Friday, September 25, 2009
P vs. PS
One phrase that really stood out in the reading from Barry was the line that made the distinction of Linguistic Anxiety being a "keynote of the post-structuralist outlook" (62). This is mentioned within the distinctions of structuralism and post-structuralism, but is alluded to throughout the reading.
In the distinctions, Barry notes major differences in origins, tone, style, attitude, and project within the two movements. In origins, he quotes Nietzche as saying that in philosophy there are "No facts, only interpretations" (61). This leads into the anxiety of language as we see on a weekly basis. In class we are always focused on interpretation of text and, as professionals, are expected to have our interpretations in line and at an acceptable level. This makes us anxious about what words we construct in our analysis of the text we read, and in class cautious of how we present our findings.
The next distinction is that of tone and style. Barry notes that post-structuralists are "urgent and euphoric" in their tone, and that they are "flamboyant and showy" with their style (61). This differs from the structuralists as they were very abstract with their style and aimed for a "scientific coolness" in tone (61). Can one be too flamboyant? Showy? Sports fans, I am pretty sure the answer here is yes. A few names come to mind: Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Dennis Rodman -- too showy for their own good. Authors want to find that happy medium of showy, flamboyant style. This search for middle ground will lead to that anxiety of presentation within our post-structuralists.
Attitude to language comes back to signs and this is where the realization of "Linguistic Anxiety comes into play. The basis here is that we do not have full control of language. Any time humans don't have full control of something we get anxious. An example: substitutes. If we are not in our classrooms, don't we attempt to make fool-proof plans to a.) keep students busy, b.) keep the subs from messing them up or altering them, c.) be as worry-free at our conference/day off as we can be? We like control...need I say more?
Finally the idea of project. The post-structuralist critic distrusts reason and believes that individuals are molded by social and linguistic forces. Nurture/nature? Interesting discussion potential here. Are we molded by society's rules or those we are taught from our parents/guardians. Not really a theory question, but something to ponder at night when the power goes out.
One last distinction between the structuralists and the post-structuralists is the apocalyptic outlook held by the posts against the edenistic outlook held by the structuralists. Without an "authoritative center" we are focused now out interpretation and it could be either positive or negative. Whose train is moving now?
In the distinctions, Barry notes major differences in origins, tone, style, attitude, and project within the two movements. In origins, he quotes Nietzche as saying that in philosophy there are "No facts, only interpretations" (61). This leads into the anxiety of language as we see on a weekly basis. In class we are always focused on interpretation of text and, as professionals, are expected to have our interpretations in line and at an acceptable level. This makes us anxious about what words we construct in our analysis of the text we read, and in class cautious of how we present our findings.
The next distinction is that of tone and style. Barry notes that post-structuralists are "urgent and euphoric" in their tone, and that they are "flamboyant and showy" with their style (61). This differs from the structuralists as they were very abstract with their style and aimed for a "scientific coolness" in tone (61). Can one be too flamboyant? Showy? Sports fans, I am pretty sure the answer here is yes. A few names come to mind: Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Dennis Rodman -- too showy for their own good. Authors want to find that happy medium of showy, flamboyant style. This search for middle ground will lead to that anxiety of presentation within our post-structuralists.
Attitude to language comes back to signs and this is where the realization of "Linguistic Anxiety comes into play. The basis here is that we do not have full control of language. Any time humans don't have full control of something we get anxious. An example: substitutes. If we are not in our classrooms, don't we attempt to make fool-proof plans to a.) keep students busy, b.) keep the subs from messing them up or altering them, c.) be as worry-free at our conference/day off as we can be? We like control...need I say more?
Finally the idea of project. The post-structuralist critic distrusts reason and believes that individuals are molded by social and linguistic forces. Nurture/nature? Interesting discussion potential here. Are we molded by society's rules or those we are taught from our parents/guardians. Not really a theory question, but something to ponder at night when the power goes out.
One last distinction between the structuralists and the post-structuralists is the apocalyptic outlook held by the posts against the edenistic outlook held by the structuralists. Without an "authoritative center" we are focused now out interpretation and it could be either positive or negative. Whose train is moving now?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Stacks
As I sit here contemplating the content of this post, I have a stack of freshly read articles and a stack of moldy, week old essays that need to be graded. Now, in my response to these stacks, if I am a Formalist, I need to refrain from attention to how my students were feeling that day as this school rejects the notion of "the author's feelings as he (or she) composed it" (Brooks). On the other hand, should I decide to view these stacks from the school of Structuralists, I need to not only examine the emotions of the author, but all of the factors, or structures that tie in to each piece.
These two schools provided a great contrast to show how theory changes, and how the theories may, in turn, revolt against one another. When we also throw in the rules of Semiotics and the Liberal Humanists it seems we can almost categorize every critic thus far. We, however, are not even halfway through the semester yet so this is not possible.
I don't know if there is a term for the compulsive need to categorize everything or everyone, but the reading from Barry did make me chuckle when he wrote "...if you practice lit. crit. and you don't call yourself a Marxist critic, or a structuralist...then you are probably a liberal humanist" (3). Is it necessary to make sure everyone is labeled? Is this another convention of theory?
The introduction/first chapter of Barry was extremely helpful in laying a foundation for reading about these theories. Doug did discuss, last semester, how to read these scholarly works, but reading it again helped. The five points of theory on page 35 will also be great to refer back to throughout the semester.
These two schools provided a great contrast to show how theory changes, and how the theories may, in turn, revolt against one another. When we also throw in the rules of Semiotics and the Liberal Humanists it seems we can almost categorize every critic thus far. We, however, are not even halfway through the semester yet so this is not possible.
I don't know if there is a term for the compulsive need to categorize everything or everyone, but the reading from Barry did make me chuckle when he wrote "...if you practice lit. crit. and you don't call yourself a Marxist critic, or a structuralist...then you are probably a liberal humanist" (3). Is it necessary to make sure everyone is labeled? Is this another convention of theory?
The introduction/first chapter of Barry was extremely helpful in laying a foundation for reading about these theories. Doug did discuss, last semester, how to read these scholarly works, but reading it again helped. The five points of theory on page 35 will also be great to refer back to throughout the semester.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Muse FINALLY was upon me
Oftentimes we define the term Renaissance as "a rebirth" of classical ideals, texts, and beliefs. For this reason, I was not at all surprised of the influence that Cicero and Quintilian had on this time period. I was, however, interested in how important the argument to emotion became.
As many of us teach high school students, we all know that there is nothing more fierce, or kind, or crazy, or lost than a high school (usually sophomore) girl. These girls' emotions and horomones are running wild and sometimes, usually in a moment of whatever the opposite of epiphany is, do something really dumb for the sake of their emotions. But it's not over yet. Two minutes later, after their blow up, walk out, tantrum, or giggle fit they are in a completely different emotional state. This boggles many, and is a great representation of how emotion changes continuously.
Even though we, educated professionals, are far from this high school phase (as HS boys aren't much better), our emotions do change on a regular basis. The line from Rhetorica ad Herennium that says "The Appeal to Pity must be brief, for nothing dries faster than a tear" is a warning (Matsen 167). Pity is one of many emotions, but it too changes and leaves the mind quickly.
So, if Renaissance rhetoricials and philosophers were trying to "[move] the heart" they were moving the heart to something that would be lost quickly.
So, did those of the Renaissance have longer emotional spans than we do now? Is it because of MTV, Marilyn Manson, cell phones and Game Boy that we are not only more suicidal, dumb, and illiterate, but also more emotionally unstable? Were these appeals to emotion why philosophy became popular? Or am I off my own rocker? We'll find out.
Trebizond was also interesting. He was the first to say deliberately that rhetoric was "indifferent to morality" (Conley 115). This will make for interesting discussion as we have spent so much time debating the topic of whether or not it is necessary for an orator and rhetorician to be a good man.
As many of us teach high school students, we all know that there is nothing more fierce, or kind, or crazy, or lost than a high school (usually sophomore) girl. These girls' emotions and horomones are running wild and sometimes, usually in a moment of whatever the opposite of epiphany is, do something really dumb for the sake of their emotions. But it's not over yet. Two minutes later, after their blow up, walk out, tantrum, or giggle fit they are in a completely different emotional state. This boggles many, and is a great representation of how emotion changes continuously.
Even though we, educated professionals, are far from this high school phase (as HS boys aren't much better), our emotions do change on a regular basis. The line from Rhetorica ad Herennium that says "The Appeal to Pity must be brief, for nothing dries faster than a tear" is a warning (Matsen 167). Pity is one of many emotions, but it too changes and leaves the mind quickly.
So, if Renaissance rhetoricials and philosophers were trying to "[move] the heart" they were moving the heart to something that would be lost quickly.
So, did those of the Renaissance have longer emotional spans than we do now? Is it because of MTV, Marilyn Manson, cell phones and Game Boy that we are not only more suicidal, dumb, and illiterate, but also more emotionally unstable? Were these appeals to emotion why philosophy became popular? Or am I off my own rocker? We'll find out.
Trebizond was also interesting. He was the first to say deliberately that rhetoric was "indifferent to morality" (Conley 115). This will make for interesting discussion as we have spent so much time debating the topic of whether or not it is necessary for an orator and rhetorician to be a good man.
Friday, September 4, 2009
What is...
As our worlds change, often our perceptions of terms and ideals that we often view as concrete must change as well.
Quintilian has difficulty, as many have before him, in truly defining rhetoric; though he can agree that it is an art. Tacitus is troubled with the "eloquence of those days (past) stood higher than (theirs)" (Matsen 238).
It seems as the world grows, more and more needs to be included in a definition to encompass all involved with the changes taking place. Examining Matsen, Quintilian examines Cicero who defines rhetoric as "artistic eloquence," Antonius who claims rhetoric is a natural gift; a "knack derived from experience," (215), and of course, has Aristotle in mind with his famous definition "the power to perceive available persuasive features of a subject." Within these definitions, Antonius is the only one who claims that rhetoric is not an art. Art does change and does model the conventions of the time period in which it is popular.
Art changes, as do the necessities of speakers. This, the art of speech, is continuously in question throughout our readings. "Rhetorica ad Herennium" was a concise guide for an orator that is continuously built on by Cicero and Quintilian. One line I found interesting concerning truth was on page 163 when the piece says, "Invention is the devising of matter, true or PLAUSIBLE..." (Matsen). Meaning the piece didn't have to be completely true, but it had to be credible to the audience and accepted. The piece goes on to treat oration as an athletic event discussing the use of voice and the importance of speaking softly in the introduction to essentially "warm-up" before the meat of the speech.
The analogy of the athletic event is interesting to me as I recently demonstrated tone to my students while reading Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." This piece was true to Rhetorica form as, when I was reading, I found myself (previous to reading the Rhetorica Piece) slowing, lowering and strengthening my voice throughout the piece. Those of you, who teach American Lit, may now see some of this theory at work in a major way through this reading.
Quintilian has difficulty, as many have before him, in truly defining rhetoric; though he can agree that it is an art. Tacitus is troubled with the "eloquence of those days (past) stood higher than (theirs)" (Matsen 238).
It seems as the world grows, more and more needs to be included in a definition to encompass all involved with the changes taking place. Examining Matsen, Quintilian examines Cicero who defines rhetoric as "artistic eloquence," Antonius who claims rhetoric is a natural gift; a "knack derived from experience," (215), and of course, has Aristotle in mind with his famous definition "the power to perceive available persuasive features of a subject." Within these definitions, Antonius is the only one who claims that rhetoric is not an art. Art does change and does model the conventions of the time period in which it is popular.
Art changes, as do the necessities of speakers. This, the art of speech, is continuously in question throughout our readings. "Rhetorica ad Herennium" was a concise guide for an orator that is continuously built on by Cicero and Quintilian. One line I found interesting concerning truth was on page 163 when the piece says, "Invention is the devising of matter, true or PLAUSIBLE..." (Matsen). Meaning the piece didn't have to be completely true, but it had to be credible to the audience and accepted. The piece goes on to treat oration as an athletic event discussing the use of voice and the importance of speaking softly in the introduction to essentially "warm-up" before the meat of the speech.
The analogy of the athletic event is interesting to me as I recently demonstrated tone to my students while reading Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." This piece was true to Rhetorica form as, when I was reading, I found myself (previous to reading the Rhetorica Piece) slowing, lowering and strengthening my voice throughout the piece. Those of you, who teach American Lit, may now see some of this theory at work in a major way through this reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
