Sunday, October 11, 2009
Take Off the Glasses, It's Dark Out
Jameson seems to take the argument away from anyone who would claim that Marxist, or any other theory with the exception of new Criticism, is just a bunch of hooey. I often hear people try to discredit theory by saying that it is just for those with too much time on their hands. They claim that all of these theories just serve to confuse the average reader. They muddy up the “straightforward” close readings of New Criticism, or just reading the text, by reading too much into the context and the structures surrounding the text. The “elaborate and ingenious interpretations” are too much for them to handle. Jameson would say to them that there is no such thing as a close reading that is completely free from any outside influence on the reader. Every reader who picks up a text and reads it is doing so with a lens that has been developed through centuries of struggle between any number of forces. Through mystification, most readers have been blinded to the very existence of this lens. Without even realizing it, most people will live their whole life looking at the world with a tinted and skewed vision of the way things are. This lens is kept in place through the ignorance of the masses. If there was no mystification, ”then no ideology would be possible, and no domination either.” As long as the majority of a given population believes that literature is just words and their culture is” the way it has always been,” then there can be no change. You need to know that you are wearing the sunglasses before you can even begin to try and take them off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Guilty as charged! My thinking was very narrow in regard to literary criticism prior to the past eight weeks. My thinking has been altered as I slog my way through the readings, step back and reflect on my notes, participate in class discussion. Are there implications for my own approach to writing-absolutely.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with most of what you have said, I am very uncomfortable with having what appears to be a rather significant part of humanity reduced to the level (at best) of the average reader, and (at worst) the ignorant masses. During our discussions of the Greeks. some of the philosophers of old were referred to by a classmate as "douches". There seems to be an unfortunate amount of peer pressure in upper academic levels to become a douche-wanna-be. Literary criticism is a fascinating pursuit. In a world full of tragedy, disease, desparation, war, and diminishing resources, it is a luxury--perhaps a totally self-indulgent one. In the Bible it says that a man should take the beam out of his own eye before trying to remove the mote from his brother's eye. Translating that into an academic setting might read a little differently: The literati should stop looking down their over-educated noses before they try to rip the lens from the eyes of others. If for no other reason, perhaps those lens serve a useful purpose, and is the view of the world from over the edge of speculative pages read in a comfortable chair really any more clear?
ReplyDeleteI want to keep my sunglasses on, they protect me from the light. I like mystification. Why do I have to see what others want me to see? Can't I just see what I want to see? I must say I once thought that theorists spoke nothing but hooey, and I somtimes still do; but, having said this, I understand what you are talking about thanks to my skewed lens; my culture allows for my interpretation. Thank you Nic!
ReplyDeleteHmm...but I wonder if the idea that most people are looking through skewed and tinted lens is actually a result of another's "skewed and tinted" lens?
ReplyDeleteI, too, wonder how exactly intellectuals reach a point where they are "above" everyone because of their understanding...yet they are just as confident as someone without this understanding. Is it indeed possible that THEY are the ones mislead than the general masses? What exactly elevates them? Hmmm....
(Just throwing in a little Derrida to jazz up the Marxism. :P)
Its easy to point the finger at New Criticism and scream, "You're so blind!" And to the extent that any of them believes they truly eliminate everything when coming to the text they are. Still, does the inevitable presence of bias mean that there is no virtue in striving for objectivity? Did anyone ever really see objectivity as anything other than an ideal to be aspire to?
ReplyDeleteI often find myself wishing for the old naive attempt at neutrality/objectivity as an alternative to the current I'm going to embrace my biases and abandon any attempt to objectivity because it's impossible to achieve! I think that abandonment of the pursuit of that ideal has only served to feed discord and push us further into ever more heavily armed camps that cannot get past even larger, thicker, more distorting lenses to see any perspective other than their (my, our, your etc.) own.
In response to your "You need to know that you are wearing the sunglasses before you can even begin to try and take them off" Jameson agrees and points out “[t]he only effective liberation from such constraints begins with the recognition that there is nothing that is not social and historical” to some degree. (183)
ReplyDeleteLiterature cannot exist in a vacuum. Inspiration is needed to create any piece of writing: whether it is an experience, a conflict, an expression or therapy, there will always be a muse.