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 I also found that what I thought I knew about writing was no longer valid.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.