Dear II MA Students,
This is in continuation of the discussions we had in class on Terence Hawkes and Catherine Belsey.
Well, Catherine Belsey’s
Preface to the Second Edition is quite a compelling 'read of sorts'! I've reproduced below, excerpted passages from the Preface she has written to her wonderful book Critical Practice and a few 'passage-excerpts' from Chapter 1 as an appetiser :-)
Just read through
these excerpts to see her awesome felicity of expression, and how she convinces
her reader to partake of her vibrant thoughts on Criticism and Theory, in such an
endearing way.
Now here we go…
Writing the first
edition of Critical Practice was a learning experience for me. New theories
were arriving from Paris by the planeload, giving rise to heated debate. They
seemed to change everything we thought about culture in general, but there was
only one way to find out what difference they made to the practice of reading
in particular.
At that time the
principal influences were Roland Barthes, whose scintillating S/Z represented
my first encounter with post-Saussurean criticism, and Louis Althusser, who
made clear that the educational institution was a place where cultural values
were both inculcated and contested. Jacques Lacan was there, at least in the
first instance, as an influence on Althusser. Michel Foucault was beginning to
be there too, but not pre-eminently as a commentator on fiction or the literary
institution. We did not yet know that his term, ‘discourse’, would come in
English to mean everything cultural, and nothing in particular. Jacques Derrida
had not at that time made much impact in the UK: I was under the impression
that, in contrast to the Marxism of Althusser and Pierre Macherey, Derridean
deconstruction was predominantly formalist. I could hardly have been more
wrong: the logic of deconstruction has the effect of dismantling the founding
assumptions of Western philosophy in its entirety.
Times have
changed, and Critical Practice needs updating to take account of what we know
now. Knowledge is like that: our current understanding will, no doubt, be
superseded in its turn. To keep that temporal relativity in view, I have not
tried to eliminate all elements of the period flavour of the first edition. But
I have erased what would now mislead readers, and I have added a chapter on the
critical implications of deconstruction, without seeing any reason to set it
against the politics of Althusser and Macherey. Hasn’t Derrida himself
acknowledged the contribution of revolutionary political analysis in Specters
of Marx?
Post-Saussurean
work on language has challenged the whole concept of realism; Roland Barthes
has specifically proclaimed the death of the author; and Jacques Lacan, Louis
Althusser and Jacques Derrida have all from various positions questioned the
humanist assumption that the individual mind or inner being is the source of
meaning and truth. In this context, the notion of a text which tells a (or the)
truth, as perceived by an individual subject (the author), whose insights are
the source of the text’s single and authoritative meaning, is not only
untenable, but literally unthinkable, because the problematic which supported
it, the framework of assumptions and knowledges, ways of thinking, probing and
analysing that it was based on, no longer stands.
But there is no
practice without theory, however much that theory is suppressed, unformulated
or perceived as ‘obvious’. What we do when we read, however natural it seems,
presupposes a whole theoretical vocabulary, even if unspoken, which defines
certain relationships between meaning and the world, meaning and people, and
finally people themselves and their place in the world.
Partly as a
consequence of this theory, the language used by its practitioners is usually
far from transparent. The effect of this is to alert the reader to the opacity
of language, and to avoid the ‘tyranny of lucidity’, the impression that what
is being said must be true simply because it is clear and familiar. The modes
of address of postSaussurean writers like Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes,
Jacques Derrida and Jacques Lacan, though different from each other in
important ways, share this property of difficulty, and not simply from a
perverse desire to be obscure. To challenge familiar assumptions and familiar
values in a vocabulary which, in order to be easily readable, is compelled to
reproduce these assumptions and values, is an impossibility. New concepts, new
theories, necessitate new, unfamiliar and therefore initially difficult terms.
For instance, I shall introduce the word ideology in a way which may be
unfamiliar, associating it with common sense rather than with a set of
doctrines or a coherent system of beliefs. My use of the term, derived from
Althusser, assumes that ideology is not an optional extra, deliberately adopted
by self-conscious individuals (‘Conservative party ideology’, for instance),
but the very condition of our experience of the world, unconscious precisely in
that it is unquestioned, taken for granted. Ideology, in Althusser’s use of the
term, works in conjunction with political practice and economic practice to
constitute the social formation, a term designed to promote a more complex and
radical analysis than the familiar term, ‘society’, which often evokes either a
single homogeneous mass or, alternatively, a loosely connected group of
autonomous individuals, and thus offers no challenge to the assumptions of
common sense. Ideology is inscribed in language in the sense that it is
literally written or spoken in it. Rather than a separate element which exists
independently in some free-floating realm of ‘ideas’ and is subsequently
embodied in words, ideology is a way of thinking, speaking, experiencing. These
usages will, I hope, become clear and familiar in the course of what follows.
In this book I
shall try to make the new theories as accessible as possible, without
recuperating them for common sense by transcribing them back into the language
of every day. The undertaking is in a sense contradictory: to explain is
inevitably to reduce the unfamiliarity and so to reduce the extent of the
challenge of the post-Saussurean position. On the other hand, I hope that it
may prove to be a useful enterprise if it facilitates the reading of the
principal theorists themselves.
contd... [but then, these are, as i said earlier, just excerpts] ;-)
PC: english.heacademy.ac.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment