“Commentary” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

1. Two Ways of Thinking About Metaphor: Philosophical and Rhetorical Approaches

• Culler identifies two primary perspectives on metaphor: the via philosophica and the via rhetorica.
  • Via philosophica: Views metaphor as intrinsic to all language, occurring in the space between sense and reference (Culler, p. 219).
  • Via rhetorica: Sees metaphor as a rhetorical device where meaning is substituted, focusing on the relationship between literal and figurative language (p. 219-220).
• These approaches are paradoxically interdependent, undermining any attempt to separate them coherently in discourse (p. 220).

2. Challenges in Defining Metaphor Coherently

• Efforts to justify one approach often inadvertently rely on the other, revealing the domain of metaphor as paradoxical and fragmented (p. 220).
• Jacques Derrida argues metaphor cannot be studied independently of the philosophical frameworks it entails, as it is foundational to language itself (p. 220).
• Attempts to unify both approaches, such as Gaston Bachelard’s study of metaphor in poetic and scientific discourse, highlight inherent contradictions (p. 221).

3. The Philosophical Perspective: Metaphor as Universal

• The via philosophica suggests all abstract concepts are metaphorical. For example, terms like “grasp” metaphorically link physical and intellectual processes (p. 221).
• This perspective challenges the idea of non-metaphoric “proper” language, arguing that naming itself involves metaphorical ascription (p. 221).
• Derrida critiques this approach by suggesting that it privileges origins over present function, reducing metaphor to a historical construct (p. 222).

4. The Rhetorical Perspective: Metaphor as a Substitution

• The via rhetorica focuses on metaphor as the replacement of one term with another. Aristotle’s typology of figures informs this approach, categorizing metaphor alongside synecdoche and metonymy (p. 223).
• Problems arise when creative or indeterminate metaphors resist clear substitution, such as Shakespeare’s “bare ruined choirs” or Eliot’s “I have heard the mermaids singing” (p. 223-224).
• Rhetorical analysis struggles to address cases like catachresis, where words are “forced” into new meanings, blurring the line between metaphorical and literal usage (p. 224-225).

5. Metaphor as a Product of Interpretation

• Culler shifts focus to the interpretive act, arguing that metaphor arises when readers confront textual incongruities (p. 225).
• Metaphor depends on conventions of coherence and vraisemblance, which dictate how readers integrate and make sense of texts (p. 226).
• For example, metaphor in surrealist poetry, such as Ashbery’s “They dream only of America,” challenges conventional interpretive strategies, demonstrating metaphor as an interpretive residue rather than a primary feature (p. 226-227).

6. Resistance to Replacement: Literature’s Power

• Literary metaphor resists simple substitution, fostering an exploration of open-ended meanings. This resistance, not metaphor itself, is the source of literature’s power (p. 228).
• Rather than reducing metaphors to replacements, Culler advocates examining the processes of interpretation that create and sustain their meaning (p. 228).

7. The Need to Reassess the Concept of Metaphor

• Culler suggests abandoning the term “metaphor” as it oversimplifies the complexities of literary interpretation (p. 228).
• The enduring interest in metaphor reflects a broader fascination with the metaphoric, a tension between unity and disparity central to Romantic and New Critical aesthetics (p. 229).

8. Conclusion: A Shift Toward Interpretation

• The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of interpretation over rigid classifications of metaphor. Literary meaning emerges from the interplay of coherence, incongruity, and interpretive engagement (p. 229).

1. Deconstruction and the Role of Contradiction

• Culler illustrates how metaphor embodies irreconcilable contradictions, aligning with deconstructionist perspectives by showing that metaphor’s meaning destabilizes language itself (p. 220-221).
• He emphasizes the “conceptual contradiction” in metaphor’s dual reliance on philosophical and rhetorical perspectives, which reflect Derrida’s critique of logocentrism (p. 221).

2. Reader-Response Theory

• Culler shifts the focus from the writer’s intentions to the reader’s interpretive processes, suggesting that metaphor arises as a product of reading and interpretation rather than an intrinsic feature of the text (p. 225-226).
• This move foregrounds the reader’s role in constructing meaning, aligning with key tenets of Reader-Response Theory (p. 227).

3. Structuralism and the Systematic Study of Language

• By analyzing metaphor as a function of linguistic systems, Culler builds on structuralist methods to examine how metaphors disrupt synchronic structures and reveal diachronic evolution (p. 222).
• He engages with Saussurean concepts, such as the arbitrariness of signs, showing how metaphor challenges and extends these principles (p. 222).

4. Critique of Rhetorical Approaches

• Culler’s critique of the via rhetorica challenges traditional Aristotelian frameworks that focus on substitution and typology, arguing that such models fail to account for the complexity of literary metaphors (p. 223-224).
• This contribution problematizes rigid rhetorical theories and emphasizes the dynamic interpretive context of metaphor in literature.

5. Romantic and New Criticism Aesthetics

• He situates the concept of the metaphoric within Romantic aesthetics and New Criticism, identifying metaphor’s role in expressing tensions between unity and disparity, or temporality and atemporality (p. 229).
• By rejecting symbol as an ultimate fusion, he reorients the study of literary devices toward more open-ended and interpretive processes (p. 229).

6. Post-Structuralist Insights

• Culler explores how metaphor resists fixed meanings and encourages multiple interpretations, reflecting post-structuralist emphases on ambiguity and multiplicity in textual analysis (p. 227-228).
• He suggests that metaphor’s “resistance to replacement” embodies literature’s power to destabilize conventional meaning systems (p. 228).

7. Contributions to Poetics and Literary Interpretation

• The essay expands the domain of poetics by linking the study of metaphor to broader interpretive acts and the conventions governing literary reading (p. 225-226).
• He argues that the identification of metaphor trivializes interpretation, redirecting attention to the broader interpretive frameworks in which metaphors operate (p. 228-229).

1. Overemphasis on Contradictions

• Critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on the inherent contradictions in metaphor may overcomplicate the subject, deterring practical applications in literary analysis.
• By focusing on irresolvable tensions, he risks neglecting scenarios where metaphor operates cohesively within a text.

2. Dismissal of Traditional Rhetorical Models

• Culler’s critique of the via rhetorica has been challenged for undervaluing centuries of rhetorical tradition that provided effective tools for analyzing metaphor.
• The substitution model, though limited, is considered useful for simpler and more direct metaphoric expressions.

3. Limited Engagement with Cultural Contexts

• Some scholars note that Culler’s argument is primarily theoretical and less concerned with the cultural or historical contexts in which metaphors are produced and understood.
• This abstract focus may reduce the applicability of his ideas to culturally specific literary traditions.

4. Neglect of Symbolism and Figurative Fusion

• By rejecting the concept of metaphor as a synthesis or symbolic fusion, Culler may downplay its role in creating cohesive poetic and thematic unity in works of literature.
• Critics argue that this dismissal undermines the integrative functions metaphor often serves in narrative and lyric forms.

5. Insufficient Empirical Evidence

• Culler’s reliance on philosophical discourse and theoretical constructs rather than detailed textual evidence from literary works has been criticized as overly abstract.
• The examples provided are sometimes viewed as insufficiently representative of the broader spectrum of literary metaphor.

6. Reader-Response Limitations

• While his focus on the interpretive act aligns with Reader-Response Theory, critics suggest it underestimates the constraints authors impose through intentional metaphorical design.
• This approach could lead to overly subjective readings that disregard textual boundaries.

7. Overgeneralization of Metaphor’s Complexity

• Some argue that Culler overgeneralizes the complexity of metaphor, making it appear intractable and inaccessible to less specialized readers or scholars.
• This can alienate readers who seek more pragmatic methods for engaging with metaphorical language.

8. Incompatibility with Certain Literary Traditions

• Culler’s framework may not apply well to literary traditions outside of Western literary and critical practices, which often have different conventions for metaphor and figurative language.
• This limitation makes his critique less universal than he implies.