Scribd
Upload
133 views

Catherine Belsey

Uploaded by

Ayesha Irfan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
133 views

Catherine Belsey

Uploaded by

Ayesha Irfan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19
neu Lbadeascngy LeU Ui Sui Sub ¢ (Posteo : (Desire: Love UY, 2 a > 15-1980 (Critical 8 he Gre: HL») feos 1994 Stories in Western Ci i _ (Shakespeare and the Loss of Eden: The AE et q ' Jl Construction of Family values in Early Modern Culture) 1999 -Ur Sue ue Criticism and Common Sense | ty SHE Common 242° Y sto PO, LV Pe et IE olathe W671 (Text) io Els an Zak ctl LEE sense _c tn FPGAS (reader) (Post saussurean U3 GL ul tema Wiles Sit L£ uxiSe z ie tw L SaiL Linguists Meng A Fe PU Verve neetee Oe Pac. reo iPe ey : o ad (ag Pee, Poi £36514 ic6 oyebinrigdce Vitor ROL UF deconstruction methods, AU 1-g- bist a ef bly fect destruction 4, #6 deco st -e FAL( LSE LIC LIS (Text) A Adecons LE WPL eth hud sae VUES BEL isle EA tz fe Asis LAG WRAL LIELT HE IIL oe oT Sef Sie Bat i Wo SE lata -e hl? Producer § (Text) Pbyid sect tetfirst chapter ‘Criticism and Common views about different theories of c the method of common sense in literary criticis propounds that how the emphasis has shifted from the 1 jo the text and ultimately to the reader. In the second essay of Critical Practice, Belsey discusses different aspects of language in the light of post- Saussurean linguist's points of view and how they have explored the nature of language to the deeper ends and how language is everything in literary criticism. She discusses the status of language in society and literature and the co-existence of the language and thought and how they relate to each other. Her third essay in Critical Practice gives anew orientation to her discussion of critical practice. She explores and investigates Althusser's perspective about ideology. Since, Althusser was an upholder of Marxist criticism, she goes on to discuss Marxism, its relation to literature and ultimately to Society. Althusser's work on ideology is of paramount significance for a literary critic. In this chapter, she sees the telationship between ideology and literature. ; Her fourth chapter of the book deals with the interes Of the subject. She postulates the idea of split subject. ere she is mirroring Lacan and her idea of split subject resem that of Lacan's Mirror Phase. She studies the contradic! tween consciousness and the self. Thus the conta nd the real self cause a split and this split is TEP Ourse of literature. ie ultimate phase of node literary cting the text and this is the subject oaen be productive | I live in. Thus she reaches the deconstruction ‘deconstruction’ doesn't mean ‘destruc synonymous with literary analysis. In decon: dissect the text and bring out meaning to unders! and relate to the world we live in for practical p dissects the process of production of a piece of doesn't admit of the writer's personality in the deconstructed. Thus it results in the plurality of mea than singularity, The reader is free and autonome interpret the meaning in any way. This final and concluding chapter of her book, deep in to the realm of criticism and discusses questions involved. She recaps her previously literary concepts and throws a-new light on thi establishes reader not as consumer and automl interpreter; but producer of the text they are studying:Raymond Williams' chief observations in regard? (2012) Ans; The terms 'structuralist’ and ‘post-structuralist’ are labels: imposed for convenience on modes of thought; each term in fact encompasses a heterogencous array of often conflicting or” divergent theoretical positions. The prefix ‘post’ suggests that gructuralism’ has now been supplanted by a new theory: indeed it has been confidently asserted that Derrida had ‘brought the structuralist movement to an end’ by his work on deconstruction in the late 1960's and early 1970's. From this perspective, the concepts 'structuralism’ and ‘post-structuralism! take on a relationship of binary opposition in which the latter tem is privileged: the outmoded ‘structuralism' has been replaced by the new, improved ‘post-structuralism’. Apart from the fact that such binary oppositions are anathema to post- stucturalists, it is in fact somewhat misleading to claim that a tadieal break took place and that the earlier phase was thereby invalidated, occurred from within the Developments certainly uae Stiginal structuralist position and divergent ; Badually arose, but these were in part continuous or! _— Wptaisals of lines of thought already inherent 19 earlier fa notes, *we are still inside structuralism 19 constitutes an adventure of yisious a f putting questions to any object’ i" Lodge the latter), It is possible, however, to identify differences between the two approaches: na structuralism sought to establish a science 0} literature (or cultural signifying practices as a wh structuralist thought, following Derrida's critique metaphysics of presence, has taken an anti-stientific and, pursuing the infinite play of signifiers, has resi imposition of any organising system. In addition, a range of post-structuralist approae! a synthesis of deconstruction and other theories derived Marxism, feminism or psychoanalysis which produce a historically and socially orientated critique of the text than the case with the more ahistorical forms of structuralism, latter developments contrast with the ostensibly apolll brand of post-structuralism called ‘deconstruction’, practised in the USA, which does not relate literary criticism wider social concerns any more than did New Criticism. A further tendency discermible in the later ph structuralism and in post-structuralism is that the increasingly placed on the reader or critic to produce me rather than solely on the text itself. ; Because post-structuralism chiefly evolv critique of particular structuralist assump y to outline their shared foundationr all subseqi ructuralist and post-structuralist sa, co Saussure, language is a system of signs, each of wi Bie of a signifier (sound image or written word) and a si (the concept evoked by the signifier). Referents (actual entities) form no part of this relationship: the signified is not a thing but the mental concept of one, and the relationship between the sign and its referent is completely arbitrary, as is the connection between signifier and signified. The link between the sound image/word ‘cup’ and the concept of a cup is a conventional (not a ‘natural’) one. It is language which articulates the two continua of ‘jumbled ideas’ and “vague sounds’ to link signifier and signified, forming the units of meaning we term words. The signifier/sound image ‘cup’ has meaning only in that it is phonetically distinguishable from ‘cap’, ‘cut’, cop', and so on, the signified “cup’ depends on its semantic difference from related terms such as ‘beaker’, *wineglass', ‘mug’, ‘tankard' etc to produce its meaning. It is in this respect that language is said to be diacritical: it depends on astructured system of differences for its meaning. : This differential system organises all aspects of language in various relationships. The sequential _ combinatory relationship between the three phone that between the syn rise the sound image ‘cup’ oF t its of the sentence ‘the cup 18 overfl ’ ic! by Saussure. Thos> rel :‘ ny sig action of a range of elements, linked to language both by what is present and wh Because linguistic elements only acquire meaning ac their paradigmatic or syntagmatic relationships v Overall system and not as a result of a link between and the referent or external reality, language is thus a independent and self-sufficient structure of relations and Studied as such. This gives rise to Saussure's other major disti ct between ‘langue’ (the complete system of language) 4 ‘Parole’ (the individual utterance which derives from ‘Langue’ is the proper area of linguistic study, enabling o identify the underlying principles by which language in practice.eg: Finally, — Saussure's methodology — implications for structuralism in that he advo synchronic investigation of language. During the century, the opposite procedure had prevailed: lingu had been diachronic, in that the history of language was trae back through time to discover phonetic variations or etymologies. Saussure regarded this type of research as speculative: it was his contention that, while the diachronic approach should not be relinquished completely, only by adopting a synchronic mode of analysis whereby language was studied as a system of relationships functioning at a given period of time (not as it evolved) would linguistics be placed ona scientific basis. Structuralism was founded on a similar methodological and scientific basis. It set out, following Saussure, to identify the signifying patterns, codes and conventions underlying all human cultural practices. Benveniste, for example, says structuralism constitutes its object as a system whose parts are wll anited in a relationship of solidarity and dependence and asserting the ‘predominance of the system over the elements, defines the structure of the system “through the ron among the elements’. Not only ne lites inshi from a myth, fashion or kinship systems could be oon synchronic, ahistorical perspective to explain thei rather than by diachronically tracing theirral arti sonnotative potential : ‘exploited by the critic who actively engages wi articulate one or more of its plural interpretations. words, the literary "work is ‘eternal’, not because it one meaning on different men, but because it suggests Meanings to one man”. However, for the majority of its early structuralism was an essentially formalist method whi focused on literature's signifying structures rather than onjit content. Just as Saussure emphasised that signs depend on differential relationships with other elements in the syst order to produce meaning and not on actual entities, it there! follows that a structuralist analysis of literature will nol concerned with the liberal-humanist view that the ft expresses a ‘truth’ about the ‘real world’. Investigation ¥ centre on the literary system (equivalent to langue) as a Wi of which the individual text, (parole) is a constituent governed by the system's organisational principles. The of a text and authorial intention correspondingly deeli priority: all the author's role consists of is selecting elem@ from the pre-existing ‘already written’ system and prod new texts which combine these elements in different Wa A common factor to the approaches adopted b} Structuralist theorists is their use of the fundamental function of binary Oppositions. Indeed these op orderings are perceived by Levi-Strauss to form the bi ‘socio-logic of the human mind, which structures own image.' Saussure's paired categories ned (signifier/signified: lai been shown to bepposi -Strauss' use of the “myth ‘of language as a basic unit of narrativ ating in paired opposites and Greimas di roles into three sets of binary oppositions.19 On a la le Barthes’ work is pervaded by distinctions such — Ysible/*scriptible’, “plaisir'/jouissance’, “€crivain écriva etc. Jakobson, too, has developed Saussure's original theory of syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes of combination and selection in terms of his metonymy/metaphor distinction,20 one which has proved influential for the characterisation of different modes of literature (Romanticism and Symbolism teveal "the primacy of the metaphoric process... the predominance of melonymy underlies and actually predetermines the so-called ‘realistic’ trend")21 It is precisely the use of binary oppositions, linguistic analogies and the total concept of the existence of @ metalanguage of scientific objectivity that Derrida and his post- structuralist followers have called into question. Barthes had anticipated a critique of the authority of his own semiological discourse as early as the 1967 Elements of Semiology: he admitted that it had the potential of becomins the ‘language-object’ of-a new metalanguage which would analyse semiology in its turn.22 Hypothetically, the process could be continued to infinity. ’ ¢ To return to Derrida, however; his theories are di 0 summarise or define because he consciously resist struct a unified, systematic theory of his own er discourses, but certail kiWhat are Raymond Williams! views : culture and tragedy? Discuss in detail. (20 OR Q. How Catherine Belsey has analyzed modern th of literary criticism, and which one she prefer Ans: Catherine Belsey's Critical Practice is, ac critical history of modem critical theories. The book i semantics; i.e. the problems of meaning. The problem is the meaning lies in a piece of literature, Belsey identi possible approaches to locate the meaning. At least six about semantics have been thoroughly persuaded by her. What is poststructuralist theory, and what differ does it make to literary criticism? Where do we find meaning of the text: in the author's head? in the reader's? O1 we, instead, make meaning in the practice of reading itself so, what part do our own values play in the process interpretation? And what is the role of the text? Cather Belsey considers these and other questions concemin relations between human beings and language, readers: texts, writing and cultural politics, Assuming 1 knowledge of post structuralism, Critical Practice gu reader confidently through the maze of contemporary simply and lucidly explains the views of key figures! Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan 4 Derrida, and shows their theories at work in familiar terry texts Cical Practice argues because it m: ces a difference to what B MP New possibilities for Iiition of Critical Practice and future of literary studies. First of all, a general approach of the critics should, have a common sense view of literature. We what the stories simply show and there is no need to any theoretical assumption. Then what is meant by co sense? Common sense assumes that valuable literary texts that are in a special way worth reading tell us truth about the period which produced them, about the world in general or about human nature and that in doing so they express the particular perceptions, the individual insights of their authors. Common sense appears obvious because it 1s inscribed in the language "we speak. In other words, Common sense urges that man is the \ origin and source of meaning, of action, and of history (humanism). Our concepts and our knowledge are held to be the product-Of experience (em-pir-icism: The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge), and this experience is interpreted by the mind. Now from common sense we turn to ideology. Ideology is described in specific discourse. A discourse is that domain of language that means a particular way of talking, Ideology is the sum total of our response to life. Obviously, this includes our teligious response and political response to the institutio our time so what we call common sense is not a simple Paradoxically, it is a much more complex term, common sense is itself a vague term. T.S. EPlato thinks that poets are out of their are writing a poem. A man can feel the pressures : he may not be able to comprehend. Man of today anxiety, but he does not know it. Whatever the p himself, he “may not be conscious of it, so the poet: create meaning. Actually whatever he writes is ‘the ou the atmosphere of which he n.y not be conscious, It be the result of his meditations; :t may be the product pressures of Life in this way} the notion that the meanin only in the mind of the author has been rejected by: because it is very difficult to locate exactly what the intends to say and what the poem itself says. There is possibility of reaching the meaning and that is throught oriented method. It means that the meaning of a piece lies in the mind of the reader. It relates to called, the intention of the reader. So the author doe create meaning, but it is actually the mind of the this way, the author becomes irrelevant. So a piece of work is open to any interpret every reader will have a different approach to the same| work, It suggests that each work of writing always has meanings. The method of appreciating a piece of which author becomes irrelevant is called the tl death of the author. Belsey seems to reject the { death of the author because in thisnowledge of our contemporary atmosphere a r high intelligence. It is really very difficult to different theories of life such as The Absurd, Exis etc. Belsey says: ‘ ss "But according to Althusset, ideological practices are reported and reproduced in the instructions of our society which he calls ideological State Apparatus (ISAs)" There is another way of reaching the meaning. The meaning lies in something that exists between the reader and the author. If it is so then where does the meaning lie? Belsey identifies another possibility of approaching the meaning and that is through ideology. By ideology she means this whole environment in which one lives. As she says, "Ideology is both a real and an imaginary relation to the world." Again she says: “Althusset talks of ideology as 4 Material practice in this sense: it exists in the behaviour of the people acting according to their beliefs." So ideology is in the whole environment includes feelings, thoughts, beliefs, language and practices. , £ Hamlet, which may not be clear in mind of Shakespeare, We are confused only because Shakespeare dto give us all the facts of Hamlet's life Eliot believes ing is missing somewhere 1" : should automatically come out if the‘in Hamlet also. ‘Derrida om it logo- human thinking originates from a Christian terms is God. The problem is that T.S. Eliot cannot conce can also be absurd, and perhaps, this is what Sh trying to present. Shakespeare wants to show life as a T.S. Eliot already assumes that there must be a meaning Hamlet in the end concludes that there is divine intet even in the fall of a sparrow. This concept of seeking something that is not Derrida calls as metaphysics of existence. He says that it been the pitfall of western philosophy that it assumes existence of a thing, which it is going to discover. So itis like a blind man searching in a dark room for a black which is not there. This is absurd; T.S. Eliot is seeking fori meaning which is in the mind only and which is not there play. This is absurd. This is also the response of the 0 (Vladimir and Estragon) of Beckett. They are waiting someone who does not come and will never come. Then there is the question, whether the important or the individual. It leads to the problem Subject". It involves the difference between cheeks. split in consciousness. ‘I’ is the product of ideology other is the critic of ideology one I is of thé other is of the addresser. This is what BelseyAll the theoretical assumptions kat by Belsey— ib a) Expressive realism or expressive criticism, b) ; experience, ¢)reader oriented theory. ‘She has also null and annulled following theories and approaches: existentialist approach, ii) absurdist approach, iii) autobiographical approach, iv) idealistic approach, ) ideological approach, vi) historical and psychological approaches. Belsey, one by one, rejects all the approaches because these are unable to make us reach the exact meaning. But as 4 matter of fact these are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. In fact, each of them 1s partly true, all perceive reality in fractions. After rejecting all the contemporary ideological critical assumptions, Belscy concludes that literature is an art of language and it is only in the language and in the use of language that the meaning lies. Belsey thinks that the last method. The structuralist method is the most appropriate of all the available methods. The structuralist method is based on analysing phenomena, as in anthropology, linguistics, psychology, or literature, chiefly characterized by contré the elemental, structures of the phenomena in 4 S) binary opposition. Barthes, Roland (1915-1980), Freneh literary critic and theorist associated with structul how cultures organize oF signi E with semiotics, thethe iitien text itself, conding ns sources. Cleanth Brooks, Wimsatt, T.S.Eliot Belsey believe that the meaning lies in the s poem. It is neither in reader's mind nor in writer’ even in the environment. The meaning lies in the This is structuralism. " «s Commenting on the method of criticizing a by means of ideological aspects, T.S. Eliot says that me criticism is not, the appreciation of the poem; it is actual appreciation of the poet, which is not the object structuralist or formalist critics believe that the only con thing before us is the poem. Deconstruct it and fe meaning. Cleanth Brooke has also adopted the same meth his book The Well-Wrought Urn while appreciating Kea “Ode on a Grecian Urn”. He has shown the passion 0 poem and sincerity of the poem, he has also shown how Ke relates death and desire metaphors similes, symbols etc. By deconstruction of a poem; we mean that the} must be divided into its various elements ie. metaphors, paradoxes, rhyme, rhythm, phones etc. formalist or structuralist critics, ideas are not import important. They consider literature as a skill of using There are no absolute meanings. Meanings co contrasts and contradictions. Night has no meanin contrast to day and light to darlness. Thus the meaning lies in the . Therefore in order to undpoem. In other words, the process of criti according to Belsey is a repetition of the process We deconstruct the poem and reach the basic material | which the poet has constructed the poem. To sum up, Belsey's approach is the approach of a structuralist. She rejects all the contemporary critical theories because she believes that the meaning lies in the verbal structure of the extract. We should not consider the author, the” time, the environment, the ideology etc. What we need is to consider the words on the page. Now words, metaphors, similes and symbols and their interplay is more important and fruitful than going into its ideological history. It is note-worthy that all the theories discussed in the essay are not absolutely false, In fact, there are some fine and apposite aspects in all of them, that is why @ teacher's approach should be eclectic, free and miscellaneous and this is what common sense says. He should not be bound to a particular theory; he should get the material that helps him without any prejudice. It goes without saying that there is not one absolute tis in tk world. Every theory states a partial tai hee is no absolute philosophy of life, similarly there is 00,8) philosophy of literature. The philosophy of life is dhe sum, of the philosophies of life and therefore the erate ie the-surn total of all theories and

You might also like