The Death of Don Quixote: the Last Technological Extension: Culture, Identity, Coexistence and the Literary Imagination

By Eliezer Oyola

This essay was inspired by the tragic events of September 11, 2001 in New York City and other strategic places in the United States. The author studies the fictional character created by Miguel de Cervantes in 1605 from a variety of perspectives. He relates the death of Don Quixote to the destruction of the famed twin towers, thus arriving at a symbolic interpretation of certain epoch-making events in the history of mankind. Special emphasis is given to imperial politics and the history of communication technology. The term technological extension was suggested by the studies of Marshall McLuhan and others. The main premise is that with every technological extension come vast cultural transformations and new perceptions of the universe. The reader will most certainly perceive in this essay, as James Joyce said in Ulysses, a myriad metamorphoses of symbol.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palibrio
• Release date: May 9, 2011
• ISBN: 9781617648212

Eliezer Oyola

Eliezer Oyola es profesor de lengua y literatura españolas en Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri, USA. Ha ejercido ese cargo académico desde el año 1976. Recibió su doctorado en lengua y literatura por la Universidad de Maryland en 1974. Nació en Humacao, Puerto Rico el 22 de diciembre de 1944. Sirvió dos años en el ejército de los Estados Unidos, 1968-1970. Una de sus actividades predilectas es llevar grupos de estudiantes a hacer el Camino de Santiago.

Book preview

Copyright © 2011 by Eliezer Oyola.

Library of Congress Control Number:       2011928858

ISBN:         Hardcover                               978-1-6176-4607-2

                   Softcover                                 978-1-6176-4797-0

                   Ebook                                      978-1-6176-4821-2

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Palibrio

1-877-407-5847

www.Palibrio.com

[e-mail]

336463

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 The Death Of Don Quixote

Chapter 2 Nothing Comes Out Of Nothing

Chapter 3 The Gutenberg Revolution

Chapter 4 The Extension Metaphor

Chapter 5 Challenges To Democracy

Chapter 6 Defining Moments

Chapter 7 What’s In A Name?

Chapter 8 Language And Cultural Identity

Chapter 9 Education

Chapter 10 Peaceful Coexistence: Windmill Or Giant

Conclusion

References

Endnotes

INTRODUCTION

This essay was conceived in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As I reflected on the historical significance of that day, I thought of a fundamental character in western literature: El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. A work of such magnitude obviates the need to mention its author, since, as Miguel de Unamuno once said, the author is but a pretext; it was Don Quixote who made Cervantes, and not Cervantes Don Quixote. As the character himself says, each of us is the offspring of our works (cada cual es hijo de sus obras).

As the twin towers crumbled, and the nation’s defense bastion was hit, I began to see a complex of strange symbolism that established subliminal connections between the most disparate objects and events in the history of humankind. The towers became symbols. The Pentagon became a symbol. An open field in Pennsylvania became a symbol. The suicidal pilots themselves became symbols. And even the four airplanes symbolically metamorphosed, reminiscent of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, where four airplanes were turned into missiles for the purpose of mass destruction.

Imperial politics throughout history came into clear focus: The Babylonian Empire, the Greek Empire, The Roman Empire, The Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, to name but a few.¹ Since history has shown that all empires have their zenith as well as their nadir, it became clear to me that Don Quixote was the all-time symbol of the waning Spanish Empire. In this sense, as we will see later, Don Quixote can be said to be a decadent novel.

All this symbolism is viewed through the lens of the history of technology and scientific discovery, as well as the impact each new technology and each new scientific breakthrough exerts on human consciousness. For purposes of this essay, and following McLuhan closely, the terms technology, media, and extension are used more or less interchangeably. Since the phrase technological extension is used throughout, I have chosen to use it as the subtitle of my essay. The paragraphs that follow will attempt to explain this symbolism, and how it is imperative that we take a long, hard look at who we are, what we are, where we have come from², and how we can peacefully coexist in a post-9/11 democracy. Some believe that the current U.S. president, Barack Obama, is going in the direction of this illusive peaceful coexistence in a complex multicultural and multiethnic community which is the United States of America.³

The enigmatic question still remains whether we are going in the direction of a Marxist or in the direction of an Islamic state, two ideologies that are diametrically opposed but which are still of concern to the United States as a world power. The controversy as to whether or not allow a mosque to be constructed near the site of ground zero is an instance of the changing face of America. Those who are in favor may make reference to our freedoms, liberties, and egalitarian values. Those who are opposed may claim equally the right not to have such an edifice near the tragic events of September 11, of such transcendence in the history of the nation. The rationale for both views is essentially of a symbolic nature. The point is that, whatever side one takes, it is imperative to remember that the present struggle is not against Islam, but against Terror, no matter the source. Both politics and religion must remain neutral.

CHAPTER 1

The Death of Don Quixote

In 2005 the Spanish-speaking world commemorated the 400th anniversary of the publication of Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Part I (1605).⁴ One hundred years earlier (1905), a similar event took place in celebration of the 300th anniversary of Don Quixote, Part I. Ramiro de Maeztu, a member of the famed Generation of 1898, tells us about it in his seminal essay, Don Quixote, Don Juan y La Celestina (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S.A., 1963).⁵ Maeztu tells how that year he became a lonely voice calling Don Quixote a decadent novel. The furor raised by Maeztu’s critical judgment subsided within a few years, and the critic was able to redeem himself with the essay just cited. Part of that essay is an insightful contrast drawn by the author between Cervantes’ Don Quixote and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.⁶ While the spectator wants Hamlet to take action and avenge his father’s death, the reader is urging Don Quixote to stay home, care for his family, and manage his estate; he is too old and frail to take action on anything. Both characters suffer a tragic defeat, Hamlet because he does nothing and Don Quixote because he does too much. Hamlet’s indecision is captured in the words To be or not to be (being, not doing); Don Quixote’s decisive action in words like I know who I am and everyone is an offspring of his works (cada cual es hijo de sus obras).⁷

The decadence that Maeztu was talking about here was not the sickly turn-of-the-century indulgence of the modernists, but the idea that Don Quixote was a symbol of the declining Spanish Empire, whose gradual demise had begun in 1588 with the defeat of the Invincible Armada. And it was that decadent nature, according to Maeztu, that distinguishes Cervantes’s Don Quixote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Although Maeztu does not say it, a closer parallel to Hamlet would be Calderon’s Segismundo in Life is a Dream, or Shakespeare’s King Lear.

As we have seen, the year 1605 was important in Spanish history because some years earlier (1588) Spain had suffered a devastating blow to its great sea empire with the defeat of the Spanish Armada, ironically named la Invencible, the Invincible One. Military historians maintain that weather and the large Spanish galleons with low maneuverability in the English Channel were responsible for Spain’s devastating defeat. Historians like to claim that, with the exception of the Norman Conquest, no one has ever successfully invaded England.

The rise and fall of the Spanish Empire, as a paragon to that of the Roman Empire⁸, can be viewed metaphorically as a historical sandwich: Conquest—Reconquest—Conquest. The first conquest is the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in 711. The second conquest is the Spanish conquest of the New World beginning in 1492. The Reconquest is the long period between 711 and 1492, the latter year being the year the Catholic Monarchs Fernando and Isabel drove the Moors from Granada. The height of that empire where the sun never set goes, according to our hypothesis, from 1492 to 1588. The rise begins in 1492 and ends in 1588; the fall begins in 1588 and ends in 1898.⁹ Like a 17th century tragedy, the year 1588 would correspond to the climax of the play, complete with the rising action (1492-1588) and the falling action (1588 to 1898). The symbolic tragic hero would be Don Quixote, and his tragic flaw would be the knight’s arrogant belief that he could single-handedly defeat an army of giants and finally bring social justice and the illusive Golden Age to the world, thus bringing about the end of the Iron Age.¹⁰ Even in his deathbed, to pursue the allegory, Wasserman’s knight, egged on by Wasserman’s Aldonza, rises from bed to continue the impossible dream. Likewise Spain, to the dismay of the members of the Generation of 1898, rises from her deathbed in Cuba and the Philippines to confront the United States in a conflict that resulted in a most humiliating defeat. El Cid, the hero of the Reconquest, must not sally again, and to insure it one must fix seven bolts to his sepulcher in Burgos’ cathedral. And Don Quixote, the knight of the woeful countenance or, ironically, of the lions, must be forced to return home and never sally again.¹¹

A historical parallel, though in itself a risky historical assumption, would be to view the year 2001 as the United States’ 1588.¹² The remainder of the 21st century would show if there is to be a corresponding decline and a fatal 1898 to the land of the free and the home of the brave,—from sea to shining sea—, analogous to that of the empire where the sun never set. Are Pax Romana, Pax Hispanica, and Pax Americana aspects of the same Quixotic venture and the impossible dream? Is peaceful coexistence an impossible dream? Is a post-racial world an impossible dream? Is a classless society an impossible dream? Is a war to end all wars an impossible dream?

Let’s face it. You and I cannot do away with the rich anymore than we can do away with the poor (Jesus Christ said that the poor will always be with us). The rich and the poor must live a symbiotic life. One feeds upon the other. To eliminate either is to kill them both. To try to eliminate the rich and make all the poor equal is at best a quixotic dream. Defenders of the class struggles are fond of quoting New Testament scriptures in support of their arguments. A favorite one is from the Magnificat, where Mary says: He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away (Luke 2:52, 53). Another one is from James: Go to now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you (James 5:1). Verses 2-6 elaborate on those coming miseries. Don Quixote’s righting of wrongs falls within this utopic dream. The words from the Magnificat are not meant to nourish the dreams of those involved in the social struggle. The teachings of Christ and the apostles seem rather to promote the idea that it is the Church’s responsibility to take care of the poor, not the government’s. A big government with a hefty social agenda is partly the fault of the Church’s having shirked its mandated responsibilities. For that reason too the knight from La Mancha had to take upon himself the righting of all the social wrongs.

Leo Tolstoy in War and Peace gives an interesting view of certain epoch-making events in History. Historians give many reasons for the defeat of Napoleon’s Grand Army in Russia. No matter what factors can be adduced to explain the defeat of Felipe II’s Invencible and Napoleon’s Grande Armée, the fact remains that, according to Tolstoy, what happened happened because it had to happen, somewhat of a fatalistic view of History. The