Lupin3

I assume you've read my previous post in which I have laid out a fairly specific theory on criticism, with its explicit statement that not only is deconstructionism not scientific, but that it is demonstrably anti-scientific.

I'm curious as to why you feel deconstructionism is a "scientific"mode of criticism. Could you elaborate on that? Could you elaborate as well, on what you consider to be "scientific?"

greggb

Lupin, I don't know a whole lot about deconstruction. I've only read bits and pieces of the actual deconstruction theory. It is possible that I've assessed it incorrectly, in which case I apologize.

Again I sense a very sarcastic and condescending tone. I've noticed that a lot with you, and not just towards me. It seems that you're in a completely different intellectual class than me, and a lot of other people here.

Now I can see that I should probably just stick to conversing with mere mortals, like myself.

In seriousness, you seem to be highly intelligent and adept in writing and philosophy. You're also the most difficult person I've ever attempted to have an intelligent conversation with.

Lupin3

We've had our differences on this board, haven't we? I think much of the problem lies with the inexactness with which we tend to post on these boards (by we, I mean anyone on a forum or bbs). Sometimes what seems on the level to me can seem sarcastic to others, and vice versa.

My comments on "scientific" were not meant to be sarcastic at all, nor condescending. I think you are a highly intelligent person yourself, though you and I tend to mix the fomality with which we treat language, which can cause confusion. For that, I apologize.

While my current opinion of deconstructionism is that it is anti-science, I am truly interested in your opinioni of it, even if it contradicts mine. I'll try, as I've hinted at previously, not to take this discussion in the vein of a debate, but more as an exchange of views.

I hope you'll forgive my lack of clarity in my previous post, and really do appreciate your comments, Gregg.

Emma LB

I don't really like Modernism much at all, Post-modernism is more mine. I'm not actually sure if Sturcturalism can really exist much in literature. People always interpret things differently, even if only slightly.

__________________
"You should be the change that you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
(Avatar by geckzilla)

greggb

I wouldn't mind debating something like this. The problem is that I don't know enough about it to be able to do so. I'm not sure that I want to spend a huge amount of time learning a bunch about it, when it's not even generally accepted.

Again, my interest is in understanding the process of writing and communication. Specifically, how our perception and thought relates to the way we write. I'm talking about a combination of philosophy and psychology. The philosophy being how we reason to come up with ideas we feel merit being mentioned. The psychology being how we assign words to concepts, feelings, stimuli, etc (and there’s much more to the philosophy and psychology involved in writing/communication than I’ve just mentioned). It seems to me that philosophy and psychology are interconnected in our process of communication, considering how we actually think in the words of our natural language, and how the literal meaning of words plays a part in our logical and reasoning processes.

I think looking at the psychological and philosophical aspects of our communication process simultaneously provides better opportunity to understand why we write, and to understand the meaning of literature, more than if we’re to look at one or the other. From what I’ve gathered by examining modernism, post-modernism, etc., little consideration is given to the psychological aspect of our communication process. It’s true that psychology isn’t considered an exact science (and inexact science isn’t really science at all, is it?), but I think we know enough about ourselves to be able to address some of the psychological issues in our communication.

Anyway, as I said a few posts earlier, I’d be interested in hearing your approach to understanding the meaning of literature. It’d give me something to go off of…or even a place to start.

Also, the discussion I’m trying to get started about AI is headed in a similar direction… in understanding how we relate words to meaning. If that’s something that interests you let me know, and I’ll spend some time outlining my ideas.

Lupin3

Gregg, thanks for the comments.

As far as my thoughts on criticism, my tendencies at the moment lean toward a general agreement with structuralism, and with New Criticism in particular. I think the failures of structuralism pale in comparison to its strengths, and that the strengths of deconstructionism pale in comparison to its failures. I was beginning to head into a more detailed apologetic for this position in my earlier post, but it's probably more interesting and valuable to discuss it, rather than "essay" it.

As to your comments on words and psychology, I too find that a very interesting relationship. I would suggest that the modes of literary criticism I've mentioned do, to some degree, address the issue of psychology and language. Post-structuralism and deconstructionism are greatly concerned with this issue, with their Marxist focus on meta-narratives and politics (how does art - which in a Marxist analogy is really little more than propaganda - influence or limit what one is even able to think). These are probably differently oriented than your focus on language and psychology, however.

I find the way literature affects our thoughts and experience to be one of the great questions of language, and of art. While this isn't psychology, per se, a psychological perspective of art would probably include my small theories, and much more. I think literature can create in the minds of its readers and writers an altered state in which the thoughts of the one are affected by the thoughts of the other in a way that almost suggests a distinct form (or method) of consciousness. This was one of the themes I explored in many of my college papers, but sadly has been left dying on the vine of late. Perhaps I should spend more time on it now I've someone to discuss it with.

greggb

So, I just got done reading an article that has an uncanny similarity to my way of thinking. I mean, never in my life before have I had a theory that was so perfectly exacted by someone else’s. Not to say that I’ve progressed as deeply into these concepts as Saussure did, and not so say I agree with all of his theories—because I definitely haven’t/don’t. But fundamentally, I agree 100% with Saussure’s theories, as described in the following article:
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL.../saussure.html

What stands out to me as being fundamental in the concept of structuralism is the notion that words structure our thoughts and perception of reality, and are almost necessary to keep order in our minds. I believe our tendency to create words results from the necessity to structure our thoughts. I don’t think words are absolutely necessary for thought, because it’s reasonable to assume that some people have gone through life without ever knowing or understanding the concept of words—though they probably would have been classified as severely handicapped. But I believe that words are a tremendous aide in helping us structure our thoughts, and build more complicated thoughts from existing structures. I believe that without words we’d be severely limited in our ability to think at a degree or level of any meaningful depth.

As far as structuralism goes, I’m not sure if I’m supposed to believe that we use structuring to “organize and understand cultural phenomena”, and structuring systems are universal because of the fundamental similarities in even very diverse cultures (i.e., human nature, the human condition). I mean, I’m not sure if our structuring process adapts to our environment, which is fundamentally the same everywhere (and hence so are our structures). Or, if there’s an intrinsic structure within our nature, and the development of human cultures follow the basic guidelines of that structure (you might even go as far as to say that “human nature” is the “universal structure”). I would tend to agree with the latter, but I’m curious as to what structuralist theory suggests.

I’m not sure where structuralist theory stands on this, but as I’ve mentioned before, I believe words only approximate our thoughts—I don’t believe they’re exact representations of what we’re thinking. I don’t mean to trivially point out the fact that two different people might not have the exact same definition of the same word (though that brings up a good point). What I’m implying is that there’s not an exact word for every condition. “Hot” can mean anything from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 10,000 degrees Celsius (and a lot higher). It’s true we have words like “really” and “extremely”, but they can’t be used with precision. And when you think about it, every word that describes a condition can have infinite implications. That not only creates a problem for us in relaying meaning to other people, but in understanding exact meaning ourselves, if our thoughts are limited only to words. Even if we only use words to structure our thoughts, the structures we build won’t be perfect (and won't be consistent), because of the imprecision of words from which they’re built.

Again, that’s why I believe it’s impossible for any piece of literature to be interpreted by another person exactly as it was meant to be. I believe it’s possible (even likely), with the imprecision of words, for significant meaning to be lost or misinterpreted upon reading. When you consider the way a work of writing resembles a structure itself, in which one point must be laid down before another can be taken, you can see how the reader could wind up significantly off track.

I admit that most works of writing follow a fairly straight path, and that every section leads back to that path. In the end the reader will probably wind up where he’s supposed to be, but he can get lost for long enough along the way to miss significant meaning.

Another area in which I might not agree with structuralism (depending on the popular view on this issue in structuralism) is in the idea that the structure of the human mind is in any way complicated. Not to say that human mind isn’t complicated, because it definitely is. But the structure should be linear, logical, even mathematical. Of course that doesn’t mean that all of the processes in the mind will be linear, logical, or mathematical. But the structure really should be.

I agree with the theory that the structure of the mind is binary based. Logic is binary, and it’s a very natural process for us. Furthermore, computers are binary based, and computers make decisions in a very similar fashion to the way we do. They evaluate conditions that consist of “yes or no”, or “greater-than, less-than, or equal-to”. Even the most complicated decisions computers make are a series of “yes or no” and “greater-than, less-than, equal-to” questions. I see no reason to believe that our decision making processes aren’t a series of “yes or no” and “greater-than, less-than, equal-to” questions. Especially when “yes or no” and “greater-than, less-than, equal-to” are such an evident part of our conscious decision making processes.

Well, I should probably wrap it up there.

Pookaah

I could vote 'Don't Care' but that sounds a little rude and that's not what I mean.

I appreciate the rationality behind the various theories but I find it a bit like dissecting a songbird in order to understand its song. It reminds me of 'Hard Times' by Dickens.
"‘Bitzer,’ said Thomas Gradgrind. ‘Your definition of a horse.’

‘Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.’ Thus (and much more) Bitzer.

‘Now girl number twenty,’ said Mr Gradgrind. ‘You know what a horse is.’"

But then - I'm a bit of a romantic in the true sense of the word.

__________________
Pookah

"Life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans." (John Lennon)

ghostman

I can't stand the idea of conforming to any school of literary thought. The moment you call yourself a modernist or a structuralist, you've boxed yourself in. I'll just call myself a writer who is influenced by many aspects of many different schools of thought, but who ultimately adheres to no specific intellectual guidelines.

I studied English in school and am fairly well-versed in literary theory. The only thing it has taught me, however, is that it serves no valuable purpose. No literary theory - unlike theories in science - can be proven. Every literary theory has counter-theories that are equally as impressive. And ultimately, every literary theory is pushed aside by a new and better theory, which always seems to find its source in a work by an author who disregarded his day's prominent literary theory.

And lastly, literary theory is almost exclusively developed by cheerleaders, if you will - by the people who write about literature, not the people who create the literature. There is no creation in literary theory. Only observation and wonder.

I do not mean to put these people down. I enjoy good writing about writing. I write about writing myself. I just think we need not take literary theory so seriously. It is all so flimsy and fleeting.

__________________
http://aldenswriting.com/

mammamaia

AMEN, ghostman!... ditto here... m

__________________
For 100% free writing help/mentoring:
www.saysmom.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

Talia_Brie

There's probably not a lot of point to this, especially when you consider how rarely this part of the forum is visited, but I'm going to disagree with you both here.

Two things here. Ghostman, if you studied literary theory in high school then you are in fact not fairly well versed in it. You've got an extremely immature and shallow understanding of it. And secondly, I can't believe you've just said that Feminism serves no valuable purpose.

You might tell me the feminism is a political movement, but you'd only be half right. At it's core feminism is a literary and social theory from which the political movement has evolved.

Which brings me to:

There is actually no creation in chemical theory, or physical theory, or biological theory. That's why it is called a theory. Theories contain within their boundaries the elements that allow creation, at least in the manner I think you're using the term.

However feminism has created a political movement. Michel Foucault's theories of power and observation created models for modern prisons. Lacanian and Freudian psychoanalysis created, well, the ego, superego and id. Marxism created the idea of perfect communism, and indirectly the scourge of modern patriarchal capitalism.

What you should understand is that literary theories are rarely restricted to literature. They have social implications, as does literature. Modern literature is a representation of society, and modern literary theories examine, explore and criticise that representation, and the underlying society that created it.

And lastly:

Again I think you're only half right here. Literary and social theories do have counter-theories, and they are eventually pushed aside by new theories, just as scientific theories change (which you imply can be proven). However they are generally not displaced by people who are ignoring them. New literary and social theories evolve through people examining the prevalent theories of the day, and expanding, questioning, or redefining them.

Feminism was borne of a combination of Marxism and psychoanalysis, and in fact still uses these two theories as its base, as well as the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault combined Marxism and the work of Freud, questioned the intrinsic assumptions those two theories were built on, and re-applied the theories once the underlying assumptions had been adjusted.

If you want social change, if you want your society to be a better place, you need literary theories to question it. They are absoluely vital.

However:

I don't think it is the work of writers to conform to schools of thought either. I think you should write, and let the theorists dissect your work as they please. There is the obvious distinction of feminism, but feminist writings are political in nature, just as 'Animal Farm' was political in nature. It can be examined using Marxist theory, but it wasn't written that way. It was written as a critic of communism.

Now I know that was a long response, but I think the issue is complicated. Also, I don't want this to appear as an attack. All I'm interested in doing is continuing the discussion.

__________________

ghostman

I would never consider a rebuttal an attack. I appreciate your response. Here is mine:

I did not study literary theory in high school, I studied it in college and continue to study it. I would never claim that I know a tremendous amount about literary theory, and even my claim that I am well-versed was perhaps too arrogant. Let's just say that I am familiar with everything that has been presented in this thread.

In response to your consideration of feminism and communism as literary theories: we must be careful to confuse literary theory with written theory. There is indeed a tremendous difference. Every major theory, I can safely say, has been written down at one time or another. But this does not make every theory a literary theory, even if it is present in books and criticism. We must ignore the fact that theories are written down - they all are. What we must pay attention to is the purpose of the theory: this will allow us to determine its nature. Looking at it this way, feminism and communism are hard to see as “literary” at all. I think they are of a different nature, namely political and social.

The second thing we must be careful of is confusing ‘theory in literature’ with ‘literary theory.’ All literature contains theory, regardless of the intent of the author. Writing something that is theory-less is impossible. All thought is theory and all writing contains thought, no matter how abstract or poorly processed. So when I say literary theory serves no purpose, I am not talking about the theories found in original creative works (what I called theory in literature) whether they be fiction or nonfiction. What I am talking about is the body of writing produced by academics that is the offspring of the original work, that does nothing concrete to further the work, but that only comments on and explains the work. This is the literary theory to which I referred. This theory, I am adamant, serves no valuable purpose other than to keep academics employed.

People are influenced by the original literature, not by the subsequent criticism. Without the Academy, as the lit critics are called, the influence of the great theoretical books would still be felt. We would still have feminism and communism, for example.

Let me add also that authors do know the theories they destroy, but I would bet few of them learn the theories through library-sized collections of parasitic essays written by university-dwellers. More likely, they read fiction (supplemented of course by some criticism) and detect theoretical patterns, which they then attempt to refute; even more likely, they watch society and write works that destroy what their eyes perceive. Since all theoretical works are products of the society in which they are written, this too has the effect, as society improves, of debunking and improving upon old theory. (If society is declining then of course the theory may decline, or devolve, as well.) Authors are notorious for their abhorrence of literary critics.

__________________
http://aldenswriting.com/

Talia_Brie

I'll go point by point and assess what you've said. I almost have a feeling we're talking about a semantic difference, almost.

Okay. I've an Honours degree in Communication and Cultural Studies, with a double major in Literature and Creative Writing. I'm not stating that to say my opinion is therefore better than yours, because I dont believe that, but just so we now have a frame of reference.

I am not confusing those two things. I still propose that Feminism and Marxism (not communism, which is a political state) are literary theories. That is they are theories used to critique and analyse literature. They are used as a framework, or a lens, through which you view a book, poem, film, or social event/phenomenon. Yes, feminism and communism are political movements as well, but as I said previously, both have at their core, or are dervied from literary theories.

I'm not confuisng these issues either. I would apply no value at all to 'theory in literature', because post modern literary theories provide that an author's work is influenced by the economic and social environment within which they are produced. The theories thus proposed are biased. As are the theories proposed by literary theorists. That's an interesting conundrum isn't it?

When I talk about literary theories I talk about applying a founded school of thought to my analysis of a certain piece of work. The analysis needn't make a suggestion of the quality of the work, but should note and discuss some underlying issues that are present in the work, either consciously or not.

For example, I wrote an essay on Pulp Fiction that suggested that Mia (Uma Thurman's character) re-inforced the capitalist stereotype of women as submissive and powerless, despite the apparent power she has in the narrative (she appears to be independent and sexually aggressive etc). I used Althussarian Marxism to support that argument. The essay didn't say whether Pulp Fiction was good or not, just that Mia wasn't actually as powerful as she is suggested on film.

The reason I think literary theories have value is because without a founded or accepted theoretical basis, my opinion is just that, an opinion, and has no more value than that. It works the same as scientific theories. Stephen Hawking could have just said the Big Bang happened. That opinion didn't have any value until he applied theories of physics and mathematics to the issue to prove it.

I disagree. I do not believe the feminist movement could exist without feminist theory, and I suspect there would be no communism without Karl Marx. Both Marxism and Feminist theory are in direct conflict with the dominant ideology of patriarchal capitalism. Without writings to criticise this social and economic phenomenon, there would be no change. All the things the feminist movement has acheived, and is yet to acheive, would be impossible if not for people like Karl Marx, Louis Althussar, Luce Irigary and Simone De Bouvieur (sp?).

In most cases here I think you're probably right. A lot of literary theory exists for the benefit of universities and libraries. But there are elements that are required. I think we all would like society to be better, fairer, more peaceful. Without ways of criticising the society we have, there can be no change.

These kind of literary theories have in the past: questioned the divine imperative allowing for secularisation of society, questioned ideas of human nature allowing for a greater understanding of social forces and the de-demonising of homosexuality. They've brought about 'equal' rights for women. They've explained the cause of the serial killer phenomenon.

I think literary theories have value, even it's it's just a way for us to look at ourselves, and see if there's anything we'd like to change.

__________________

ghostman

Response coming soon.

__________________
http://aldenswriting.com/

Lupin3

Well, a lot of interesting comments have been made since I've been away. I should go away more often...

ghostman, I appreciated your early comment on the apparent uselessness of Theory (the capital used to differentiate the contemporary academic practice from the scientific and rational term it appropriated) on literature, and in writing. It can be quite frustrating to work so hard for so long to learn so much which is so lacking in concrete application.

Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that since I first posted this thread, Derrida has died. This has allowed at least a small discussion of Theory and its application to literature to occur in both the mainstream media and in the blogosphere. Frankly, I see the debate both here in terms of Theory's contribution to society and in the two previous examples of a particular Theorist's contribution to literature as examples of the ongoing questioning of Theory's basic worth.

I think its interesting, as well, how quickly this thread turned to discussions of Marxism and feminism. I think, Talia, that you used these Theories as examples of non-literary philosophies applied to literature. This is certainly reasonable, though a New Critic might argue, with some justification, that at best such applications are redundant and at worst an obfuscation. I might argue that such applications are really appropriations, a dissembling of the Theorist's motivations and the artist's accomplishments. My argument in this vein will not be well served by the contemporary rush to politicize even trivial literature, or rather, even serious literature, however.

Still, even Derrida's Theories are focused more on language and its social use than on literature per se (though well illustrated by literary applications) and as such, really falls under the "social sciences" rather than literature. As with Derrida, so with Marx (a Theory of history) and feminism (a social Theory) and Freud (a Theory of Mind). I point out that Marxism is a theory of history because as such, it can be held (albeit loosely) to the light of history, an accountability that most Theory studiously avoids. This brings us back to ghostman's comment about the relativity of Theory, or put differently, Theory's untestability.

I believe that social Theory requires a greater degree of justification than does literary Theory, for reasons that are self-evident. But while Marxism or psychoanlaysis can and should be held to the x-rays of scientific rigor (even if just to clarify the Theory's shortcomings), what purpose would this serve for literature? Literature seeks to prove nothing, nor to direct or command the lives of the people, nor even to argue or debate. It seeks only its own purpose, as different as each writer and indeed, each novel and poem and essay. In this realm, literary Theory can, I suggest, clarify for the reader (and to an extent, the writer) the ways in which literature operates. There is a risk in this, of course, one ghostman has already pointed out. When the reader, and all too commonly the writer, seek to constrain their own experience of literature to the preconcieved notions of how a book works, that experience will be the smaller for it. It is good to recall in those moments when one is confronted by such stilted thinking that such Theories, however complicated, are still just notions of "what a book does."