Day: August 12, 2024

Emotive vs. Scientific Use of Language

• Historical Origin: Initially, all language was emotive; its scientific application developed later and became perceived as the norm due to its users often reflecting on language while employing it scientifically.
• Primary Use: Most language continues to be emotive, even though scientific use has gained prominence.

Function and Nature of Poetry

• Emotive Focus: Poetry is described as the supreme form of emotive language, differentiating statements that invoke attitudes from those that communicate scientific truths.
• Influence on Attitudes: Rather than conveying factual information, poetic statements primarily stimulate emotional and psychological responses.

Critical Misunderstanding

• Common Misinterpretation: Readers often misinterpret poetic truthfulness or falsity, believing it affects the poem’s value, whereas the actual value lies in the evoked response regardless of the factual accuracy.
• Impact of Misunderstanding: The misinterpretation leads to a misuse of poetry, diminishing its potential impact and causing stagnation in critical studies.

Interplay of Beliefs and Poetry

• Influence of Beliefs: Beliefs, whether true or not, can temporarily enhance certain attitudes but are not crucial to the emotional experience poetry aims to produce.
• Role of Reference and Belief: Poetry often uses references not for factual correctness but to foster a conducive emotional environment for the reader.

Perversion of Poetry Through Intellectualization

• Substitution by Intellectual Formula: Poetic works are sometimes reduced to intellectual constructs, which can undermine the emotive and experiential aspect that defines poetry.
• Harm of Over-Intellectualization: Overemphasis on factual or intellectual content in poetry can diminish its emotional and artistic integrity.

Distinguishing Between Scientific and Emotive Beliefs

• Definition and Differences: Scientific beliefs involve a readiness to act based on the truthfulness of information, whereas emotive beliefs are more about the readiness to feel in response to poetic or dramatic contexts.
• Relevance in Art: In artistic contexts, particularly in poetry and drama, emotive beliefs are more prevalent and crucial for the depth of experience.

Consequences of Mixing Knowledge with Emotion

• Risks of Misalignment: Confusing knowledge-based and emotive beliefs can lead to a misalignment of emotional responses and factual understanding, weakening the overall experience.
• Necessity of Distinct Separation: A clear distinction between emotive and scientific contexts in understanding poetry is essential for preserving the integrity of emotional responses.

Societal and Psychological Implications

• Cultural Shifts: The evolution from emotive to scientific perspectives in language reflects broader societal shifts and has profound implications on cultural and psychological levels.
• Impact on Human Behavior: Misunderstandings and misalignments in the interpretation of poetry and art can influence broader human endeavors and societal attitudes.

Establishment of Emotive Language Theory:

• Comprehensive Comments: Richards emphasizes that poetry primarily uses language emotively rather than cognitively, stating, “It is the supreme form of emotive language.” This perspective challenges traditional views that prioritize factual accuracy in literary works, urging a reevaluation of how emotional responses are elicited through poetic expressions.

Differentiation Between Emotive and Scientific Uses of Language:

• Comprehensive Comments: He clarifies the distinction between the scientific and emotive uses of language, explaining, “Originally all language was emotive; its scientific use is a later development.” This differentiation underpins much of contemporary literary theory, which often investigates the emotional versus the rational elements of texts.

Influence on Reader Response Theory:

• Comprehensive Comments: Richards contributes to the foundation of Reader Response Theory by illustrating how a poem’s impact is less about its literal truth and more about the response it invokes in readers. He asserts, “For all that matters in either case is acceptance, that is to say, the initiation and development of the further response.” This idea foregrounds the reader’s engagement with the text, prioritizing personal interpretation over objective analysis.

Critique of Over-Intellectualization in Poetry:

• Comprehensive Comments: By critiquing the over-intellectualization of poetry, Richards warns against the dangers of basing emotional responses on intellectual constructs rather than genuine emotive engagement, noting, “This substitution of an intellectual formula for the poem or work of art is of course most easily observed in the case of religion, where the temptation is greatest.” This critique has influenced theories that favor a more nuanced approach to interpreting literary texts, recognizing the complexity of human emotional and intellectual interactions.

Implications for Literary Criticism:

• Comprehensive Comments: Richards’ work challenges critics to reconsider their approaches, especially concerning the validity and relevance of critical analysis. He argues that much literary criticism fails to appreciate the emotive power of poetry, suggesting, “Too much inferior poetry has been poured out as criticism, too much sack and too little bread.” This call for a reevaluation of critical methods has encouraged a broader, more inclusive approach to literary studies.

Examination of the Psychological Effects of Poetry:

• Comprehensive Comments: Richards delves into the psychological impact of poetry on the reader, exploring how beliefs and attitudes are influenced by poetic expressions. He discusses the concept of ‘objectless beliefs,’ which are significant in shaping the psychological states induced by poetry, stating, “It is often held that recent generations suffer more from nervous strain…the strain imposed by the vain attempt to orient the mind by belief of the scientific kind alone.” This examination contributes to an understanding of literature’s deep and varied effects on human psychology.

Overemphasis on Emotive Language

• Neglect of cognitive elements: Critics argue that Richards oversimplifies poetry by reducing it solely to emotive language, ignoring the cognitive and intellectual dimensions.
• Underestimation of meaning: By focusing excessively on emotional response, Richards is accused of downplaying the importance of meaning and understanding in poetic interpretation.

Reductionist View of Belief

• Oversimplified dichotomy: Critics contend that Richards’ distinction between scientific and emotive belief is overly simplistic and fails to account for the complex interplay between the two.
• Ignoring the role of belief in meaning-making: Richards’ emphasis on the emotional impact of poetry leads to a neglect of the role of belief in constructing meaning.

Neglect of Context and Historical Factors

• Ahistorical approach: Critics argue that Richards’ analysis is ahistorical, failing to consider the historical and cultural contexts in which poetry is produced and received.
• Ignoring the social and political dimensions: By focusing primarily on the individual reader’s response, Richards overlooks the social and political implications of poetry.

Overreliance on Psychological Explanation

• Reduction of poetry to psychology: Critics contend that Richards’ attempt to explain poetic experience through psychology reduces poetry to a mere stimulus-response mechanism.
• Ignoring the aesthetic dimension: By prioritizing psychological factors, Richards is accused of neglecting the aesthetic qualities and formal elements of poetry.

Ambiguous and Overly Broad Concepts

• Vague terminology: Critics argue that Richards’ use of terms like “belief,” “attitude,” and “emotion” is often ambiguous and lacks precise definition.
• Overgeneralization: Richards’ claims about the nature of poetry are seen as overly broad and applicable to a wide range of literary works, leading to a lack of specificity.

Implications for Poetic Practice

• Negative impact on poetic creation: Some critics argue that Richards’ theory could lead to a focus on emotional manipulation rather than genuine poetic expression.
• Limited critical framework: Richards’ approach is seen as providing a limited framework for analyzing and evaluating poetry, as it neglects important aspects such as form, language, and intertextuality.

·  Literary Work’s Dependence on Literary Environment:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin argue that a literary work is inherently part of the “literary environment,” which is the collective body of socially active literary works of a given epoch. They state, “The individual literary work is a dependent and therefore actually inseparable element of the literary environment” (p. 26). This environment directly influences the work, making it inseparable from the socio-cultural and ideological context of its time.

·  Complex System of Interconnections:

• The authors describe a “complex system of interconnections and mutual influences” within literature, where each element is defined within multiple, interrelated unities (p. 27). They assert that literature cannot be understood outside the context of the ideological and socioeconomic environment, as “the ideological environment in its totality and in each of its elements is likewise a dependent element of the socioeconomic environment” (p. 27). This interconnectedness emphasizes the need to study literature as part of a larger socio-cultural system.

·  Dialectical Approach to Literary History:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin advocate for a dialectical approach in literary history, where the study of a literary work must account for its place within the broader ideological and socioeconomic context. They emphasize, “The work cannot be understood outside the unity of literature,” and this unity itself “cannot be studied outside the unified socioeconomic laws of development” (p. 28). This dialectical method is crucial for understanding the dynamic interactions that shape literary works.

·  Literary Individuality within Social Context:

• While literature interacts with various domains of socio-economic life, it does not lose its individuality. The authors argue, “In fact, its individuality can only be completely discovered and defined in this process of interaction” (p. 30). This statement highlights that the unique characteristics of a literary work are best understood when analyzed within its broader social and ideological context.

·  Rejection of Isolated Literary Systems:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin reject the idea of viewing literature as a closed, independent system, asserting that “The notion of closed and independent cultural systems is completely inadmissible” (p. 31). They argue that literature is always in interaction with other cultural and social systems, and studying it in isolation would result in an incomplete understanding of its role and significance.

·  Sociological Poetics and Literary History:

• The authors introduce the concept of sociological poetics as essential for a comprehensive understanding of literary history. They state, “Literary history essentially presupposes the answers sociological poetics provides to the problems which have been set” (p. 32). This approach involves analyzing the structure of literary works—such as genre, style, and theme—in relation to their ideological and social contexts.

·  Critique of Formalism:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin critique the formalist approach to literature, which isolates literary works from their social context. They argue, “For if literature is a social phenomenon, then the formal method, which ignores and denies this, is first of all inadequate to literature itself” (p. 34). They believe that formalism fails to capture the true nature of literature by neglecting its social and ideological dimensions.

·  Marxism and the Formal Method:

• The authors stress the importance of Marxist criticism in countering the formalist approach. They claim that Marxism “cannot leave the work of the formalists without exhaustive critical analysis” (p. 34). This analysis is necessary because formalism’s neglect of the social nature of literature leads to “false interpretations and definitions” (p. 34). Marxist literary scholarship, therefore, seeks to incorporate social and ideological context into the study of literature to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding.

Aesthetic Function as a Structural Element:

• Mukarovsky argues that the aesthetic function is integral to the structure of art, not just an addition or an attribute. This function elevates the artistic sign beyond simple communication, imbuing it with a deeper, more complex relationship with reality.

Artistic Sign and Indirect Realities:

• The artistic sign does not directly represent reality but acts as a mediator to connect with various indirect realities. This connection is crucial for the audience to engage with art on a personal and social level, enhancing the interpretive richness of the artwork.

Social Construct of Artistic Interpretation:

• Interpretation of art is not purely individualistic but deeply rooted in social constructs. Mukarovsky posits that every artistic interpretation is influenced by the social context, making art a social fact, contrary to the notion of subjective isolation.

Dynamic Relationship Between Art and Reality:

• Art creates a dynamic interaction between its own content and the broader societal values. This interaction is not merely reflective but actively engages with and potentially transforms societal norms and values.

The Role of Aesthetic Values in Social Dynamics:

• Aesthetic values are not static; they participate actively in the social dialogue, challenging and potentially altering societal values. Art’s autonomy allows it to experiment with these values, proposing new configurations and adaptations.

Negation of Concrete Reality in Art:

• Art serves as a dialectical negation of concrete reality, allowing for a more profound exploration of themes and concepts that extend beyond the immediate and tangible. This negation is essential for the transformative power of art.

Form and Content Integration:

• Mukarovsky challenges the traditional separation of form and content in art. He argues that all elements of a work of art are interdependent and contribute to its overall meaning and impact, blurring the lines between form and content.

Extra-Aesthetic Values in Art:

• Art is seen as a repository of extra-aesthetic values. These values transcend the immediate aesthetic experience and engage with broader life values, influencing the viewer’s perception of reality and their position within it.

Transformative Potential of Art:

• The transformative potential of art lies in its ability to reorder and redefine value systems within a society. Art’s engagement with life values facilitates a critical examination and potential transformation of these values, contributing to societal evolution.

Art as a Social Agent:

• Art functions as a significant social agent, capable of influencing and reflecting societal changes and tensions. Its autonomy and aesthetic function enable it to engage deeply with societal dynamics, making it a powerful tool in the social arena.

Overemphasis on Social Determinism

• Mukarovsky’s theory tends to overemphasize the role of social factors in shaping aesthetic experience, potentially neglecting the autonomy of the individual and the power of the artwork itself.
• It risks reducing the complexity of artistic creation and reception to a mere reflection of social structures.

Limited Account of Individual Experience

• While acknowledging the influence of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory may not fully account for the unique and personal experiences of individual readers or viewers.
• It might overlook the subjective and emotional dimensions of aesthetic response.

Difficulty in Defining “Aesthetic Value”

• Despite its centrality to the theory, the concept of “aesthetic value” remains somewhat elusive and difficult to precisely define.
• The relationship between aesthetic value and extra-aesthetic values is not always clearly articulated.

Oversimplification of Form and Content

• Mukarovsky’s rejection of the traditional form-content distinction might be seen as an oversimplification of the complex relationship between these elements in a work of art.
• It could potentially lead to a neglect of the formal qualities of art.

Neglect of Historical and Cultural Variation

• While recognizing the role of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory might not adequately account for the historical and cultural specificity of aesthetic experiences.
• It risks generalizations that may not hold true across different times and places.

Potential for Reductionism

• By focusing on the social determinants of aesthetic experience, there is a risk of reducing art to a mere instrument of social ideology or propaganda.
• This could limit the potential for art to challenge and transform social norms.

·  Complex Understanding of “Manners”:

• Trilling defines “manners” not merely as social etiquettes but as a broader cultural hum of implications, hinting at unexpressed values and norms. He articulates this as “the whole evanescent context in which its explicit statements are made” which includes everything from slang and humor to the gestures of daily life.

·  Significance of the Unexpressed in Historical Context:

• The essay highlights the charm and melancholy of the past, suggesting that historical literature often misses the ‘buzz’ of implications, leaving a tranquil yet incomplete picture. Trilling writes, “Somewhere below all the explicit statements that a people makes through its art, religion, architecture, legislation, there is a dim mental region of intention.”

·  Literature’s Inquiry into Reality and Appearance:

• Trilling discusses literature’s obsession with the dichotomy between reality and appearance, using classical examples like Oedipus and Othello to illustrate how literature explores the tension between what seems and what is. He emphasizes, “All literature tends to be concerned with the question of reality—I mean quite simply the old opposition between reality and appearance.”

·  Social Critique through the Novel:

• The novel serves as a medium for social critique by capturing and reflecting the dynamics of social classes and manners. Trilling observes that novels historically have grappled with these themes, often revealing deep societal truths through their narratives.

·  American Literature’s Detachment from Social Reality:

• Unlike European novels, American literature, according to Trilling, often eschews deep social exploration. He mentions American authors who diverged from exploring social realities, noting, “American writers of genius have not turned their minds to society.”

·  Contemporary American Literature and Its Shortcomings:

• Modern American novels fail to adequately capture the complexities of contemporary society, often focusing on superficial narratives rather than profound social dynamics. Trilling argues that this superficial focus misses the potential richness of the American social landscape.

·  Criticism of Snobbery and Class Dynamics:

• Trilling critiques the novel’s fixation on class and snobbery, emphasizing how these elements often overshadow deeper social insights. He argues that snobbery in literature reflects a preoccupation with status rather than meaningful social function.

·  The Novel as a Medium for Moral and Cultural Education:

• The essay champions the novel as a tool for moral reflection and cultural education, arguing that it engages readers with ethical dilemmas and societal roles, prompting introspection about personal and collective morals.

·  Potential of the Novel for Social Reflection and Change:

• Trilling concludes by highlighting the novel’s role in fostering a moral imagination and understanding of human motives, which is crucial for effective societal reform and empathy. He stresses, “It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the free play of the moral imagination.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling

·  Expanding the Understanding of “Manners” in Literature:

• Trilling redefines “manners” beyond mere social etiquette to encompass the implicit cultural norms and values that shape societal interactions. He articulates this broader understanding by identifying manners as the “culture’s hum and buzz of implication,” encompassing all unexpressed or partially expressed societal values that influence behavior.

·  Emphasis on the Implicit Over the Explicit:

• Trilling highlights the importance of what is not explicitly stated in literature, arguing that the unspoken or subtly implied elements often carry more weight in understanding a culture’s moral and ethical landscape. This contributes to literary theory by stressing the role of subtext and the implicit meanings that underpin the explicit narratives.

·  Exploration of Reality versus Appearance:

• The essay extensively discusses the literary preoccupation with the conflict between reality and appearance, drawing on examples from classic literature like Oedipus and Othello. Trilling’s discussion contributes to literary theory by framing this conflict as central to understanding characters and plots, influencing how reality is constructed and perceived in literary contexts.

·  Novel as a Social Document:

• Trilling argues that the novel serves as a critical reflection of societal norms and values, effectively making it a social document that offers insights into the manners and morals of the time. This view contributes to literary theory by supporting the idea that literature serves as a historical and sociological resource, reflecting and critiquing societal structures.

·  Critical Examination of American Literature’s Social Engagement:

• Trilling critiques American literature for its lack of engagement with deep social realities, contrasting it with European literature’s rich exploration of class and societal dynamics. This contributes to literary theory by challenging American literary criticism to reconsider the depth and scope of its social engagement.

·  The Novel’s Role in Moral Education:

• The essay positions the novel as a tool for moral education, suggesting that it engages readers with moral dilemmas and societal roles, encouraging introspection and ethical consideration. This perspective enriches literary theory by underscoring the ethical responsibilities of literature and its potential to influence readers’ moral considerations.

·  Implications for Modern Literary Criticism and Social Responsibility:

• Trilling calls for a modern literary criticism that acknowledges the novel’s potential to reflect and reform societal morals and manners. This challenges existing literary theories to incorporate a more robust consideration of literature’s role in shaping and critiquing societal norms, emphasizing the ethical implications of literary production and criticism.

·  Art as a Way of Thinking:

• The article begins by discussing the concept that “art is thinking in images,” a notion influenced by Potebnya, who believed that without imagery, there is no art, particularly no poetry.
• Potebnya equates poetry with imagery, leading to the theory that “Imagery equals symbolism.”

·  Distinction Between Poetic and Prosaic Imagery:

• The article emphasizes the distinction between the language of poetry and prose, pointing out that imagery can serve both practical (prosaic) and poetic purposes.
• Poetic imagery is described as a device to create strong impressions, used alongside other poetic techniques like hyperbole, repetition, and parallelism.

·  Habitualization and Art’s Role:

• The article explains how habitual perception becomes automatic, diminishing our conscious experience of life.
• Art’s purpose is to counter this by making us feel things anew, “making the stone stony” through techniques that make objects unfamiliar, thereby prolonging the process of perception.

·  Defamiliarization Technique:

• The concept of “defamiliarization,” a key technique in art, is highlighted as a way to make familiar objects and actions seem strange, thus disrupting habitual perception.
• Tolstoy’s work is cited as an example, where he avoids naming familiar objects directly, instead describing them in a way that makes them seem new or strange.

·  Application of Defamiliarization:

• Defamiliarization is found in various literary forms, such as in the description of sexual acts or objects not called by their proper names, which creates a unique perception and disrupts the automatic recognition of these acts or objects.

·  Poetic Language and Perception:

• The article concludes by stressing that poetic language is designed to remove automatism from perception, slowing down the process and thereby creating a more profound and satisfying experience.