Introduction: “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
“The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man first appeared as the tenth chapter of the book Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, published by the University of Minnesota Press in 1971. In this pivotal chapter, de Man explores the dichotomy between allegory and symbol, examining how these two rhetorical devices operate differently within literary texts. He argues that while symbols aim for an organic unity between form and meaning, allegory operates through disjunction, pointing to the temporal gap between language and the reality it seeks to represent. This distinction becomes critical for literary theory, as de Man posits that allegory, with its inherent self-awareness of its artificiality, allows for a deeper critique of language and meaning. The chapter’s importance in literature lies in its influence on deconstructive criticism, offering a framework to analyze the instability of meaning in texts, thus reshaping modern interpretations of Romantic and post-Romantic literature.
Summary of “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
1. Distinction between Allegory and Symbol:
- De Man begins by distinguishing allegory from symbol, two key rhetorical devices in literary theory.
- “Allegory appears as dryly rational and dogmatic in its reference to a meaning that it does not itself constitute, whereas the symbol is founded on an intimate unity between the image that rises up before the senses and the supersensory totality that the image suggests.”
- He argues that symbols imply organic unity, where form and meaning are seamlessly intertwined, while allegory introduces a gap between the sign and the meaning it represents.
2. Allegory’s Temporal Nature:
- One of the main arguments is that allegory operates in a temporal mode, emphasizing the passage of time and the distance between the present and the meaning it conveys.
- “The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.”
- Allegory is thus self-aware of its temporal disjunction, whereas symbols aim to mask this temporal gap by creating an illusion of unity.
3. Critique of Symbolic Interpretation:
- De Man critiques the dominance of symbolic interpretation in Romantic literature, particularly its claim of unity between form and meaning.
- “The supremacy of the symbol, conceived as an expression of unity between the representative and the semantic function of language, becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.”
- He contends that this symbolic reading obscures the inherent disjunction between language and meaning, which allegory, in contrast, makes visible.
4. Allegory’s Role in Revealing the Limits of Language:
- Allegory, according to de Man, reveals the limitations and artificiality of language, making it a powerful tool for literary and philosophical critique.
- “Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.”
- This makes allegory not just a literary device but also a mode of thinking that exposes the gap between words and the things they signify.
5. The Implications for Literary Criticism:
- De Man’s argument has significant implications for literary criticism, particularly in relation to deconstructive approaches that emphasize the instability of meaning.
- “The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.”
- Allegory’s acknowledgment of its own constructedness allows it to challenge the symbolic belief in linguistic coherence and unity.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
| Term/Concept | Definition | Explanation in De Man’s Context |
| Allegory | A rhetorical device where one thing is symbolically used to represent something else. | De Man argues that allegory reveals the disjunction between sign and meaning, highlighting the temporal gap between language and what it signifies. Allegory makes this gap visible rather than concealing it, as symbols often do. |
| Symbol | A figure of speech where an object or action suggests a broader, often abstract, meaning. | In contrast to allegory, symbols suggest a unity between the image and its meaning. De Man critiques this as an illusion of unity, where the symbol tries to mask the inherent disjunction between form and meaning. |
| Temporality | The state of existing within or being bound by time. | Allegory, for de Man, is inherently temporal. It emphasizes the distance between the present moment and the meaning that is often located in the past or the future, making it a device that acknowledges time’s effect on interpretation. |
| Irony | A figure of speech in which what is stated is often the opposite of what is meant. | Irony is seen by de Man as related to allegory in its ability to expose contradictions and distance between appearance and reality, further destabilizing the coherence of meaning. |
| Mimesis | The imitation or representation of reality in art and literature. | De Man references mimesis in relation to how both allegory and symbol attempt to represent reality but through differing strategies—allegory through fragmentation and distance, and symbol through unity and coherence. |
| Metaphor | A figure of speech that involves an implicit comparison between two unlike things. | Metaphor, as related to symbol in de Man’s critique, works by analogy but can sometimes fail to address the deeper disjunction between sign and meaning, as exposed in allegorical structures. |
| Figural Language | Language that uses figures of speech, such as metaphor, simile, allegory, and symbol, to convey meaning. | De Man situates allegory and symbol as types of figural language, emphasizing how these figures operate within the broader framework of how language constructs, rather than reflects, meaning. |
| Deconstruction | A critical approach that seeks to expose and challenge the underlying assumptions in texts. | Although de Man does not use the term explicitly, his work on allegory versus symbol is foundational to deconstructive criticism, as it challenges the coherence and unity assumed by symbolic interpretations of language. |
| Romanticism | A literary movement emphasizing emotion, nature, and individualism, often using symbolic language. | De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, arguing that allegory provides a more honest representation of the temporal and fragmented nature of human experience and meaning. |
Contribution of “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Establishing Allegory as a Critical Mode:
- De Man elevates allegory from a secondary rhetorical device to a primary mode of critique, arguing that it offers a more honest approach to understanding language and meaning than the symbol.
- “Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.”
- Contribution to Deconstructive Criticism: This view is foundational to deconstruction, as it destabilizes traditional ideas of language as a transparent vehicle of meaning.
2. Critique of Symbolic Unity in Romanticism:
- De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, which are often seen as representing a unity between form and meaning. He argues that this unity is an illusion.
- “The supremacy of the symbol… becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.”
- Contribution to Romantic Studies: De Man’s work challenges the idealization of symbolic coherence in Romantic literature, urging critics to reconsider the role of fragmentation and disjunction.
3. Temporality in Literary Language:
- One of the chapter’s key contributions is its emphasis on temporality in language, particularly how allegory foregrounds the temporal gap between sign and meaning.
- “The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.”
- Contribution to Temporal and Historical Criticism: De Man’s focus on the temporal aspect of allegory opens new avenues for exploring how literature engages with time and history.
4. Allegory and Irony as Modes of Self-Awareness:
- De Man links allegory with irony, suggesting that both rhetorical modes foster self-awareness by highlighting the disjunction between language and reality.
- “Allegory, like irony, points to the distance between the way in which the world appears in reality and the way it appears in language.”
- Contribution to Irony and Allegory Studies: This connection has been pivotal for subsequent studies of irony and allegory, especially in post-structuralist criticism, where both modes are seen as strategies that expose the limitations of language.
5. Challenging the Dominance of Mimesis:
- De Man’s critique of symbolic unity also challenges traditional notions of mimesis, or the imitation of reality, in literature. He argues that allegory reveals the constructedness of language.
- “We can no longer consider the supremacy of the symbol as a ‘solution’ to the problem of metaphorical diction.”
- Contribution to Mimetic Theory: His argument questions long-held assumptions about literature’s capacity to reflect reality, influencing theories that emphasize the artificiality and mediation in literary representation.
6. Influence on Deconstructive and Post-Structuralist Criticism:
- Although de Man does not explicitly align himself with deconstruction, his arguments about the instability of meaning in both allegory and symbol are foundational to post-structuralist thought.
- “The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.”
- Contribution to Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism: This critique of meaning’s instability resonates strongly with deconstructive approaches, which emphasize the inherent contradictions within language and meaning.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
| Literary Work | Critique Through “The Rhetoric of Temporality” | Key Focus/Concept |
| William Wordsworth’s Poetry | Wordsworth’s symbolic language can be critiqued for its attempt to achieve a unity between nature and human emotion, masking the temporal gap. | Symbolic Unity vs. Allegorical Distance: De Man would argue that Wordsworth’s symbols conceal the disjunction between reality and meaning. |
| Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” | De Man would critique Coleridge’s use of symbolism, especially in natural images, revealing how allegory disrupts the perceived organic unity. | Temporality and Fragmentation: The poem’s structure and disjointed narrative align with allegorical fragmentation. |
| Goethe’s “Faust” | Allegorical moments in Faust emphasize the disjunction between human action and transcendental meaning, critiquing the symbolic drive for unity. | Allegory and Symbol in Romanticism: De Man’s critique highlights the tension between Goethe’s use of allegory and the Romantic symbol. |
| James Joyce’s “Ulysses” | De Man’s theory can be applied to Joyce’s fragmented narrative style, showing how allegory disrupts the coherence of identity and time. | Allegory as a Temporal Mode: Joyce’s fragmented narrative structure mirrors the temporal disjunction emphasized in allegory. |
| Dante’s “Divine Comedy” | The allegorical framework of the Divine Comedy reflects the temporal nature of meaning, pointing to an eternal, deferred significance. | Allegory and Temporality: De Man would emphasize the temporal delay between Dante’s journey and its ultimate meaning. |
| Friedrich Hölderlin’s Poetry | Hölderlin’s landscapes, often symbolic, can be critiqued as moments where allegory reveals the impossibility of unity between language and reality. | Metaphor vs. Allegory: Hölderlin’s metaphors may seem symbolic but operate more like allegory in their acknowledgment of disjunction. |
| E.T.A. Hoffmann’s “The Sandman” | The use of allegory in The Sandman highlights the divide between reality and imagination, resonating with de Man’s view on allegorical distance. | Allegory and Irony: Hoffmann’s use of allegory aligns with de Man’s idea of irony, highlighting the constructedness of reality. |
| Baudelaire’s Poetry | Baudelaire’s allegorical depictions of modernity, particularly in Les Fleurs du mal, foreground the fragmentation and temporality of experience. | Allegory as Modern Critique: De Man would view Baudelaire’s poetry as an exploration of the disjunction between modern life and meaning. |
| Franz Kafka’s “The Trial” | Kafka’s allegorical narrative illustrates the endless deferral of meaning, a core concept in de Man’s critique of temporal disjunction in language. | Allegory and Deferred Meaning: Kafka’s narrative reflects the impossibility of reaching a final, unified meaning. |
Criticism Against “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
1. Overemphasis on Allegory’s Primacy:
- Critics argue that de Man gives undue primacy to allegory over symbol, marginalizing the value and significance of symbolic language in literature.
- Allegory is seen as just one of many rhetorical devices, not necessarily superior in revealing language’s limitations.
2. Neglect of Historical and Cultural Contexts:
- De Man’s theoretical approach tends to abstract allegory and symbol from their historical and cultural contexts, focusing more on theoretical distinctions than on how these devices operate in specific literary traditions.
- This has led some critics to argue that de Man overlooks the historical particularities that influence the use of rhetorical devices in literature.
3. Deconstruction’s Skepticism Towards Meaning:
- Some critics challenge de Man’s alignment with deconstructive approaches, which emphasize the instability and undecidability of meaning. They argue that this undermines the potential for any productive interpretation of literary texts.
- This skepticism towards stable meaning can lead to interpretive paralysis, where all interpretations are seen as equally indeterminate.
4. Reduction of Romantic Symbolism:
- De Man’s critique of Romantic symbolism, particularly his dismissal of the symbol’s claim to unity, is seen by some as reductive.
- Critics suggest that de Man oversimplifies the complexity of Romantic symbols, which often engage in more nuanced and layered relationships between form and meaning than his critique allows.
5. Ambiguity in Distinction Between Allegory and Symbol:
- Some scholars argue that de Man’s distinction between allegory and symbol is not as clear-cut as he suggests. The line between these two rhetorical devices can often blur, making his strict categorization problematic.
- Critics note that many literary texts use both allegory and symbol in ways that de Man’s binary framework cannot fully account for.
6. Ethical and Moral Concerns:
- De Man’s work, including “The Rhetoric of Temporality”, has been criticized for its ethical implications, particularly in light of his posthumously revealed writings from the World War II era.
- This controversy has led some to question the broader ethical stance of his literary theories, arguing that they may promote a detachment from moral responsibility in reading and interpretation.
7. Limited Scope of Application:
- De Man’s theory is seen by some as too narrow in scope, primarily applicable to Western literary traditions and Romanticism. Critics argue that it does not adequately address works from other literary periods or cultures where allegory and symbol function differently.
Representative Quotations from “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Allegory appears as dryly rational and dogmatic in its reference to a meaning that it does not itself constitute, whereas the symbol is founded on an intimate unity between the image that rises up before the senses…” | De Man contrasts allegory and symbol, highlighting allegory’s disjunction between sign and meaning, while symbols attempt to create an illusion of unity between the two. |
| “The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.” | This emphasizes the temporal dimension of allegory, showing how it reflects the distance between the present and the meaning, which is always deferred or removed from immediate comprehension. |
| “The supremacy of the symbol, conceived as an expression of unity between the representative and the semantic function of language, becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.” | De Man critiques the dominance of symbolic unity in Romantic literature, arguing that it has shaped critical approaches, often at the expense of understanding allegory’s fragmented and temporal nature. |
| “Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.” | This reflects de Man’s argument that allegory reveals the constructedness and mediation inherent in language, exposing how language operates through conventions that obscure a transparent relationship to reality. |
| “At the very moment when properly symbolic modes are supplanting allegory, we can witness the growth of metaphorical styles that cannot be called ‘symbolic’ in the Goethian sense.” | De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, pointing out that some metaphors in Romantic texts don’t function symbolically but instead align more with allegory’s fragmented and non-unified presentation of meaning. |
| “The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.” | Here, de Man emphasizes the instability of meaning in both allegory and symbol, suggesting that neither device can guarantee a coherent or stable interpretation of literary language. |
| “In the symbolic imagination, no disjunction of the constitutive faculties takes place, since the material perception and the symbolical imagination are continuous, as the part is continuous with the whole.” | De Man explains how symbols aim to create a seamless connection between the material and the abstract, in contrast to allegory, which introduces a split between the form and the meaning. |
| “Allegory’s temporal structure reveals that meaning is never fully present in the text, but is always deferred, situated in an unreachable future or irrecoverable past.” | This highlights de Man’s key argument that allegory foregrounds the temporality of meaning, showing that it is always deferred or removed from immediate access, rather than fully embodied within the text. |
| “Allegory shows the gap between how the world appears in language and how it exists in reality.” | This statement illustrates de Man’s argument that allegory exposes the disjunction between language’s representation of reality and the actual nature of reality itself, thereby questioning the transparency of language. |
| “In both allegory and symbol, the reference to a transcendental source becomes more important than the kind of relationship that exists between the reflection and its source.” | De Man suggests that in both allegory and symbol, the ultimate concern becomes the reference to a transcendental meaning or origin, rather than how the figurative language (reflection) relates to that meaning in a straightforward way. |
Suggested Readings: “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man
- Kamuf, Peggy. “Monumental De-Facement: On Paul de Man’s the Rhetoric of Romanticism.” Comparative Literature, vol. 38, no. 4, 1986, pp. 319–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1770392. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
- Felman, Shoshana. “Paul de Man’s Silence.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 15, no. 4, 1989, pp. 704–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343682. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
- Short, Bryan C. “The Temporality of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 1989, pp. 367–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465710. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
- Mileur, Jean-Pierre. “Allegory and Irony: ‘The Rhetoric of Temporality’ Re-Examined.” Comparative Literature, vol. 38, no. 4, 1986, pp. 329–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1770393. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.