollable about the minoritarian linguist and Homebody, and this inevitable mistranslation
produces a shif ting border that neither Homebody nor anybody else can understand. Theref ore, a thick border has enveloped
Homebody: this deaf line produces "Homebody?"
Getting Swept Up in the "Universal Drift": Homebody in Kabul
...does that nebula know it nebulates? Most likely not. So my husband. It knows nothing, its nature is to
stellate and constellate and nebulate and add its hef t and vortices and f requencies to the Universal Drif t, un-
self -consciously ef f using, ef f using, gaseously ef f using, and so my husband, and so not I, who seem
f orever to be imploding and collapsing and am incapable it would seem of lending even this simple tale to the
Universal Drif t, of telling this simple tale without supersaturating my narrative with maddeningly inf uriating or
more probably irritating synchitic expegeses. Synchitic expegeses. Jesus. [34]
[18] "Universal Drif t" works like a dominant language that "un-self -consciously" pulls minor languages into "its hef t and
vortices." The "drif t" implies something almost nonchalant, but powerf ul. Languages and people in the presence of a dominant
language are swept up. This is a universalizing gesture: one that negates dif f erence, thus negating the particulars and
peculiarities of individuals and languages. Occasionally there are individuals who, with strong lingual control and play, can
avoid being swept up in the Universal Drif t of language. Someone or some language that "implodes and collapses" may be
resistant to the Universal Drif t, but at the price of or because of , a dislocation, which is "always bloody." [35] This is the drive
behind the phrase "perf ormor else" f rom Jon McKenzie. [36] Perf orm cultural lingual norms or be sweep up in a bloody
dislocation. "Dislocation" comes f rom "dislocate" with its root meaning "to put out of place." Homebody is marked by
"supersaturating [her] narratives." In a world that does not understand her "synchitic expegeses," Homebody is dislocated to
the home. She is put out of place by her language and thus relegated to a space where dangling modif iers and made up
words are allowed. She is "redeployed." She is allowed to have her own lingual rules in her house, out of the reach of the
public and its Universal Drif t of language.
[19] The Oxford English Dictionary def ines a "homebody" as "a person, etc., who pref ers staying at home to going out or
traveling." [37] This is not the type of person who you would expect to say, "Oh I love the world! I love love love love the
world!" [38] Thus, we are immediately led to question Homebody's status as a homebody. The home, f or a homebody,
connotes a retreat f rom the outside world. The world, f or the homebody, is divided, primarily, into a private inside and a public
outside. These spheres remain separate by choice. The homebody is one who is not f orced into solitude but one who
"pref ers" it. Thus, there must be something in the outside world that makes the homebody pref er the inside world, or the
benef its of the private, inside world must outweigh the benef its of the public, outside world. It comes as no surprise, then, to
f ind the character called "Homebody" situated in the home. What is surprising is her obsession with a land so f ar away, her
obsession with Kabul. The obsession does, as she says, take the f orm of reading and research, and this type of solitary
activity is in line with a homebody. [39] But f or a woman who has "never strayed so f ar f rom the unlit to the spotlight,"
Homebody certainly spends a lot of time in both the literal and f igurative spotlight. [40]
[20] What becomes troubling f or Homebody is that though she is in her house, the very place that she should theoretically
"pref er" to be, she clearly f antasizes about being somewhere elsein some other place, in some other time. Homebody says,
"The Present is always an awf ul place to be." [41] Her object of attention, then, becomes both the past and Af ghanistan. This
past and Af ghanistan are dangerous places f or her. Homebody understands the saf ety of her present situation: "Where
stands the homebody, saf e in her kitchen, on her culpable shore, suf f ering uselessly, watching others perishing in the sea,
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 6/9
wringing her plump little maternal hands, oh, oh. Never joining the drowning." [42] In this "saf e" place, she "live[s] with the
worlds utter indif f erence." [43] But she wants this to change. She f antasizes about "joining the drowning." The tale that she
tells is when she visited the "holocaustal ef f acement" of Kabul. [44]
[21] Homebodythe protagonist in Tony Kushner's most recent play, Homebody/Kabul, which is about a woman who goes
over to Af ghanistan and is reportedly murderedf irst performs this implosion and collapse f or us in London, not on the
streets of war-torn Kabul, but in her "comf ortable chair, in [her] pleasant room." [45] Her language is unique: a pastiche of
eclectic words. Af ter Act I, Scene I, Homebody, we have discovered, has perf ormed this same implosion and collapse again,
but in Kabul"a gossipy city...f ull of windows." [46] Away f rom the saf ety of her home, and in the city where the Universal
Drif t is public, open, and transparent like a window, Homebody has intentionally dislocated herself . She lef t the saf ety of her
own home and went to Kabul. Upon travelling to Kabul, she let her body be mangled in such a way that Kabul "ripped her
open" to reveal "her f ucking secrets." [47] This is the "or else" of not "perf orming" normalcy. Her dislocations are revealed in
the gaze of the public:
In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and
passive/f emale. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy onto the f emale f igure, which is styled
accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their
appearance coded f or strong visual and erotic impact so to-be-looked-at-ness. [48]
In f ront of the "windows" of Kabul, Homebody is framed. She has allowed herself to take on the passive f emale role without
agency. In Kabul, a male-dominated society, she gave up her one powerf ul tool: her language. Her language made her a
powerf ul linguist in London. But here in Kabul, she is ripped open by others because she is not f luent in Farsi. She could not
control the image behind the window. She lacked agency because she could not speak. She was silenced, and theref ore,
could only take on an exhibitionist role. Her body, thus, becomes no more than a text to be read by a male doctor in dire need,
himself , of a translation:
The conoid tubercle of the lef t clavicle was f ound to have been traumatically separated f rom the conacoid
process of the lef t scapula f ollowing severe damage to the conoid ligament . . . Af ter dislocation of the
humerus f orm the glenohumeral joint, there was separation and consequent calamitous exsanguination f rom
the humeral stump. [49]
The detailed analysis of what happened to Homebody is "traumatically separated" f rom meaning because of the doctor's
reliance on a language that is understood by only a select f ew. Though the doctor is speaking in English, the language is a
hybrid language of modern English and scientif ic, anatomical terms, unknown to the vast majority of English speakers. Like the
Esperanto that appears throughout Kushner's play, these anatomical terms are meant to serve as universal ref erents. What
the Esperanto poet recognizes, and that the doctor does not, is that these ref erents are not universally understood. In the
same way, Homebody is just as "traumatically separated" f rom the Af ghani population as is the doctor speaking to
Homebody's husband and daughter in English. Because she is not f luent in Farsi, as she admits early on in the play, she has
no way to control the image behind the window. Her perf ormance is a series of powerless speech acts. She is lef t exposed
to the translation of others. Those in the world of windows read her and not the other way around. Whatever has really
happened to her does not matter, but the "Homebody" that is created through language in London is out of her grasp in Kabul.
That Homebody has a question mark on her. We must read Homebody like the map of Af ghanistan is read in the play:
"Af ghanistan?" and "Homebody?" This paper and the play are about how bodies who are constantly putting up a f ight against
Universal Drif tor how minor/minoritarian linguistsare read in translation and how the result is "a succession of
displacements, bloody, beautif ul." In translation, minor linguists suf f er the consequences of not perf orming. They suf f er the
"or else" of the mantra "perf ormor else."
Performing Islam
I am reading the Quran again. For all those terrible years, I was too angry. I am myself becoming Muslim
again. [50]
[22] Una Chaudhuri and Elinor Fuchs recently edited a book entitled Land/Scape/Theater. This collection of essays imagines
the landscape as a new spatial paradigm f or the theater. Inherent in the idea of landscape is the idea of representing space
and place. Landscape is a usef ul concept over "space" and "place" because landscape "is inside space, one might say, but
contains place." [51] In her chapter, "Land/Scape/Theory," Chaudhuri explains how invoking the landscape helped bolster
nationalist ideologies:
...landscape was pressed into service of nationalist ideology by giving 'f ace' to the nation, a f ace suf f iciently
distinguishable f rom those of other nations and suf f iciently simplif ied so as to be easily recognizable and
'quotable' as needed. [52]
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 7/9
We have already seen how the Grave of Cain brought conf usion to Kabul's landscape. Kushner clearly plays of f the above
idea by ironically giving "f ace" to the opening scene in Act Two. Kushner creates a landscape that says that the scene can
only take place in Taliban-run Kabul, but at the same time, it is 'suf f iciently indistinguishable f rom other nations.' Kabul and
Af ghanistan become as indistinguishable as the United States and England:
On a street in Kabul.
Priscilla is in her burqa, trying to read the guidebook's small map through the burqa's grille, holding it
close, changing angles so as to find the strongest light.
A group or women pass by, all shrouded head to toe in burqas, whispering. [53]
Giving "f ace" to the nation and to Islam in the presence of the oppressive Taliban regime becomes the shrouding of it f or
Kushner. In the Kabuli landscape, Priscilla is trying to read a landscape (the map). But even the authoritative map cannot be
translated in this city. It is dif f icult to read the map, f or Priscilla is trying "to f ind the strongest light." The burqa is literally
shrouding the landscape. Under Taliban rules, Islam is conf lated with conf usion and shrouded landscapes:
...can you tell me where the Ladies Hospital is. Or the Red Crescent of f ices, or the U.N. compound, it's all
turned around somehow. [54]
Under the shroud of the Taliban, the geography of Kabul is unreadable and "all turned "Even space becomes dif f icult to
navigate in that society.
[23] It is only when the shroud is removed, in this play, that language can again resurf ace and work to f orm a strong identity.
It is only af ter Mahala removed her burqa that she was able to become Muslim:
...In the same room as Act One. Mahala is dressed like a modern English woman. She looks very different.
She has been reading. [55]
Identity is wrapped up in language. It is only by reading that Mahala can assume her Muslim identity. She says, "The Book is
so beautif ul, even in English. In Arabic its beauty is inexpressible." [56] As Mahala says herself , her English has improved
since she returned to London with Milton. [57] And now in Homebody's house, Mahala has "examined [Homebody's] library.
Such strange books. I spend many hours." [58] The play has come f ull circle at this point. Homebody, the minoritarian linguist,
began the play, and now Mahala, the minoritarian linguist (a native Farsi speaker who speaks in a language not her own,
English), concludes the play. Mahala has been able to "[plant] all [her] dead" only in a place where she can read and "subvert
the language f rom within." [59] Just as Homebody could only assume her identity by playing with language, Mahala can only
assume her identity by playing the powerf ul minoritarian linguist af ter, or because of , a dislocation. Homebody dislocated f rom
London to Kabul; Mahala dislocated f rom Kabul to London.
The Dislocation of Culture
[24] Dislocations also have lasting ef f ects because, unlike a break, where something is severed, the dislocation can many
times continue f unctioning as it once had (only that some movements are more awkward or painf ul than others); f or example,
when a colonial power rules a colonized land, or even when the United States sets up puppet governments in the Middle
East, the natives are merely being ruled in a manner which addresses their needs no better than the inef f icient or corrupt
rulers bef ore the colonizers. Thus, in most cases, a colonial power's rule constitutes a dislocation rather than a break.
[25] And so "Homebody?" becomes the dislocation that pains the elbow, that houses the Af ghani humerus and the Western
ulna. "Homebody?" becomes the point of pain and misunderstanding. "Homebody?" does not break relations between the
Af ghanis and their Western counterparts, but their relationship continues, strained, more mangled than ever. "Homebody?'s"
dislocation, however, produces a new lif e f or Mahala, f rom whose hybrid identity springs a bastion of hope in a play of pain.
The extended metaphor of a dislocation where two cultures have to live side by side with uneasiness works within the larger
parable of translation. Two languages coexist and neither can truly f ind home within the other, but through translation,
something new, a hybrid creation, can be born which is decidedly not the original, but says something about both languages,
and ultimately, both cultures.
Notes
[1] Tony Kushner, Homebody/Kabul (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2002), 5.
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 8/9
[2] Ibid., 69.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 131.
[5] In "Perf orming Translation in Kushner's Homebody/Kabul," presented at the University of Massachusetts, April 2004,
Jenny S. Spencer noted the absolute centrality of translation to any understanding of Kushner's play. See also Jenny
Spencer, "Perf orming Translation in Contemporary Anglo-American Drama," Theatre Journal 59 (2007): 389-410.
[6] Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, trans. Dana Polan (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1986), 11.
[7] Ibid., 16.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 17.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Spencer, "Perf orming Translation," 393.
[12] Judith G. Miller, "New Forms f or New Conf licts: Thinking about Tony Kushner's Homebody/Kabul and the Thatre du
Soleil's Le Dernier Caravansrail," Contemporary Theatre Review 16.2 (2006): 212.
[13] See Framji Minwalla, "Tony Kushner's Homebody/Kabul: Staging History in a Post-Colonial World," Theater 33.1 (Winter
2003): 29-43.
[14] M. Scott Phillips, "The Failure of History: Kushner's Homebody/Kabul and the Apocalyptic Context," Modern Drama 47.1
(Spring 2004): 1.
[15] Catherine Stevenson, "'Seek f or Something New': Mothers, Change, and Creativity in Tony Kushner's Angels in America,
Homebody/Kabul, and Caroline, or Change," Modern Drama 48.4 (Winter 2005): 758.
[16] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 27.
[17] Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka, 16.
[18] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 27.
[19] Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka, 17.
[20] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 27.
[21] Ibid., 27.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid., 28.
[24] Ibid., 12.
[25] Ibid., 28.
[26] Ibid., 27.
[27] Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka, 19.
[28] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 150.
[29] Ibid., 63.
[30] Ibid., 115.
[31] Walter Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator," in The Translation Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 2000), 22.
11/11/13 Rhizomes 20: Michael Y. Bennett
www.rhizomes.net/issue20/bennett.html 9/9
[32] Ibid., 15.
[33] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 13.
[34] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 14.
[35] Ibid., 18.
[36] The concept of "perf orm--or else" is explored in great detail: John McKenzie, Perform or Else: From Discipline to
Performance (New York: Routledge, 2001).
[37] All dictionary def initions herein are taken f rom Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1989.
[38] Ibid., 12.
[39] Ibid., 9.
[40] Ibid., 12.
[41] Ibid., 11.
[42] Ibid., 27-8.
[43] Ibid., 12.
[44] Ibid., 25.
[45] Ibid., 9.
[46] Ibid., 51.
[47] Ibid., 49.
[48] Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan Literary Theory: An Anthology
(Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1999) 589.
[49] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 31.
[50] Ibid, 134.
[51] Elinor Fuchs and Una Chaudhuri, eds. Land/Scape/Theater (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002), 3.
[52] Ibid., 23-4.
[53] Kushner, Homebody/Kabul, 45.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid., 136.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid., 136.
[58] Ibid., 139.
[59] Ibid., 139.