After America

"Theory [...] particular styles of thinking as our situation changes" (221). America, according to Eagleton, had better start rethinking our particular style of thinking. Perhaps we have, in the five years between the publication of After Theory and our election of Obama. Maybe I more fully understand why my British friends were casting their token votes for him as well.

Capitalism was highly touted when I was being educated in grade school. After all, most of us in the classroom had personal acquaintance with a relative who was only a generation removed from "getting off the boat" and making it good in the "land of opportunity". Socialism was reduced to four letters: U.S.S.R. The second "S" being socialist. This we learned was not a good word but one that threatened our very existence.

Eagleton shed new perspective on the linguistics of socialism, as well as evil, and hope. I was particulary struck with his concept "to live with sufficiency of goods but to be prepared to give them up" (184). Kinda gives Black Friday a black eye.

Maybe one version of Armagedon is for the human race to be burned on a pyre of its possessions. The glow seen in the West won't be the sun setting.

In the Trenches, Don't Ask-Don't Tell

Sedwick's discussion of a female continuum which "links lesbianism to the other forms of women's attention to women" (1685) and her conclusion that this unity 'between women loving women and women promoting the interests of women'" benefited all women(1685) contrasted with the patriarchal continuum spelled out by Hartmann where males come together "through hierarchal, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women" (1685).

Lilly's essay "The Love Poetry of the First World War" (Barry,144) suggests, another male continuum within the intense emotional experience of war. This becomes a literary outlet for the exploration of men loving men with "a frequent motif in these poems is to see 'same-sex love as superior to men's love for women'" (145).

The military, especially during war is seen as representing all that is "a collective symbol of the controlled virility and power of the society itself"(145). With the advent of the DADT policy initiated by the Clinton administration, we could have it both ways.

I am finally beginning to appreciate post-structuralism.

In the twelfth week I can dig it!

With Barry to guide us through the maze of four critical readings, I must admit I felt a bit smug as I ploughed through this week's assignment. There were references (within the text and the footnotes) to names I actually recognized; criticism I understood; concepts that were familiar.

Foucault, Gramsci, Bordieu, habitus, cultural capital, pantopic-the dominant language of the academy were now frames of reference. "Structures of feelings" (Barry, 173) even made sense.

Perhaps I'm just giddy over "New Historicism" coined by Greenblatt, an intellectual who actually wrote openly and made his theory available for scrutiny. A theorist who actually admits that the initial conception of his book "has been complicated by several turns in my thinking that I had not foreseen" (2).

I'm sure that on Tuesday night I will again be reduced to stumbling over the unmastered dominant language as we discuss literary canon, writing "race, the circulation of social energy, stereotype and Colonial discourse.

But for this brief moment there are flashes of recognition within the dominant language that I can dig.

The Queen's English

As Conley pointed out in our first reading assignment, authority to speak is an ancient concept. Pierre Bourdieu's text Language & Symbolic Power delves into the complexities of this authority through a discussion of what linguistics does and does not accomplish; as a science scrutinizing the power and structure of language.

While Bourdieu examines the intricacies of a dominant language and the social, cultural, and economic layers that evolve from such capital, he dismisses "the ambiguity of Marxist theory" (243) of class. His text states the obvious, those who do no speak the dominant language do not benefit from the capital spin-off. Couched in Marxist vocabulary (product, class, capital, etc.) Bourdieu structures his argument that class struggle is more than just an economic phenomenon.

Religious, educational, political, and economic structures are some of the ways in which domination is perpetuated by the manipulation of language through exclusion guaranteeing a lack of success (attaining capital) of those dominated. For example, educational systems (structures) serve "to impose recognition of the legitimate language" (49). This practice devalues dialects and those who speak them. Bordieu identifies mastering the dominant language as "linguistic capital". The educational systems established to educate, commit in Bordieu's words, "acts of violence" against those who speak dialect, reducing to silence those who fail its mastery.

My English friend, Maureen, tells of being hit with a ruler in school whenever she slipped into the Geordie dialect of Northumberland and stopped speaking "the Queen's English". As noted by Bordieu, most of the students in this structure would drop out of school. "The competence adequate to produce sentences that are likely to be understood may be quite inadequate to produce sentences that are likely to be listened to" (55)-not much use for the Queen's English in the coal mines and ship yards. Thus, the dominated Geordies became "accomplices" in their own lack of success by failing to obtain linguistic capital in a system designed to reaffirm the superiority of the dominant language.

I witnessed the Queen opening a sports center in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. Resplendent in a pastel suit and matching broad-rimmed hat, shoes and purse,the gloved Elizabeth cashed in her symbolic capital as the Geordie children curtsied and presented bouquets. The standard bearer of regal authority spoke "the Queen's English" and committed her act of violence on the cheering crowd who became her devalued accomplices.

Lights, Camera, Illusion

Terry Eagleton states that "history is the ultimate signifier of literature, as it is the ultimate signified" (172). He presents the example of Dickens's Bleak House as the "imaginary London...that signifies not 'Victorian England' as such , but certain of Victorian England's ways of signifying itself" (172).

Forty years earlier, Walter Benjamin delved into a discussion of film as a signifier. Through a circuitous narrative, he arrives at the center of his argument that "The audience's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera" (1240). Technology affords illusion. From the mechanical equipment, to the cutting room floor, reality has taken on new dimensions. What is being signified is not trustworthy.

While Benjamin deplores film for "What matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance" (1240); interestingly, he has no problem with, "Some of the players whom we meet in Russian films are not actors in our sense but people who portray themselves --- and primarily in their own work process" (1243). The camera and mechanical equipment in this case seem to play no role as a historical signifier.

Benjamin implies that there is a basic corruption in Western Europe's "capitalistic exploitation" to which the modern man is subjected through the film industry's scheme to "spur the interest of the masses through illusion-promoting spectacles and dubious speculations" (1243).

Using Eagleton's premise that history is the ultimate signifier of literature, we might turn this observation to film. For there is a written script to film, which can be critiqued as a historical signifier-including Russian workers portraying themselves.

Girls just wanna' have fun?

Bell Hooks' Feminism is for Everybody is an easily accessible read that explores the roots of the feminist movement during the 60's. As a young woman entering college during the mid-60's, Iwitnessed a time of radical social upheaval. Men couldn't figure out why women were so angry, and a good number of women couldn't figure out why their "sisters" were so angry, either. Unfortunately, as Hooks points out in her introduction, "Mostly they think feminism is a bunch of angry women who want to be like men (xiii). Hooks takes the reader through a history of the movement from the 60's to publication in 2000, which for me was a real eye-opener.

Feminist theory is gender based, yet, contains the familiar elements of Marxist theory. Class struggle within the ranks of the women's movement was lost on me. That was a failing of the movement and an explaination of why after half a century, sexist thinking isn't exclusive to males-"females could be sexist as well" (3).

The implications for women were enormous. There was not a cohesive focus of all women benefitting from the movement as priviledged white women earned career equality to the men in their class. Those women perpetuated the sexist system by hiring minority women for domestic duties. As Hooks points out the early feminist movement "did not make economic self-sufficiency for women its primary goal" (54).

Hooks failed to connect the impact of women entering the work force in huge numbers, replacing men during World War II. Much of the feminist discontent came from these disillusioned middle-aged women during the 60's. As young women in the 40's they had economic independence and freedom. When the men returned, things never went back to "normal".

As Hooks points out "Everything we do in life is rooted in theory...there is also an underlying system shaping thought and practice" (19).
The sexual revolution was a backlash to male sexual domination but many women have discovered they weren't having much fun. They were rebelling against the symptoms, not the cause. A system in which both men and women tackle sexist thinking should be the focus of feminist theory.

A Class Act

Each week as we delve into the competing and contradictory theories of literary criticism, it has become apparent that a general consensus may exist among a given group of critics, but there are many "takes" on that consensus. Marxist Criticism is no exception as Williams, Jameson, Barry, and Althusser vie for dominance. Each presents his case as to what effect Marxist theory had on society and historical interpretation. Althusser, like Derrida, was difficult to follow but writes that "ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence, but a material existence" (1265). Ideology is a word that, for me, equates with Marxism. While Jameson argues "If everything were transparent, then no ideology would be possible, and no domination either" (184). Williams clarifies his interpretation by stating "Ideology, in its normal senses, is a relatively formal and articulated system of meanings, values, and beliefs, of a kind that can be abstractd as a 'world-view' or 'class outlook'" (1277). Barry's refreshing, clear style lays out for us a broad overview of Marxist Criticism and states that "Ideology is a key term" (157) for all Marxists.

For me personally, Marxist ideology was equated with Communism. Growing up in the 50's and 60's, the noble class struggles that propelled the socialist movements fostered by the writings of Marx and Engles, had evolved into the anxiety of the Cold War. U.S.S.R. ideology impacted my world. Civil defense pamphlets complete with instructions on how to build and stock a fall-out shelter, missle silos in North Dakota, nuclear annihilation, and the school-yard chant "Better dead than Red" were the reality of a foreign ideology.

Williams in-depth discussion of hegemony as it relates to Marxism "of rule or domination to realtions between social classes, and especially to definitions of a ruling class" (1276) made me think again of my youth. While class struggle became synonymous with Communism, the relations between social classes in this steel town was obvious. Barry states that "Marxist literary criticism maintains that a writer's social class, and its prevailing 'ideology' ... have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class" (152). As a child of a first generation Italian steel worker who went on strike with frightening regularity, I would have to agree.

The Family Tree

Genealogy has taken on new meaning in Michel Foucault's thought-provoking article. Tracing the vulnerability of the 60s "A certain fragility has been discovered in the very bedrock of existence" (129). His lecture delivered in 1976 points out that the most familiar is now instable. Foucault argues that only "historical contents" offer a point of revelation. Scholarly knowledge in union with popular knowledge (local popular knowledge) allows criticsm to perform its work of uncovering the "historical knowledge of struggles" (131). This leads to viewing power through a unique lens which in turn attempts to decipher the role of power in economics, concluding that power not only represses, but power leads to hostile engagements. These actions can only be interpreted through the term genealogy "to the union of erudite knowledge and local memories" (131). It is only through this approach that history of conflict can be interpreted.

Jameson's article written in 1981 regarding the interpretation of literature as a socially symbolic act declares that it is the political interpretation of literary texts that is "the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation" (181).

Capitalism, politics, and history are some of the parameters that define postmodernism according to these critics. Jameson takes a strong stance that the anxieties of modernism are now replaced in the postmodern era with not only a liberation from anxiety but "a liberation from every other kind of feeling as well" (274).

As contemporaries, perhaps Foucault and Jameson have anticipated the detachment enhanced by the saturated technology of the twenty-first century. A technology that allows each generation to be engaged in multiple levels of communication without having to connect from the "self". Is it possible to experience a sense of "local memory" at this level of disconnect? How will our historical legacy be interpreted?

Post-structuralism and Postmodernism-Been There, Done That

I have been giving a lot of thought to the readings from week five on the topics of human liberalism and structuralism. I have concluded that I am the product of these theories. Yeah, I really am that old. I entered the public school system in 1951 and graduated from high school in 1964. The emphasis on writing was content, character, and motive. There was, a beginning, a middle, and an end. Aristotle gave us this structure, and we did not deviate. Description was emphasized, words mattered-linguistics, as Saussure pointed out, was relational. We mastered the dictionary to find the precise nuance. Roget's Thesaurus was indispensible. There was an anxiety, as Barry points out, "that the language will express things we hadn't intended, or convey the wrong impression, or betray our ignorance, callousness, or confussion" (60). These were the theories I passed on to my students through the mid-1970's.

But there was an under-current taking place that opened up a different mind-set which are reflected in this week's readings. Although modernism was influencial in the 1920s, it enjoyed a resurgence in the 1960s. There was a shift as Barry states, from "how we see rather than what we see" (79). Modern art, Danish modern furniture, geometric forms in architecture did permiate my culture. Lotman stated in last week's readings, "Thus, it is not just literary texts which take part in the development of literature" (105).

These were not welcome developments, and I would equate this unsettling to to Jacques Derrida's observation that "Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an 'event'" (115). The center no longer existed.

I experienced post-structuralism and postmodernism. I saw it first-hand on a cultural and social level as I lived through the decades of change. I also found that what I thought I knew about writing was no longer valid. The beginning, middle, and end approach was passe in graduate school of the twenty-first century. Forget the author who was now dead-it was all about a text which could be deconstructed in which "language doesn't reflect or convey our world but constitures a world of its own, a kind of parallel universe or virtual reality" (Barry, 72).

Fascinating and frustrating concepts for this author who was taught form and language were the key to successful writing.

I Think I Get It-Almost

I thoroughly enjoyed the readings from Peter Barry's Beginning Theory. For the first time the concept of literary criticism made sense. I especially appreciated the background Barry provided in the first chapter which examined the rise of English studies. F. D. Maurice's concept that the "middle class represents the essence of Englishness...so middle-class education should be peculiarly English, and therefore should centre on English literature" (13), made sense. I also found the Ten tenets of liberal humanism explained the why of criticism; particularly tenet ten which states in part, "The job of criticism is to interpret the text, to mediate between it and the reader" (19). Finally, something simply stated that helped me understand the why. I also found the list of recurrent ideas in critical theory (33) to be concrete and altered my previous negative view of literary criticism. As a writer, I found chapter two to be particularly enlightening (and dare I say it-entertaining). I was finally beginning to "get it"; structuralist chickens and liberal humanist eggs has opened new ways for me to approach my own writing. Saussure's linguistic studies emphasized that "no word can be defined in isolation from other words. The definition of any given word depends upon its relation with other 'adjoining' words" (41). I am going to be giving a lot of thought to the implications that there are no intrinsic fixed meanings in language. The stop and think exercise (55) is what every writer struggles with and drove home Barths's contention that all language is coded. Barry took a very difficult concept for me and made it at least approachable. Then I read Morse Peckham's "The Problem of Interpretation" in which he states, "Just as the meaning of any pattern is not immanent, so the subsumption of any pattern by a matrix is not immanent. That subsumption, it needs to be emphasized, is a matter of determination, and a determination is a judgement that the response generated is an appropriate response. Hence the subsumption of a pattern by a matrix is a judgment of appropriateness" (108). What does that mean? Peckham is what I thought literary criticism was before I read Barry.

Intellect, chaos, and vibrations of the soul

After three weeks of reading what rhetoric should be, could be, is and isn't-I choose to accept what Bernard Lamy says about humans and communication: "The process of communicating-of transmitting the sense of what one wants to say to another-is viewed as a physical process of sympathetic kinesthesia in which vibrations in the soul of the speaker are transmitted by sounds that produce like vibrations in the soul of the hearer (Conley, 174).
Augustine certainly recognized centuries earlier there had to be that connection with an audience. While the Greeks valued rhetoric as a device to maintain a burgeoning burocracy, Augustine valued rhetoric as a device to win converts to Christianity. Rhetoric was again the effective tool of instruction. Preachers were taught to connect with their audience using the same principles that Cicero recognized as being effect: "to teach, to delight, and to persuade." While the focus of bombastic oratory was diminished, eloquence was still valued. In the arena of religious conversion, the status of the speaker was still held in high esteem. While eloquence was equated to the inspired orator, the focus was shifting from what sounds well to what tells and explains well. No longer was the audience elite and educated-spreading the Word and gaining converts was paramount. Therefore, the style had to adapt to that of persuasion through education.
With the advent of the printing press, religious and political ideas were spread as never before. The sixteen and seventeenth centuries were defined by religious and political bloodshed on a massive scale,and the classical texts of rhetoric offered guidance during this time.
Despite the continuing debates surrounding the mechanics of rhetoric, from the ancient Greeks to the Jesuits to the philosophy of Bacon, Descates and Hobbes, the struggle remained as it had since ancient times; bringing order out of chaos.
Human nature does not change. Rhetoric addresses this issue and provides the arena for resolution. Within this arena are spun off new ideas of how to address mankind's chronic bad behavior. During the rise of humanism, education, philosophy, religion, science, and politics all reflected this approach to problem solving, while rhetoric provided the stability for discussion.

Isocrates, Roman and Byzantine Rhetoric

Through the conquests of Alexander the Great and his armies, the hellenizing of the million square mile Macedonian Empire was assured. As Thomas M. Conley states in Rhetoric in the European Tradition, "In all these areas, colonies of Greeks were established and Greek culture imposed on the native peoples, the barbaroi, with astonishing speed and efficiency" (29). Through education, young men were initiated into the Greek way of life which ensured a practical concern was also met: the needs of a burgeoning bureaucracy. The program they established became standardized and was referred to as "enkyklios paideia" or "the rounded education". Grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy became the basic areas of study. Although the subject matter has been altered, the concept of a "rounded education" continues to form the foundation for instruction to the present day.
The teaching of rhetoric received much consideration and attention, not only for its practical application in governmental affairs, but the recognition within the Hellenistic world of the power of speech in setting policy, carrying out justice, promoting the military, and ensuring a cultural cohesiveness. Underlying the practical applications of rhetoric, was the obligation of the orator to be a virtuous man; principals set forth by Isocrates (436-338 B.C.).
As the Roman republic began to overtake the domination of the Hellenistic conquests, the influence of Hellenistic thought dominated Roman thinking and education. The influence of Isocrates comes to light in Patricia A. Matsen's Readings from Classical Rhetoric. In Chapter 3 "Greco-Roman Rhetoric", we are introduced to the texts of Cicero who is considered "the greatest Roman orator" (172).
Conley points out that Cicero (106-43 B.C.) "states explicitly that De oratore was written with Isocrates in mind" (36). More than a discussion of the components of oratory, this is a discourse on the political climate of the day and Conley further notes, "the notion of 'a good man skilled in speaking' are, as it were, mapped and measured" (37). Cicero would be killed for his challenges to the corrupt government of his day which led to the eventual decline of the Roman Empire.
Quintillian (A.D. ca 30-100) was recognized, as Madsen points out, "a renowned teacher of oratory in imperial Rome" (209). In his work, De institutione oratoria, Quntillian sets out at the urging of his friends to write about the art of speaking. He would define rhetoric as "the art of speaking well", while adhering to the principals of Isocrates and Cicero. The orator has specific duties that are listed in De institutione oratoria, among them being to "deter criminal behavior and inspire the military". Both practical applications of oratory as laid out by Isocrates and echoed by Cicero.
The concept of a practical application and oratory spoken by a virtuous man is not only a concept that filtered into Western thinking. For the conquests of Alexander spread east from Greece and would come to include an area of Roman occupation that was to become known in the fifth and sixth centuries as "the Byzantine empire" (Conley, 63). One area of influence of Isocrates upon this empire and the Western world would be in the realm of religion. Namely, the conversion of the paegan world to Christianity. Here the influence of Greek rhetoric can also be seen, as its principals were used to obtain new converts. As Conley points out, it was only natural that the success of conversion would be promoted by men who studied and often taught rhetoric. The early church fathers were naturally suspicious of rhetoric because Christ did not reflect the necessity for this learning. However, in the Apologeticus, "the ideal Christian preacher is, ... quite close to that of the ideal orator of Isocrates" (Conley, 62).
Isocrates's concept of what rhetoric should achieve on a societal level has been recognized through the centuries. The ideals he espoused were embraced by the Roman and Byzantine world. Rhetoric should serve a practical purpose, should be spoken by virtuous men, and should serve the highest good of the community. Ideals we seek in our decisions today, recognizing that these are only ideals, was a reality that Isocrates and the citizens of our world face as we choose leaders, set policy, engage in warfare, and seek the common good.

Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion

As a novice approaching the "art of rhetoric", I was relieved to find Thomas M. Conley's Rhetoric in the European Tradition, a firm foundation on which to build. My formal exposure to the concept of rhetoric can be summed up with, "That's a rhetorical question"~which implied the answer was so obvious that no response was expected. Hardly a firm foot-hold with which to enter the readings for Week 1.
Conley states in his preface that he sees rhetoric "historically" and he tracks "various perennial responses" of what rhetoric is, or is not; concluding that there is not "a single, unitary art or discipline called 'Rhetoric'" (ix). This statement became manifest as I struggled to grasp the theories laid out by the masters of rhetoric in Patricia F. Matsen's Readings from Classical Rhetoric.
As I read through the combined assignments (nearly 200 pages), I was astounded not by my inability to grasp or maintain the concepts of the various masters and their schools of instruction (Gorgias, Alcidamas, Isocrates, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle); I was astounded by the intellect displayed five thousand years before our twenty-first century. Who were these people?
As each master stated and defended, by example, his theories of what made his teachings the most successful approach to the art of persusion, the ancient world of Athenian Greece opened before my eyes. Compiled in Matsen's Readings from Classical Rhetoric, was a time capsule of culture, society, and psychology. The Athenians were debating warfare, alliances, economics, ethics, social reform, crime and punishment. Their struggles were as fresh as our daily headlines. Working within a democracy, they too, debated the merits of oppositional actions. The approachs to winning over converts, became their own topics of great debate as masters and students evolved their own approaches.
In this format it is impossible to discuss in detail the theories and techniques presented over the centuries. Based on the readings of the texts, rhetoric is "the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever" (120). However, rhetoric was, as any other art, held to measureable standards. It was the quest to achieve these standards that led to the development of the various schools of rhetoric. Despite their competitive bid for students, on the virtues of the art itself they seem to be in general agreement on the following points: rhetoric can be used to persuade for good or evil; rhetoric develops the mind as gymnastics develops the body; rhetoric demands logical reasoning; rhetoric is more than substance and style-first and foremost is the character of the speaker which gives greater weight to the argument; rhetoric serves the highest good of the state and her populace; rhetoric, through a series of time-honored ancient premises, is able to establish what is good and evil.
As we struggle in our own age to find a common ground between the quest to sway public opinion, even as divergent as the Christian beliefs of James Dobson and Al Sharpton, compromise is an achievement of successful rhetoric.