Well, Dr. Spiegel, your syllabus has strangely placed Structuralism at the end of my summer days. I find this to be a strange choice, and unfortunate for students new to literary theory - I highly prefer Dr. Klages' clever decision to juxtapose its ideas early on against those of humanism. It seems to me that these are two fundamental responses and separate paradigm shifts, seeking to frame how we understand selfhood and the roots of creative production. If you don't get that, it could feel like theories appear out of nowhere.
However, because I am already acquainted, I get it. Phew! But man, note to self if ever I teach a course on this...
-_-_-_-_-_
So. Structuralism is, like New Criticism, considers itself the "science" of literature, derived from the Aristotelian view that what we see is composed of basic, essential building blocks. Structuralism is popular in many fields beyond literature, of course, but applied structural literary analysis was highly influenced by the work of linguists - those who happened to study words and language, the "building blocks" of lit.
Because this can be reductive / overly universalizing (ascribing a global, timeless truth to structures and elements), structrualism stops short of discussing actual literary content. Klages bluntly writes that "this may not seem like a very productive or useful way to analyze literature; once you've identified the units and explained the rules, you're done... For those of us who are used to reading literature in order to interpret complex webs of meaing, this kind of... analysis is... dehumanizing" (33).
Indeed. Yet this universal aspect of Structuralism, just like Humanism, assumes that the human mind is a great organizer, if not THE organizer and logic-giver of the universe. Which is interesting - they don't completely oppose each other! Wow!!!
Saussure is responsible for all our lingo-talk about signifieds, significations, parole, langue, syntagmatic and associative relationships, and value. There's plenty of explanation for that which I need not outline, but I'll point out that I love Daniel Chandler's fantastic site - I'd shake his hand, were I in Wales.
All I myself will say is that Saussure's work is devastatingly awesome because he articulated the "jiggliness" of language, and the arbitrary, social construction required in order to produce meaning. Which lead to value judgements. Which then renders language not just a literal tool, but a system rather like a code in which you must belong to the club in order to fully appreciate. As a bit of a polyglot, I get this.
Claude Levi-Strauss, an anthropologist, appplied Structuralism directly to literature by exmamining myths and analyzing their basic units, or skeletons. This is how I myself was taught to read the myths of the British Isles; child + evil stepmother + woods + whatever other elements = a global collection of Hansel and Gretel stories, all variations on the same theme. Klages points out that while Levi-Strauss really, really wanted to be seen as a scientist of the myths he studied, he in fact transposed quite a lot of his own interpretation into their "essential" meaning. What's enduring, I guess, is his visually grotesque notion that literature can be analyzed according to axes, differentiating between story and theme as you interpret a story's skeleton-esque mythemes. While that's far too "Dead Poet's Society" for me, I suppose his larger point is the recognition of the complex meaning - that literature really can't be read only in a "linear fashion," but is perhaps more akin to a piece of music...
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Assignment #11: Lesbian/Gay/Queer Theory
On deck: Gender and Lesbian/Gay/Queer Theory!!!
Okay, so I'm technically conflating four different theories. I apologize. But I've been reading theories of the oppressed for so long now that I had to barrel through the last set as speedily as possible, so as to consolidate my disappointment in the human race and its ignorant ways. However, I hope that the existence of such theory can illuminate and transform our flawed conceptual frameworks... or at least would, if more people were actually taught their premises.
So, the goal of GLGQ is, no surprise, to examine gender dynamics in canonical literature, and to question the categorization of gender - yet another socially constructed binary which is utterly contingent on historical and social programming, rather than, say, biology.
I must admit that I was at first puzzled as to how biology can't be considered an essential difference - until I realized that we're not just talking genitals. Dominant discourses tend to posit the notion that there exists an "essence" of masculinity and femininty - but of course there isn't. Any survey of world cultures clearly illustrates that how a culture defines culture roles varies - there's no basis for believing women or men to be characteristically, "naturally" anything in particular - we learn our roles from our society. Or, as Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born a woman - one becomes a woman." True dat! And God forbid you fail to conform to the gender expectations of your society. Thanks to institutionalized, internalized and inter-gender sexism, I can't even choose flat heels and no make-up without getting comments, usually from my "sisters." Sheesh.
I digress. Or do I?
Anyway, Klages points out that once again, poststructuralist thought has revolutionzed traditionally humanist ways of defining the self. Whereas humanism likes a very pretty notion of a "pure selfhood" - some indescribable core essence within us, which makes us so uniquely us - poststructuralist theory ruptures this monolithic sense of the individual, instead aknowleding the subjectivity of the self. That is, "Human identity is shaped by language, by becoming a subject in language... The shift from 'self' to 'subject' also marks the idea that subjects are the product of signs, or signififers, which make up our ideas of identity. Selves are stables and essential; subjects are constructed, hence provisional, changing, always able to be redefined or reconstructed..." (Klages 112).
I don't know about you, but one of these paradigms lines up with the world that I can observe, whereas the other suddenly seems like the Disneyland version of reality -- a nice thought, and a good time, but certainly a superficial production that is propped up by individuals and institutions alike.
Anyway, Foucault (again!) is greatly credited for breaking open categories of sexual codification, and Judith Butler wrote that "gender is not simply a social construct, but rather a kind of performance" (Klages 118). She poked at Freud's theories and introduced the idea of bricolage - one of my favorite research-y words - into the construction of identity.
Tyson lays out some very insightful sections breaking down and differentiating - as much as is needed - between lesbian, gay, queer and gender theory. To be sure, they all stem from a desire to examine both how identity is portrayed / coded by social cues, conventions, or disruptions and call to our attention that a binary cultural categorization of sexuality is needlessly arbitrary (and carry often punitive consequences). Likewise, the recognition and inclusion of L/G/Q writers has worked to expand the canon. What I really love about this "blinders off" attitude is the way it allows scholars to examine what authors were really (probably) trying to say, as well as how it was received - sort of illustrating the bizzare nature of communal blind spots, such as Emily Dickinson's erotic women-identified poetry. Everyone, not just lesbian/gay/queer writers, qualifies for a gender theory analysis.
Okay, so I'm technically conflating four different theories. I apologize. But I've been reading theories of the oppressed for so long now that I had to barrel through the last set as speedily as possible, so as to consolidate my disappointment in the human race and its ignorant ways. However, I hope that the existence of such theory can illuminate and transform our flawed conceptual frameworks... or at least would, if more people were actually taught their premises.
So, the goal of GLGQ is, no surprise, to examine gender dynamics in canonical literature, and to question the categorization of gender - yet another socially constructed binary which is utterly contingent on historical and social programming, rather than, say, biology.
I must admit that I was at first puzzled as to how biology can't be considered an essential difference - until I realized that we're not just talking genitals. Dominant discourses tend to posit the notion that there exists an "essence" of masculinity and femininty - but of course there isn't. Any survey of world cultures clearly illustrates that how a culture defines culture roles varies - there's no basis for believing women or men to be characteristically, "naturally" anything in particular - we learn our roles from our society. Or, as Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born a woman - one becomes a woman." True dat! And God forbid you fail to conform to the gender expectations of your society. Thanks to institutionalized, internalized and inter-gender sexism, I can't even choose flat heels and no make-up without getting comments, usually from my "sisters." Sheesh.
I digress. Or do I?
Anyway, Klages points out that once again, poststructuralist thought has revolutionzed traditionally humanist ways of defining the self. Whereas humanism likes a very pretty notion of a "pure selfhood" - some indescribable core essence within us, which makes us so uniquely us - poststructuralist theory ruptures this monolithic sense of the individual, instead aknowleding the subjectivity of the self. That is, "Human identity is shaped by language, by becoming a subject in language... The shift from 'self' to 'subject' also marks the idea that subjects are the product of signs, or signififers, which make up our ideas of identity. Selves are stables and essential; subjects are constructed, hence provisional, changing, always able to be redefined or reconstructed..." (Klages 112).
I don't know about you, but one of these paradigms lines up with the world that I can observe, whereas the other suddenly seems like the Disneyland version of reality -- a nice thought, and a good time, but certainly a superficial production that is propped up by individuals and institutions alike.
Anyway, Foucault (again!) is greatly credited for breaking open categories of sexual codification, and Judith Butler wrote that "gender is not simply a social construct, but rather a kind of performance" (Klages 118). She poked at Freud's theories and introduced the idea of bricolage - one of my favorite research-y words - into the construction of identity.
Tyson lays out some very insightful sections breaking down and differentiating - as much as is needed - between lesbian, gay, queer and gender theory. To be sure, they all stem from a desire to examine both how identity is portrayed / coded by social cues, conventions, or disruptions and call to our attention that a binary cultural categorization of sexuality is needlessly arbitrary (and carry often punitive consequences). Likewise, the recognition and inclusion of L/G/Q writers has worked to expand the canon. What I really love about this "blinders off" attitude is the way it allows scholars to examine what authors were really (probably) trying to say, as well as how it was received - sort of illustrating the bizzare nature of communal blind spots, such as Emily Dickinson's erotic women-identified poetry. Everyone, not just lesbian/gay/queer writers, qualifies for a gender theory analysis.
Assignment #10: Postcolonialism/Race
Postcolonialism...
_____---______---_______
Just a little link about Orientalism and Edward Said...
And some Gloria Anzaldua...
And some Homi Bhaba...
----_____-----_____-----
I'll keep this short. My spring research touched on postcolonialism, so the only new information I've gleaned are really just resources that (one sweet day) I'll get around to reading...
Essentially, postcolonial theory examines the effects that colonialism has had on the development of literature and literary studies. This often takes, as its focus, the formation of postcolonial identity. It is similar to feminist theory in its attempt to illuminate discourses of subjugation, which typically serviced imperial narratives of legal, religious, educational, political, aesthetic and military superiority. Narratives - not strictly those written during colonial times or by colonized authors - act as sites for us to analyze for such discourses, and to determine the extent to which the narrative either reinforces or challenges the dominant colonial paradigm.
Interestingly, some of my references discussed postcolonialism in its own chapter, while others combined it with race and ethnic theory. This usually illustrates that theories of race and ethnicity are, naturally, socially constructed phenomenons rather than biological truths; it intersects clearly with a Eurocentric compulsion to define itself positively in relation to a projected, negative definition of an indigenous population. This is referred to as "othering" or, more specifically by Edward Said, as the act of "Orientalism." Montesquieu's "Lettres Persanes" leaps to mind, as well as my general distaste for nearly all 19th century French colonial literature. More pertinent to modern American scholarship, perhaps, is the specific branch of African American race theory, which strives to honor African American creative production after centuries of outright exclusion in the mainstream educational system.
Klages does a nice job of bringing in Gloria Anzaldua and Homi Bhaba, who both examine the ways in which national/racial/ethnic identity are defined, and the consequences of such identification (Klages 157). These scholars write extensively of hybridity. I appreciated that Klages made an effort to connect hybridity to the everyday life, pointing out that hybridity matters to us all because:
-in a humanist tradition, I can define myself as a 31 year old American female, teacher, writer, and mystic.
however...
- in a postructuralist tradition, I am defined as the subject/product of discourses - as she puts it, "my ideas about who I am, about what my sex, race, age, etc. mean,c ome from my position within these ideologies and discourses I inhabit" (158).
That's a depressingly deterministic outlook, I thought. However, hybridity gives me back some hope, becaseu it recognizes that I may be constructed, but I am likely to be constructed by 100s of discourses, which can even conflict! Klages writes that this "overdetermination" means that "there's no predicting what I will think, say, believe or do in any specific situation or in relation to any specific issue or idea. At any moment, I can speak from any of my multple subject positions. And that starts to look almost like having the 'free will' and 'creative uniquness' we valued so much in the humanist model" (158). Hybridity and its recognition of multiplicity defies the stability of binary classification.
So, Bhaba writes about national identity and nationalism, while Anzaldua confronts dominant cultures and subordinated languages by naming the "borderlands" as "the spaces between cultures, classes, races, sexual orientations - the slash" between the rigid binaries often demanded by a colonial entity (Klages 162). Important stuff, indeed.
_____---______---_______
Just a little link about Orientalism and Edward Said...
And some Gloria Anzaldua...
And some Homi Bhaba...
----_____-----_____-----
I'll keep this short. My spring research touched on postcolonialism, so the only new information I've gleaned are really just resources that (one sweet day) I'll get around to reading...
Essentially, postcolonial theory examines the effects that colonialism has had on the development of literature and literary studies. This often takes, as its focus, the formation of postcolonial identity. It is similar to feminist theory in its attempt to illuminate discourses of subjugation, which typically serviced imperial narratives of legal, religious, educational, political, aesthetic and military superiority. Narratives - not strictly those written during colonial times or by colonized authors - act as sites for us to analyze for such discourses, and to determine the extent to which the narrative either reinforces or challenges the dominant colonial paradigm.
Interestingly, some of my references discussed postcolonialism in its own chapter, while others combined it with race and ethnic theory. This usually illustrates that theories of race and ethnicity are, naturally, socially constructed phenomenons rather than biological truths; it intersects clearly with a Eurocentric compulsion to define itself positively in relation to a projected, negative definition of an indigenous population. This is referred to as "othering" or, more specifically by Edward Said, as the act of "Orientalism." Montesquieu's "Lettres Persanes" leaps to mind, as well as my general distaste for nearly all 19th century French colonial literature. More pertinent to modern American scholarship, perhaps, is the specific branch of African American race theory, which strives to honor African American creative production after centuries of outright exclusion in the mainstream educational system.
Klages does a nice job of bringing in Gloria Anzaldua and Homi Bhaba, who both examine the ways in which national/racial/ethnic identity are defined, and the consequences of such identification (Klages 157). These scholars write extensively of hybridity. I appreciated that Klages made an effort to connect hybridity to the everyday life, pointing out that hybridity matters to us all because:
-in a humanist tradition, I can define myself as a 31 year old American female, teacher, writer, and mystic.
however...
- in a postructuralist tradition, I am defined as the subject/product of discourses - as she puts it, "my ideas about who I am, about what my sex, race, age, etc. mean,c ome from my position within these ideologies and discourses I inhabit" (158).
That's a depressingly deterministic outlook, I thought. However, hybridity gives me back some hope, becaseu it recognizes that I may be constructed, but I am likely to be constructed by 100s of discourses, which can even conflict! Klages writes that this "overdetermination" means that "there's no predicting what I will think, say, believe or do in any specific situation or in relation to any specific issue or idea. At any moment, I can speak from any of my multple subject positions. And that starts to look almost like having the 'free will' and 'creative uniquness' we valued so much in the humanist model" (158). Hybridity and its recognition of multiplicity defies the stability of binary classification.
So, Bhaba writes about national identity and nationalism, while Anzaldua confronts dominant cultures and subordinated languages by naming the "borderlands" as "the spaces between cultures, classes, races, sexual orientations - the slash" between the rigid binaries often demanded by a colonial entity (Klages 162). Important stuff, indeed.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Assignment #9: Feminism
Feminism! A surefire way to empower me / piss me off.
-_-_-_-_-_-_
Tyson begins her chapter on Feminism by claiming herself as a "recovering patriarchal woman... socially programmed not to see the ways in which women are oppressed by traditional gender roles... recovering because I learned to recognize and resist that programming" and furthermore "very aware of the ways in which patriarchal gender roles are destructive for men as well as women" (86-87).
As I read a variety of materials on this topic, I can't help but feel bad/sad/mad about the ways in which I can so clearly see and experience the oppression of patriarchal ideology in my own life. In 2010! It's funny to be raised believing that you are a "feminist" because... um... girls rock, I guess. Real feminist theory isn't that complex, but it does demand an utter earthquake in terms of how you understand your world - I can see why most people are comfortable keeping their misconceptions. No wonder my former impressions of the field seem either simplified or villanized.
Of course, the central premise of feminism rests on the stance that females have historically been, and continue to be, oppressed economically, politically, socially, and psychologically. Men are likewise prisoners of this ideology, which imposes binary thinking onto the reality of a multifaceted world, constructing false social boundaries between male and female (and everything in between). Both men and women are oppressed, in the end; however, women generally suffer the more severe material and psychological effects. The power of this ideology is evidenced in the immediate stigma routinely attached to those who question this inequitable power dynamic - by the media, by institutions, by workplaces, by social groups... I rather think that anyone who made it through an American middle school can attest to the (nearly literal) do-or-die mentality that children absorb and re-enact on the playground, punishing all those who fail to fall immediately into gender norms. I recall the little girl in my 7th grade class who was tormented for months because of her too-short haircut in our small town; conversely, I can't recall any boys with long hair. Kids turn quickly into adults without ever being challenged as to why they cling so tightly to these conventions. Which gives us yet another reason why critical theory should be a required class for every university student, if not every high school student, in a respectable educational system.
But I digress; otehr premises of Feminism, as outlined by Tyson, include:
- female are objectived and defined only by their differences from male norms and values
- Western civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal / phallogocentric ideology, imposing and demanding male vocabulary, logic, norms and values; thus validating only masculine modes of determining "objective knowledge"
- Biology determines sex, but culture determines gender, which means multiple conceptual frameworks exist - there is no universal definition of what a Woman (or man!) is.
- Gender issues, whether we recognize it or not, play a critical role in the production and experience of literature (and everything else, really)
- Feminism is ultimatley political in that by identifying sites of subjugation and inequality, it seeks to undermine and replace the oppressive patriarchal system with equality.
Huzzah!
There are two main trains of thought which I'll briefly point out:
FRENCH FEMINISM
1. Materialist feminism - patriarchal conditions and institutions control te mateiral and economic conditions by which society oppresses women. Notable scholars include Simone de Beauvoir, Christine Delphy, and Colette Guillaumin. I'd really like to get a copy of "The Second Sex" soon, as Beauvoir's comments on the social contract of marriage are particularly amazing.
2. Psychoanalytic feminism: an analysis focused more on the individual psyche, with a goal of investingating the patriarchal ideology's influence over female experience and creativity. Cisoux and Iverigary focus specifically on language as the "ground zero" of patriarchal subjugation, extending Lacan's arguments about the (arbitrary) social construction and assignation of meaning to language.
Unsurprisingly, I am fascinated by this branch. Lacan speaks of the Symbolic Order and our entry into it, as well as women's position on the border or margins of what constitutes the center - or, the Phallus and its concurrent priorities of linear logic, presence, and control. The possibilities of the border include the possibilities of resistance, play, creativity, and disruption - a space which allows for evasion and escape from the concrete and into the abyss, the imagination, the body, emotion. Clearly, this is amazing, but clearly too extremely dangerous for those whose identitites and livelihoods depend on the maintenance of the center.
Cixous followed that up by pointing out the impossibility of accurately representing the feminine, because it can be defined only within masculine terms - which typically present female as the "other," something which "lacks" in comparison to the masculine. She asks whether the woman can truly write or speak at all, implying that our very language is an imposed system which fails to capture the feminine, which denies its natural state. I particularly enjoyed learning that Cisoux equates "writing with masturbation, something that for women is supposed to be secret, shameful, or silly, something not quite grown up, something that will be renounced in order to achieve full adulthood, just as clitoral stimulation has to be renounced in favor of vaginal reproductive passive adult sexuality" (Klages 99).
[My personal aside] IT'S SO TRUE!!! As a female writer I've experienced an unnameable frustration with the occasional failure of words to capture what I need to say - a feeling which, upon reflection, is more often tied to form than words, and the bothersome (assumed) weight that I must conform to conventions in order to "be understood." This, mind you, after years of getting the message loud and clear that writing was a silly, selfish, and embarrassing past time that would lead me nowhere. Now, did the purveyors of these messages convey them expressly, nefariously, in order to "keep me down"? Of course not. I believe that the men and women who most loudly spout oppressive nonsense are typically the most psychologically opppressed people out there - terrified by any challenge which, if not quashed, would unravel their worldview. What's sticky is the realization is that people can do this out of love! Take parents, for example - my mom and dad surely don't realize that their discouragement of my dreams was, consequently, a denial of my talents, passions, professional dispositions - in other words, an effective rejection of the self. I'm sure, rather, that they were raised in rural American of the 1940's and 1950's, and do not question the following patriarchal ideological premises which dominated the ultra-conservative time and culture into which they were born:
-a man shows no emotion, and financial security is the ultiamte measure of his success,
- a woman's only chance for security and happiness is within marriage,
- creative pursuits are at best hobbies, certainly not lifestyles
And so on. Given that these are untested absolutes for them both, I can at least recognize that their social programming would guide them to believe that marriage was my best bet, in terms of meeting my future economic and psychological needs. Why would they encourage me to pursue a career, let alone a dangerously liberal occupation within the arts and education?
Anyway. Cixous and Irigaray are often complelled to discuss the concept of ecriture feminine, a language that itself is set free from patriarchal ideologies. I also like that Cixous considered poetry an appropriate potential vehicle for this site of resistance and transformation, and agree with the idea that the novel is, really, an "ally" of the boys-in-charge. Sorry, Jane Austen. Both of these French philosophers very much tie the female body into the equation, as they claim that both men and women are "alienated" from their bodies as a consequence of entering civilization, or what Lacan calls the Symbolic Order.
ANGLO-AMERICAN FEMINISM: has apparently been more focused on the nuts and bolts of figureing out how and why women have been excluded, discouraged, prevented and neglected from the literary canon. Early AAFs unknowningly adopted a humanist stance, assuming that the author was an original creator - the French school, in contrast, "asks how gender shaped the structure of language itself AND an individual's access to that structure" (Klages 95).
So. Feminist literary theory examines how women's roles have changed, how their experiences differ from men's, and how the binary oppositions favored by Western culture appear within literature in ways which concsiously or un-consciously further the domination of females. Fascinating stuff.
-_-_-_-_-_-_
Tyson begins her chapter on Feminism by claiming herself as a "recovering patriarchal woman... socially programmed not to see the ways in which women are oppressed by traditional gender roles... recovering because I learned to recognize and resist that programming" and furthermore "very aware of the ways in which patriarchal gender roles are destructive for men as well as women" (86-87).
As I read a variety of materials on this topic, I can't help but feel bad/sad/mad about the ways in which I can so clearly see and experience the oppression of patriarchal ideology in my own life. In 2010! It's funny to be raised believing that you are a "feminist" because... um... girls rock, I guess. Real feminist theory isn't that complex, but it does demand an utter earthquake in terms of how you understand your world - I can see why most people are comfortable keeping their misconceptions. No wonder my former impressions of the field seem either simplified or villanized.
Of course, the central premise of feminism rests on the stance that females have historically been, and continue to be, oppressed economically, politically, socially, and psychologically. Men are likewise prisoners of this ideology, which imposes binary thinking onto the reality of a multifaceted world, constructing false social boundaries between male and female (and everything in between). Both men and women are oppressed, in the end; however, women generally suffer the more severe material and psychological effects. The power of this ideology is evidenced in the immediate stigma routinely attached to those who question this inequitable power dynamic - by the media, by institutions, by workplaces, by social groups... I rather think that anyone who made it through an American middle school can attest to the (nearly literal) do-or-die mentality that children absorb and re-enact on the playground, punishing all those who fail to fall immediately into gender norms. I recall the little girl in my 7th grade class who was tormented for months because of her too-short haircut in our small town; conversely, I can't recall any boys with long hair. Kids turn quickly into adults without ever being challenged as to why they cling so tightly to these conventions. Which gives us yet another reason why critical theory should be a required class for every university student, if not every high school student, in a respectable educational system.
But I digress; otehr premises of Feminism, as outlined by Tyson, include:
- female are objectived and defined only by their differences from male norms and values
- Western civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal / phallogocentric ideology, imposing and demanding male vocabulary, logic, norms and values; thus validating only masculine modes of determining "objective knowledge"
- Biology determines sex, but culture determines gender, which means multiple conceptual frameworks exist - there is no universal definition of what a Woman (or man!) is.
- Gender issues, whether we recognize it or not, play a critical role in the production and experience of literature (and everything else, really)
- Feminism is ultimatley political in that by identifying sites of subjugation and inequality, it seeks to undermine and replace the oppressive patriarchal system with equality.
Huzzah!
There are two main trains of thought which I'll briefly point out:
FRENCH FEMINISM
1. Materialist feminism - patriarchal conditions and institutions control te mateiral and economic conditions by which society oppresses women. Notable scholars include Simone de Beauvoir, Christine Delphy, and Colette Guillaumin. I'd really like to get a copy of "The Second Sex" soon, as Beauvoir's comments on the social contract of marriage are particularly amazing.
2. Psychoanalytic feminism: an analysis focused more on the individual psyche, with a goal of investingating the patriarchal ideology's influence over female experience and creativity. Cisoux and Iverigary focus specifically on language as the "ground zero" of patriarchal subjugation, extending Lacan's arguments about the (arbitrary) social construction and assignation of meaning to language.
Unsurprisingly, I am fascinated by this branch. Lacan speaks of the Symbolic Order and our entry into it, as well as women's position on the border or margins of what constitutes the center - or, the Phallus and its concurrent priorities of linear logic, presence, and control. The possibilities of the border include the possibilities of resistance, play, creativity, and disruption - a space which allows for evasion and escape from the concrete and into the abyss, the imagination, the body, emotion. Clearly, this is amazing, but clearly too extremely dangerous for those whose identitites and livelihoods depend on the maintenance of the center.
Cixous followed that up by pointing out the impossibility of accurately representing the feminine, because it can be defined only within masculine terms - which typically present female as the "other," something which "lacks" in comparison to the masculine. She asks whether the woman can truly write or speak at all, implying that our very language is an imposed system which fails to capture the feminine, which denies its natural state. I particularly enjoyed learning that Cisoux equates "writing with masturbation, something that for women is supposed to be secret, shameful, or silly, something not quite grown up, something that will be renounced in order to achieve full adulthood, just as clitoral stimulation has to be renounced in favor of vaginal reproductive passive adult sexuality" (Klages 99).
[My personal aside] IT'S SO TRUE!!! As a female writer I've experienced an unnameable frustration with the occasional failure of words to capture what I need to say - a feeling which, upon reflection, is more often tied to form than words, and the bothersome (assumed) weight that I must conform to conventions in order to "be understood." This, mind you, after years of getting the message loud and clear that writing was a silly, selfish, and embarrassing past time that would lead me nowhere. Now, did the purveyors of these messages convey them expressly, nefariously, in order to "keep me down"? Of course not. I believe that the men and women who most loudly spout oppressive nonsense are typically the most psychologically opppressed people out there - terrified by any challenge which, if not quashed, would unravel their worldview. What's sticky is the realization is that people can do this out of love! Take parents, for example - my mom and dad surely don't realize that their discouragement of my dreams was, consequently, a denial of my talents, passions, professional dispositions - in other words, an effective rejection of the self. I'm sure, rather, that they were raised in rural American of the 1940's and 1950's, and do not question the following patriarchal ideological premises which dominated the ultra-conservative time and culture into which they were born:
-a man shows no emotion, and financial security is the ultiamte measure of his success,
- a woman's only chance for security and happiness is within marriage,
- creative pursuits are at best hobbies, certainly not lifestyles
And so on. Given that these are untested absolutes for them both, I can at least recognize that their social programming would guide them to believe that marriage was my best bet, in terms of meeting my future economic and psychological needs. Why would they encourage me to pursue a career, let alone a dangerously liberal occupation within the arts and education?
Anyway. Cixous and Irigaray are often complelled to discuss the concept of ecriture feminine, a language that itself is set free from patriarchal ideologies. I also like that Cixous considered poetry an appropriate potential vehicle for this site of resistance and transformation, and agree with the idea that the novel is, really, an "ally" of the boys-in-charge. Sorry, Jane Austen. Both of these French philosophers very much tie the female body into the equation, as they claim that both men and women are "alienated" from their bodies as a consequence of entering civilization, or what Lacan calls the Symbolic Order.
ANGLO-AMERICAN FEMINISM: has apparently been more focused on the nuts and bolts of figureing out how and why women have been excluded, discouraged, prevented and neglected from the literary canon. Early AAFs unknowningly adopted a humanist stance, assuming that the author was an original creator - the French school, in contrast, "asks how gender shaped the structure of language itself AND an individual's access to that structure" (Klages 95).
So. Feminist literary theory examines how women's roles have changed, how their experiences differ from men's, and how the binary oppositions favored by Western culture appear within literature in ways which concsiously or un-consciously further the domination of females. Fascinating stuff.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Assignment #8: New Historicism
New Historicism / Cultural Poetics...
(p.s., this is #8 out of 12 total!!! As much fun as I'm having, i'll be glad to have a bit more summertime...)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Summertime beckons, and as much as I enjoy lit theory - I must confess that I want to wrap it up soon. I mean, I get it. Structuralism aside, I'm now into "safe" territory in that many of the remaining theories I have to examine will be simple reviews. Or so I hope. It's really gorgeous outside today...
Anyway, New Historicism is yet another theoretical approach with which I identify. I grew up in the house of an armchair historian, who complained when my 8th grade history teacher inserted the subject of "women" into the curriculum. This rather scary memory reminds me that New Historicism, although seemingly common sense, is actually a revelatory way of reassessing what we know, how we know it, and how this guides our understanding of literature (and, well, the world). However, many people are (still) not comfortable accepting this premise!
The historicism which dominated literary theory before the 1940's attempted to link the academic disciplines of literature and history through explicit / covert links to events, or by providing background information sufficient enough to illustrate how the text encapsulated an era's zeitgeist (Ryan 128).
New Historicism believes that history is a narrative - a collection of stories that a culture tells itself about itself. It is not comprised of facts, but rather various subjective interpretations. What we may accept as "true" or "natural" accounts of the past only seem "natural" because our culture has successfully imprinted them as such into our worldview. It is furthermore an inherent bias for traditional historians to consider history as a linear, causal and progressive chain of events based on the objective observation of facts - because in truth, much of "the facts" are hidden, obscured, or unknowable because they were not included, ignored, downplayed or cut out, particularly if they failed to conform to the mainstream values of the culture.
Literature is one of many manifestations of the discourses which circulated during a particular era. A NH critic practising 'thick description' attempts to interpret texts as a cultural artifact which "can tell us... about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meaning, operating int eh time and place in which these texts were written" (Tyson 287). An author writes within a particular framework of social conventions, cultural codes and worldviews - history is therefore not a separable entity from literature, and vice versa. Foucault is often celebrated within NH criticism for reminding us that language and discourses convey human experience in a subjective manner, whether consciously or unconsiously. The author (and individual, for that matter) 'negotiates' the "contraints and freedoms offered at any given moment in time by the society in which we live" (284). Ryan notes that Foucault also encouraged a move away from the Marxist-macro issues of economics and politics and towards a recognition of the micro-narrative - how individuals themselves constitute meaning in a culture, and are likewise subject to the meaning created for them by society.
Ryan insists that for the NH critics, there is no such thing as a monolithic sense of history - that their job is in fact to "trace out the multiple and complexly interconnected histories that make up an age" (130). He quite beautifully writes that "mimesis or literary representation is itself a social relation of production in that it is connected to status hierarchies, resistances, and conflicts elsewhere in the culture" (131). Therefore, historical research is necessary in order to flesh out our understanding of an era - Stephen Greenblatt's focus on representations of power with Shakespeare's "Henry" plays illustrate often that even instances of subversion operate to reinforce the play's ultimate bow to monarchical power.
I might have mentioned cultural poetics in the title of this post, but ultimately it's a whole other - though connected subject. Tyson only writes that the principles are basically the same, but that CP takes on a more politically active dimension, seeking to change social conditions. This makes sense, as most of the CP folk I know are interested in theorizing about and empowering what has traditionally been maligned as "low" or "popular" culture - making them more typically rooted to the present than the distant past.
(p.s., this is #8 out of 12 total!!! As much fun as I'm having, i'll be glad to have a bit more summertime...)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Summertime beckons, and as much as I enjoy lit theory - I must confess that I want to wrap it up soon. I mean, I get it. Structuralism aside, I'm now into "safe" territory in that many of the remaining theories I have to examine will be simple reviews. Or so I hope. It's really gorgeous outside today...
Anyway, New Historicism is yet another theoretical approach with which I identify. I grew up in the house of an armchair historian, who complained when my 8th grade history teacher inserted the subject of "women" into the curriculum. This rather scary memory reminds me that New Historicism, although seemingly common sense, is actually a revelatory way of reassessing what we know, how we know it, and how this guides our understanding of literature (and, well, the world). However, many people are (still) not comfortable accepting this premise!
The historicism which dominated literary theory before the 1940's attempted to link the academic disciplines of literature and history through explicit / covert links to events, or by providing background information sufficient enough to illustrate how the text encapsulated an era's zeitgeist (Ryan 128).
New Historicism believes that history is a narrative - a collection of stories that a culture tells itself about itself. It is not comprised of facts, but rather various subjective interpretations. What we may accept as "true" or "natural" accounts of the past only seem "natural" because our culture has successfully imprinted them as such into our worldview. It is furthermore an inherent bias for traditional historians to consider history as a linear, causal and progressive chain of events based on the objective observation of facts - because in truth, much of "the facts" are hidden, obscured, or unknowable because they were not included, ignored, downplayed or cut out, particularly if they failed to conform to the mainstream values of the culture.
Literature is one of many manifestations of the discourses which circulated during a particular era. A NH critic practising 'thick description' attempts to interpret texts as a cultural artifact which "can tell us... about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meaning, operating int eh time and place in which these texts were written" (Tyson 287). An author writes within a particular framework of social conventions, cultural codes and worldviews - history is therefore not a separable entity from literature, and vice versa. Foucault is often celebrated within NH criticism for reminding us that language and discourses convey human experience in a subjective manner, whether consciously or unconsiously. The author (and individual, for that matter) 'negotiates' the "contraints and freedoms offered at any given moment in time by the society in which we live" (284). Ryan notes that Foucault also encouraged a move away from the Marxist-macro issues of economics and politics and towards a recognition of the micro-narrative - how individuals themselves constitute meaning in a culture, and are likewise subject to the meaning created for them by society.
Ryan insists that for the NH critics, there is no such thing as a monolithic sense of history - that their job is in fact to "trace out the multiple and complexly interconnected histories that make up an age" (130). He quite beautifully writes that "mimesis or literary representation is itself a social relation of production in that it is connected to status hierarchies, resistances, and conflicts elsewhere in the culture" (131). Therefore, historical research is necessary in order to flesh out our understanding of an era - Stephen Greenblatt's focus on representations of power with Shakespeare's "Henry" plays illustrate often that even instances of subversion operate to reinforce the play's ultimate bow to monarchical power.
I might have mentioned cultural poetics in the title of this post, but ultimately it's a whole other - though connected subject. Tyson only writes that the principles are basically the same, but that CP takes on a more politically active dimension, seeking to change social conditions. This makes sense, as most of the CP folk I know are interested in theorizing about and empowering what has traditionally been maligned as "low" or "popular" culture - making them more typically rooted to the present than the distant past.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Assignment #7: Marxism
Here it comes... Marxism!!!
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
As it turns out, I didn't need much of a review for this, because apparently I'm a little bit Marxist!
A Marxist perspective adheres to the belief that "differences in socioeconomic class divice people in ways that are much more significant than differences in religion, race, ethnicity, or gender" (Tyson 54). Marx himself believed that economics formed the base which undergrids all social / political ideological superstructures. Therefore, to interpret history (or literature) demands that we take into account the material conditions under which historical events / phenomenon are formed.
My own research has delved often into ideology, or as Tyson defines it, "belief systems... [which are the] products of cultural conditioning" (56). Capitalism, nationalism, religion, the American Dream, yoga - ideologies all. And sometimes undesirable and repressive, seeking to "prevent us from understanding the material / historical conditions in which we live because they refuse to acknowledge that those conditions have any bearing on the way we see the world" (57). I was just reading a 1941 essay by Adorno, on the subject of popular music, and frankly - I think it still holds water. Standardized pop culture distracting and depoliticizing the proletariat? Check! I mean, why is it that I feel more emotion about Lady Gaga's new video than the BP oil spill? Which one does the media shove in my face, dissect, and glamorize? Certainly not the real issues, which if I perhaps better understood, I would be more angry. I'd be able to talk to others about this anger, thereby risking mass action, thereby leading to the dreaded revolutions so feared by the bourgeousie ("those who control the world's natural, economic, and human resources" 54). In theory. At least I know enough to be suspicious of the American media and its quiet downplaying (or outright manipulation and polarization of) issues which, like it or not, impact my life - and probably not for my benefit.
My other favorite ideas from Marxism [all definitions from Ann B. Dobie's text]:
-conspicious consumption! (the obvious acquissition of things only for their sign value and/or exchange value", 92)
- material circumstances! (the economic conditions underlying society. To understand social events, one must have a grasp of the material circumstancse and the historical situation in which they occur, 92)
- superstructure! )the social ,political, and ideological systems and institutions - for example, teh values, art, and legal processes of a society - that are generated by the base"
-dialectical materialism! )the theory that history develops neither in a random fashion nor in a linear one but instead as a strugle between contradictions that ultimately find resolution in a synthesis of both sides."
So, Marxist lit critics consider how literature is located within its social, economic, and historical context, "and to undrstand how the ideas advanced in the work relate to the ideas and values that circulated in the society of the time" (Ryan 54). Frankly, Marxism makes it difficult for me to blindly enjoy, say, "The Song of Roland," because clearly this "classic" was unknown to the majority of actual medieval people - illiterate folk for whom oral storytelling and visual arts (via stained glass and public religious art) formed an important part of the culture. If I ever get to be a professor, you can be sure I'll be teaching both. The texts we have today are reflective of only a tiny minority, consisting of the literate and the rich - save the monastic scribes who also had access to them, of course. Sure, it's fun to dwell on the mystical aspects of Arthurian literature, but aren't we perpetuating snobbery? Aren't students (and scholars) left with a superficial and elitist understanding of literature without the inclusion of a Marxist perspective? I'm not trying to overtly politicize the classroom, but rather embrace the Marxist call to examine, analyze, and acknowledge that class differences and ideologies are part and parcel of culture; that literature is a production of culture, and therefore it's a critical link to take into account in order to in turn examine our social, political and economic circumstances today. Engels, who wrote of the creation of a false consciousness, would agree.
I'm strollling leisurely through my Eagleton too, but as it is a warm summer day, Gramsci nearly put me to sleep.
Questions to pose in a Marxist vein (adapted from Tyson 68):
1. Does the work reinforce (intentionally or not) capitalist, imperialist, or classist values?
2. How might the work be a critique of such values?
3. does teh work reflect (intentionally or not) the socioeconomic conditiosn of the time in which it was written?
4. How does ideology function to keep a character from realizing and resisting socioeconomic oppression?
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
As it turns out, I didn't need much of a review for this, because apparently I'm a little bit Marxist!
A Marxist perspective adheres to the belief that "differences in socioeconomic class divice people in ways that are much more significant than differences in religion, race, ethnicity, or gender" (Tyson 54). Marx himself believed that economics formed the base which undergrids all social / political ideological superstructures. Therefore, to interpret history (or literature) demands that we take into account the material conditions under which historical events / phenomenon are formed.
My own research has delved often into ideology, or as Tyson defines it, "belief systems... [which are the] products of cultural conditioning" (56). Capitalism, nationalism, religion, the American Dream, yoga - ideologies all. And sometimes undesirable and repressive, seeking to "prevent us from understanding the material / historical conditions in which we live because they refuse to acknowledge that those conditions have any bearing on the way we see the world" (57). I was just reading a 1941 essay by Adorno, on the subject of popular music, and frankly - I think it still holds water. Standardized pop culture distracting and depoliticizing the proletariat? Check! I mean, why is it that I feel more emotion about Lady Gaga's new video than the BP oil spill? Which one does the media shove in my face, dissect, and glamorize? Certainly not the real issues, which if I perhaps better understood, I would be more angry. I'd be able to talk to others about this anger, thereby risking mass action, thereby leading to the dreaded revolutions so feared by the bourgeousie ("those who control the world's natural, economic, and human resources" 54). In theory. At least I know enough to be suspicious of the American media and its quiet downplaying (or outright manipulation and polarization of) issues which, like it or not, impact my life - and probably not for my benefit.
My other favorite ideas from Marxism [all definitions from Ann B. Dobie's text]:
-conspicious consumption! (the obvious acquissition of things only for their sign value and/or exchange value", 92)
- material circumstances! (the economic conditions underlying society. To understand social events, one must have a grasp of the material circumstancse and the historical situation in which they occur, 92)
- superstructure! )the social ,political, and ideological systems and institutions - for example, teh values, art, and legal processes of a society - that are generated by the base"
-dialectical materialism! )the theory that history develops neither in a random fashion nor in a linear one but instead as a strugle between contradictions that ultimately find resolution in a synthesis of both sides."
So, Marxist lit critics consider how literature is located within its social, economic, and historical context, "and to undrstand how the ideas advanced in the work relate to the ideas and values that circulated in the society of the time" (Ryan 54). Frankly, Marxism makes it difficult for me to blindly enjoy, say, "The Song of Roland," because clearly this "classic" was unknown to the majority of actual medieval people - illiterate folk for whom oral storytelling and visual arts (via stained glass and public religious art) formed an important part of the culture. If I ever get to be a professor, you can be sure I'll be teaching both. The texts we have today are reflective of only a tiny minority, consisting of the literate and the rich - save the monastic scribes who also had access to them, of course. Sure, it's fun to dwell on the mystical aspects of Arthurian literature, but aren't we perpetuating snobbery? Aren't students (and scholars) left with a superficial and elitist understanding of literature without the inclusion of a Marxist perspective? I'm not trying to overtly politicize the classroom, but rather embrace the Marxist call to examine, analyze, and acknowledge that class differences and ideologies are part and parcel of culture; that literature is a production of culture, and therefore it's a critical link to take into account in order to in turn examine our social, political and economic circumstances today. Engels, who wrote of the creation of a false consciousness, would agree.
I'm strollling leisurely through my Eagleton too, but as it is a warm summer day, Gramsci nearly put me to sleep.
Questions to pose in a Marxist vein (adapted from Tyson 68):
1. Does the work reinforce (intentionally or not) capitalist, imperialist, or classist values?
2. How might the work be a critique of such values?
3. does teh work reflect (intentionally or not) the socioeconomic conditiosn of the time in which it was written?
4. How does ideology function to keep a character from realizing and resisting socioeconomic oppression?
Friday, July 2, 2010
Assignment #7: Reader-Response
Reader-response theory: it it legit?
_-_-_-_-_-_-
I must confess, the initial idea of "reader-response criticism" was both exciting / empowering, and scary / worrisome / a little too plebian for my taste. I mean, at first glance, one would assume that RRC is meant to validate any and all interpretations - that, if you believe the reader's experience contributes to building an overall mythical Meaning, then you can't exactly scorn people for varying interpretations, howsoever crappy they may be. The name implies a politically correct version of criticism, which is antithetical and strange.
But, reading Tyson's excellent outline gave me some good cheer. Bad news, crappy undergraduate writers: it'll never be "anything goes!" in the word of literary analysis. Ha!
Before I sketch out how Tyson diffentiates between the major schools of RRC, I'd like to point out that as a Museum Studies person, these theories are the ones that I'd been unknowingly working within as we discussed exhibit design, labels, and interpretive tools. The enlightened "post-museum," as it is now fashionable to proclaim, values its visitors and understands that Meaning is a shared construction, a fusion of the curatorial voice (authority) and the visitor, whose experience is actively sculpted by their personal experiences, the environment, and their social surroundings. Falk and Dierking, baby! Museum people get very excited about what they generically term "literary theory," which frames the museum as a site for the construction of a narrative. Basically, these are all very positive advances for museological professionals - at least in theory.
Back to books.
So, paying close attention the reading process itself is already familiar to me, thanks to New Criticism; however, the NC believed that a text's importance lay uniquely in the text itself. RCC "maintains that what a text is cannot be separated from what it does", for example, produce a reaction in the reader (Tyson 170). Not surprisingly, RCC gained momentum in the 1970s, so it's still a fairly new domain (sheesh!). Readers aren't passive! And they don't all react the same way! Revolutionary stuff. Scary stuff, perhaps, for museum snobs and ivory towers.
No that anyone argues that written texts can be interpreted variously. But theoriests do disagree as to "how our responses are formed and what role, if any, the text plays in creating them" (172). The how bit tends to organize the various schools of thought within RCC, causing it to be a surprisingly scientific-y theory!
Approach #1: TRANSACTIONAL READER-RESPONSE
Louise Rosenblatt is the big name to know. She claimed that both the text and the reader are important - necessary, actually - in the production of meaning. Texts act as stimuli to which we have personalized reactions; our life experiences, our knowledge, our mood, etcetera, will impact how we interpret a text. But our interpretation doesn't "take over" the text; the text is like a blueprint which guides us.
Rosenblatt also wrote that there is an important difference in how we approach texts: either in an efferent mode, or an aesthetic mode. The efferent mode asks us to "focus just on teh information contained in the text, as if it were a storehouse of facts and ideas" (173). But approaching a text in an aesthetic mode creates a more meaningful transaction between the poem (the literary work) and the reader; in teh aesthetic mode we "experience a personal realtionship t the text that focuses our attention on the emotional subleties of its language and encourages us to make judgements" (173). Determinate meanings are based on the facts of a text, while indeterminate meanings are those bits which are either not clearly explained or which have multiple meanings - all texts have both. The burden is "on us to support our claim that a given textual meaning is determinate or indeterminate" (174).
So, literature is a prestructured object, playing between determinate and indeterminate meanings, and readers project meaning onto the text. Transactional!
#2 AFFECTIVE STYLISTICS
Oi. This would be a "cognitive analysis of the mental processes produced by specific elements in the text" (175). This is a fascinating line of thought which very closely examines the text for its stylistics (how it is written) to show that it isn't necessarily what a text SAYS that gives it meaning, but rather what it DOES to its reader. This seems to account for stylistic choices made by authors when, for example, they write unclearly to echo the decentering of a scene.
#3: SUBJECTIVE READER-RESPONSE THEORY
Otherwise known as the "empower your reader" approach (by me)! Tyson sums it up thus: "there's a big difference between knowing what you like and understanding your taste" (182). For major proponents of SRRT, the appropriate goal of education is to educate students in the examination of taste; literature is a tidy vehicle for that process. Blah blah blah.
#4: PSYCHOLOGICAL READER-RESPONSE THEORY
What readers interpret reveals something about the reader, eh? This is an intrguiding infusion of psychoanalytic concepts into the world of RCC, and apt. It's pretty familiar stuff: "the psychological dimension of our interpretations is not readily apparent to ourselves and others [because] we unconsciouly couch it is aesthetic, intellectual, social, or moral abstractions to relieve the anxiety and guilt our projects arouse in us" (183). For example, a Classics professor might concentrate his study of Greek poetry within the realm of landscapes or athletics, as opposed to the poetry of emotion, or personal experience. This reveals that while the professor is unconciously drawn to and desires the artistic release of art and poetry, he is a complete wanker who fears being overwhelmed by deep emotion and its concurrent intimacy. He frozen soul reconciles this paradox by approaching poetry and poetics through a sterilized lens. As a consequence, his lectures on anything outside of his comfort zone completely suck.
Makes perfect sense to me.
#5: SOCIAL READER-RESPONSE THEORY
This train of thought acknowledges that even when we think we are individuals, interpreting texts within the scope of our original thoughts, we are always influenced by our community. The 'interpretive community' to which we belong usually dominate how we judge those interpretations. Institutions set the framework of norms under whose influence we respond.
These interpretive communities can vary in terms of how aware they are of its sway, and we can of course belong to multiple communities (which also change over time - just like a post-museum!). The point is, "readers come to the text already predisposed to interpet it in a certain way based on whatever interpretative strategies are operating for them at the time they read" (185). A classroom full of English majors will, if asked, find a deeper meaning in Shakespeare's grocery list. This theory doesn't present much of a lens so much as it encourages awareness of our ingrained assumptions, expectations, and institutional values.
OKAY... BUT WHAT THE HELL IS A READER?
Theorists define them variously, but I think it's generally important just to recognize differences between...
- hypothetical readers (a hypothetical ideal who encounters a specific text; sometimes just a way for a critic to refer to themself)
- informed / optimal / educated / ideal readers (a reader who has attained competency necessary to experience the text in terms of itslinguistic and literary completxity)
- implied readers (the reader that the text seems to be addressing, because a reader of Danielle Steel may not be a big fan of Schopenhauer)...
Interesting.
-
_-_-_-_-_-_-
I must confess, the initial idea of "reader-response criticism" was both exciting / empowering, and scary / worrisome / a little too plebian for my taste. I mean, at first glance, one would assume that RRC is meant to validate any and all interpretations - that, if you believe the reader's experience contributes to building an overall mythical Meaning, then you can't exactly scorn people for varying interpretations, howsoever crappy they may be. The name implies a politically correct version of criticism, which is antithetical and strange.
But, reading Tyson's excellent outline gave me some good cheer. Bad news, crappy undergraduate writers: it'll never be "anything goes!" in the word of literary analysis. Ha!
Before I sketch out how Tyson diffentiates between the major schools of RRC, I'd like to point out that as a Museum Studies person, these theories are the ones that I'd been unknowingly working within as we discussed exhibit design, labels, and interpretive tools. The enlightened "post-museum," as it is now fashionable to proclaim, values its visitors and understands that Meaning is a shared construction, a fusion of the curatorial voice (authority) and the visitor, whose experience is actively sculpted by their personal experiences, the environment, and their social surroundings. Falk and Dierking, baby! Museum people get very excited about what they generically term "literary theory," which frames the museum as a site for the construction of a narrative. Basically, these are all very positive advances for museological professionals - at least in theory.
Back to books.
So, paying close attention the reading process itself is already familiar to me, thanks to New Criticism; however, the NC believed that a text's importance lay uniquely in the text itself. RCC "maintains that what a text is cannot be separated from what it does", for example, produce a reaction in the reader (Tyson 170). Not surprisingly, RCC gained momentum in the 1970s, so it's still a fairly new domain (sheesh!). Readers aren't passive! And they don't all react the same way! Revolutionary stuff. Scary stuff, perhaps, for museum snobs and ivory towers.
No that anyone argues that written texts can be interpreted variously. But theoriests do disagree as to "how our responses are formed and what role, if any, the text plays in creating them" (172). The how bit tends to organize the various schools of thought within RCC, causing it to be a surprisingly scientific-y theory!
Approach #1: TRANSACTIONAL READER-RESPONSE
Louise Rosenblatt is the big name to know. She claimed that both the text and the reader are important - necessary, actually - in the production of meaning. Texts act as stimuli to which we have personalized reactions; our life experiences, our knowledge, our mood, etcetera, will impact how we interpret a text. But our interpretation doesn't "take over" the text; the text is like a blueprint which guides us.
Rosenblatt also wrote that there is an important difference in how we approach texts: either in an efferent mode, or an aesthetic mode. The efferent mode asks us to "focus just on teh information contained in the text, as if it were a storehouse of facts and ideas" (173). But approaching a text in an aesthetic mode creates a more meaningful transaction between the poem (the literary work) and the reader; in teh aesthetic mode we "experience a personal realtionship t the text that focuses our attention on the emotional subleties of its language and encourages us to make judgements" (173). Determinate meanings are based on the facts of a text, while indeterminate meanings are those bits which are either not clearly explained or which have multiple meanings - all texts have both. The burden is "on us to support our claim that a given textual meaning is determinate or indeterminate" (174).
So, literature is a prestructured object, playing between determinate and indeterminate meanings, and readers project meaning onto the text. Transactional!
#2 AFFECTIVE STYLISTICS
Oi. This would be a "cognitive analysis of the mental processes produced by specific elements in the text" (175). This is a fascinating line of thought which very closely examines the text for its stylistics (how it is written) to show that it isn't necessarily what a text SAYS that gives it meaning, but rather what it DOES to its reader. This seems to account for stylistic choices made by authors when, for example, they write unclearly to echo the decentering of a scene.
#3: SUBJECTIVE READER-RESPONSE THEORY
Otherwise known as the "empower your reader" approach (by me)! Tyson sums it up thus: "there's a big difference between knowing what you like and understanding your taste" (182). For major proponents of SRRT, the appropriate goal of education is to educate students in the examination of taste; literature is a tidy vehicle for that process. Blah blah blah.
#4: PSYCHOLOGICAL READER-RESPONSE THEORY
What readers interpret reveals something about the reader, eh? This is an intrguiding infusion of psychoanalytic concepts into the world of RCC, and apt. It's pretty familiar stuff: "the psychological dimension of our interpretations is not readily apparent to ourselves and others [because] we unconsciouly couch it is aesthetic, intellectual, social, or moral abstractions to relieve the anxiety and guilt our projects arouse in us" (183). For example, a Classics professor might concentrate his study of Greek poetry within the realm of landscapes or athletics, as opposed to the poetry of emotion, or personal experience. This reveals that while the professor is unconciously drawn to and desires the artistic release of art and poetry, he is a complete wanker who fears being overwhelmed by deep emotion and its concurrent intimacy. He frozen soul reconciles this paradox by approaching poetry and poetics through a sterilized lens. As a consequence, his lectures on anything outside of his comfort zone completely suck.
Makes perfect sense to me.
#5: SOCIAL READER-RESPONSE THEORY
This train of thought acknowledges that even when we think we are individuals, interpreting texts within the scope of our original thoughts, we are always influenced by our community. The 'interpretive community' to which we belong usually dominate how we judge those interpretations. Institutions set the framework of norms under whose influence we respond.
These interpretive communities can vary in terms of how aware they are of its sway, and we can of course belong to multiple communities (which also change over time - just like a post-museum!). The point is, "readers come to the text already predisposed to interpet it in a certain way based on whatever interpretative strategies are operating for them at the time they read" (185). A classroom full of English majors will, if asked, find a deeper meaning in Shakespeare's grocery list. This theory doesn't present much of a lens so much as it encourages awareness of our ingrained assumptions, expectations, and institutional values.
OKAY... BUT WHAT THE HELL IS A READER?
Theorists define them variously, but I think it's generally important just to recognize differences between...
- hypothetical readers (a hypothetical ideal who encounters a specific text; sometimes just a way for a critic to refer to themself)
- informed / optimal / educated / ideal readers (a reader who has attained competency necessary to experience the text in terms of itslinguistic and literary completxity)
- implied readers (the reader that the text seems to be addressing, because a reader of Danielle Steel may not be a big fan of Schopenhauer)...
Interesting.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)