If this sounds different to you that's because I edited it!
Like Rashmi, I was initially confused by the intentions of the writer. This made me wonder how readers of this report would know when and where to stop rejecting the words on the page (i.e. the 'narrative' as it is presented to them), and instead, begin to (re)build their own version of the story. When does this turning point occur and what are the potential signifiers (if any) that might "disrupt one's inclination to identify" with the anthropologist (Lewis 9), and instead, (re)construct an alternative narrative? The report only becomes 'ironic' and/or 'parodic' when the reader (who is part of the 'discursive community') 'gets it'. The reader is thus complicit in the production of the 'alternative' narrative. Readers are therefore not just "produced as subjects by the texts they read" (Lewis 4), but they produce interpretations - this performative act is then a diachronic process that not only discloses the world they reside in but also produces the possibility of transformation. Parody and irony are then very powerful devices that facilitate this process within the space of a single narrative.
Both Lewis and Booth emphasize the value of this performative act. For instance, Lewis argues that this recognition (of the 'limits of identification') leads to a "creative reconstruction" that "addresses the social and political dimensions of the texts […] invit[ing] students to take pleasure in both the personal and the critical" (Lewis 9). Similarly, Booth in "The Ethics of Teaching Literature", suggests that teachers not only pick novels according to the needs of the students but also select novels with competing ideologies/systems in order to "inculcate the right kind of casuistry" (53). In both the Lewis's and Booth's examples, the writers highlight the "pleasure" (Lewis) and "excitement" (Booth) that comes with 'doing literature'. 'Doing literature' is thus addictive and fun - but is this a 'good' kind addiction? What are the consequences of the 'possibility of transformation'? Parody, according to Dentith, "has the paradoxical effect of preserving the very text that it seeks to destroy" and this can create some "odd effects". While I'm not sure what Dentith means by "odd effects", the word 'effect' still suggests to me that it is, as I've mentioned before, 'productive' though obviously not in the 'positive' sense of the word. Similarly, Lewis's "creative reconstruction" (emphasis mine) may be both a 'positive' and 'negative' one, while Booth's does not go on to specify what this 'right' kind of casuistry may be (we know he does not mean the alternative definition of casuistry which is 'unsound reasoning') but there still remains the possibility of the production of moral paradigms that are not align with the moral values that most teachers hope to teach/reproduce. The irony it seems lies in the system itself - how can such processes (which some even claim to 'free'/'democratize' the individual) promote democratic values of "equality" and "justice" for all when we know for a fact that real democracy comes at the price of the freedoms of other members (and animals?) of society? How can (literature) education create the possibility for friendship and kindness (the equal kind based neither on the materiality of the bodies nor on 'universal values')?
Like Rashmi, I was initially confused by the intentions of the writer. This made me wonder how readers of this report would know when and where to stop rejecting the words on the page (i.e. the 'narrative' as it is presented to them), and instead, begin to (re)build their own version of the story. When does this turning point occur and what are the potential signifiers (if any) that might "disrupt one's inclination to identify" with the anthropologist (Lewis 9), and instead, (re)construct an alternative narrative? The report only becomes 'ironic' and/or 'parodic' when the reader (who is part of the 'discursive community') 'gets it'. The reader is thus complicit in the production of the 'alternative' narrative. Readers are therefore not just "produced as subjects by the texts they read" (Lewis 4), but they produce interpretations - this performative act is then a diachronic process that not only discloses the world they reside in but also produces the possibility of transformation. Parody and irony are then very powerful devices that facilitate this process within the space of a single narrative.
Both Lewis and Booth emphasize the value of this performative act. For instance, Lewis argues that this recognition (of the 'limits of identification') leads to a "creative reconstruction" that "addresses the social and political dimensions of the texts […] invit[ing] students to take pleasure in both the personal and the critical" (Lewis 9). Similarly, Booth in "The Ethics of Teaching Literature", suggests that teachers not only pick novels according to the needs of the students but also select novels with competing ideologies/systems in order to "inculcate the right kind of casuistry" (53). In both the Lewis's and Booth's examples, the writers highlight the "pleasure" (Lewis) and "excitement" (Booth) that comes with 'doing literature'. 'Doing literature' is thus addictive and fun - but is this a 'good' kind addiction? What are the consequences of the 'possibility of transformation'? Parody, according to Dentith, "has the paradoxical effect of preserving the very text that it seeks to destroy" and this can create some "odd effects". While I'm not sure what Dentith means by "odd effects", the word 'effect' still suggests to me that it is, as I've mentioned before, 'productive' though obviously not in the 'positive' sense of the word. Similarly, Lewis's "creative reconstruction" (emphasis mine) may be both a 'positive' and 'negative' one, while Booth's does not go on to specify what this 'right' kind of casuistry may be (we know he does not mean the alternative definition of casuistry which is 'unsound reasoning') but there still remains the possibility of the production of moral paradigms that are not align with the moral values that most teachers hope to teach/reproduce. The irony it seems lies in the system itself - how can such processes (which some even claim to 'free'/'democratize' the individual) promote democratic values of "equality" and "justice" for all when we know for a fact that real democracy comes at the price of the freedoms of other members (and animals?) of society? How can (literature) education create the possibility for friendship and kindness (the equal kind based neither on the materiality of the bodies nor on 'universal values')?
Great thoughts, Elizabeth! Good use of Booth and Lewis too. I'm interested in pushing the idea of the "performative act" you mention. How does it relate to theories about Reader-Response and phenomenological criticism? We didn't get to talk much about phenomenology and structuralism in relation to the intro chapter on cultural studies, but maybe here we can get try to trash out some of these theoretical ideas/concepts in relation to the "practice" of reading. Any takers?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, I'm not sure how it relates to theories about reader-response and phenomenological criticism, but to my limited and probably somewhat flawed/misconstrued understanding of structuralism/post-structuralism, the 'practice' of reading is performative act as it denotes a particular utterance (so an interpreter interpretes, a reader readers etc) that is made possible by the indeterminacy of language.
Deleteperhaps it is performative also because every interpretation is never the same and also transient (over so quickly like a theatrical performance)
ReplyDeleteAlthough for people like Butler, I think a "performative act" would be something less productive (in the optimistic sense)? Perhaps this has something to do with the subtitle of this blog? I've been wondering what it means, especially the last sentence "teaching as the act of impossibility". I'm sorry for this mess! Apparently there is no way to edit comments? I had no idea!
DeleteButler starts by drawing not he insights of speech act theory. Within speech act theory, a performative is that discursive practice that enacts that which it names. As J. L. Austin (1962) explains, performative speech acts (e.g. “I hereby pronounce you husband and wife.”) do not so much describe a state of affairs as produce it. This "illocutionary" performative should be distinguished from "perlocutionary" performatives. Illocutionary performatives consist in words that enact their anticipated effects in the moment of utterance. Butler (1997), explaining Austin, writes: “Whereas illocutionary acts proceed by way of conventions, perlocutionary acts proceed by way of consequences” (17). Compared to illocutionary effects, perlocutionary effects are radically unpredictable, and can ultimately frustrate their speaker’s original intents. In other words, words possess a life of their own.
ReplyDeleteif so, I think there are a lot of implications for marking schemes?
ReplyDelete