In the wake of intense political and social uprise during the 13-15th centuries, three historians focused on the writing history used during the medieval Castile times; Alfonso X, Pero Lopez de Ayala, and Fernando del Pulgar. They wrote on behalf of the crown, and aside from the literary innovation that they brought, they had also played a huge roles in the “increased importance and sophistication of royal histories that led to the professionalization of writing history in medieval Castille.”
From a very early period in time, royalty understood the importance of using careful words in order to appease the public, even if they weren’t entirely sure of what those words actually entailed. Flash-forward to the 21st century, and you’d see that politicians utilize similar methods in order to address the various issues that the public has to share with them.
And on the opposite side of the spectrum, you have a collection of writers who don’t write necessarily for the public’s view, but rather in order to present themselves in a way that not only shows them as people of power within their field, but also people of power who just so happen to be minority as well.
One such example of these people come in the form of “wildness” writers, who “choose essentialized roles for themselves in order to gain some power and agency in worlds where they have been marginalized”. You’ve heard their names, even if the classification doesn’t necessarily sounds right at first. Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Octavia Butler. These authors express their own type of power through their novelizations; depicting their characters in roles of power that may not necessarily be as accessible in real life. In addition to these powerful roles, they take up traditional roles as well, the housewife or the schoolteacher.
If there’s one thing that has remained consistent throughout history in regards to race relations, it’s that the ones in power, also just so happen to be the ones who never seem to learn their lesson. Part of the purpose behind this culture of writing is to present their experiences to those in power while simultaneously honoring the contributions of the people in the culture who made it possible in the first place. It’s a look into the past while simultaneously addressing the problems of today and tomorrow.
As a history buff, this stuff comes off as incredibly fascinating, to put it lightly. Seeing as how my novel-in-progress is mostly historical in nature as well means that I always consider the ramifications that manipulative wording has on the public. With an offset of “fake news” being prominent in our society, it’s always important to separate the facts from the lies when applicable. So then, what happens when the lines become blurred, and you’re left to put the pieces together?
In short, you become your own best source of information. To recall the abstract from the research done by Cynthia Urbanski, “Michel Foucault argues that power is everywhere, all of the time. He describes it as concrete, ‘capillary’, acting in, on and through the actual body. All ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ is an effect of that power, which is why power and knowledge are integrally related. Power/knowledge produces social positioning.”
If knowledge is then, at least partially influenced by those in power, the recent phenomenon of “fake news” suddenly becomes at least a bit more digestible. The public, which has varying degrees of power, are directly contesting those with power, namely news networks, public figures, and even the government. While the agenda is always determined by those with power, the public is free to either resist the impeding change, or to adapt to the agenda as needed. Reading through Urbanski’s dissertation further, she proceeds to explain how four students from an inner-city school became “good” writers as dictated by the curriculum in order to succeed. The agenda was determined for them, but they did not allow it to have power over them.
And in essence, that is where the correlation of power and prosperity comes in. Socioecomical variables decide the playing field, but it doesn’t necessarily result in the balance of power being upsetted, despite the natural tendencies for those with a more prosperous background tending to have more power as a general rule. If the wildness writers and even inner-city students can create their own fate and turn it into empowerment for themselves and for others, true power is being generated through writing after all.
Authenticity in Writing 