(Text, Writing)
In the opening pages of Chapter 7 in History, Theory, Text, Elizabeth Clark makes the assertion that texts become contexted through other texts of their generation. Specifically, she cites that scholars studying ancient material rely on such contextual sources to superimpose meaning upon a text itself (131-132). This broadening of structuralism in an effort to contextualize seems to be a function of studying the past; whereas, one could assert that when studying modernity, scholars are narrower in their focus - their structuralism becoming more confining rather than contextual. That is to say, a text of modernity is contextualized in itself, while a text of age is situated within a broader spectrum of texts that surround it.
On the question of authorship, Clark cites Foucault in questioning whether or not "authorship" necessarily equates "authority" (134). Separating the text from its author, as Foucault is wont to do, is problematic in my opinion because the author is a definite context through which the text has been situated. For instance, the Ramayana - an ancient Indian epic - is often attributed to Valmiki. While this cannot be wholly ascertained, this attribution is in part to answer the question of authorship that our time in history, at least, seems to crave an answer to! Foucault is quick to point out that in ancient times, great works of epic proportion were fine without an authorial context; I add that while that may have been so to a certain extent, our own contextual time of scientific leaning and 'proof' has warranted us the urge to question authorship. For, how can one assume - as a reader - complete onus for the context of a text? Isn't its original context - a major part of which is its author - pertinent in situating it within our body of understanding? Later in the chapter, Clark sources Mark Bevin in highlighting the divide between what is said and what is meant (141). Intentionality versus interpretation, I suppose!
Even before I got to the part on Interpretive Anthropology, I was going to refer to my Issues in Ethnography class and the similar issues that arise in it, week after week, regarding contextuality and the onus on the reader. When I got to the section on Geertz, I had a wee chuckle at the synchronicity of it all! Geertz is right in putting forth that fields like Anthropology cannot rely wholly on the rigid criterion of the natural sciences (145). By the 1960s in which Geertz was writing, the social sciences had come a long way since the early 20th century in which Bronislaw Malinowski worked with the Trobriand Islanders. In his trilogy on the Trobriand Islands, Malinowski was so fixated on following scientific methodology that he failed to situate the culture in its historical context – failing to mention the effects of colonization, war, foreign trade, and cultural degeneration on the culture! Malinowski felt that by inserting history into his ‘scientific’ work, he was providing too much extenuating material, which might then act to dilute the reader’s view of the ‘real’ culture at hand! Once again, from a structuralist perspective, this seems relatively unproblematic – a prescribed schema is used as a lens through which to view the subject, while all outliers are either manipulated to fit or ignored as irrelevant! Perhaps the best quote of this chapter is found on page 149: “An exuberant critique of interpretive anthropology is offered by literary theorist David Chioni Moore, who urges anthropology to “cut its (pure-)theory angst…and learn to love, at least in theory, interpretations.”
In the same way that anthropologist deal with the problem of being overly scientific, so too those who study religion struggle between being too contextual and being overly interpretive. I think we have an equal responsibility to interpret the text while still situating it within the context in which it was written.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Roselle!
I found your first paragraph particularly interesting and am not exactly sure what you mean when you say “A text of modernity is contextualized in itself, while a text of age is situated in a broader spectrum of texts that surround it”. I would think the political conditions and motivations for a text of today are too subject to the varied interpretations (perhaps we can go so far as to say that there are as many opinions as there are people!). How do we decide what is the context for today’s writings? To some extent we know what factors characterize the present, but aren’t its motivations and implications subject to opinion?
Questions of authorship and authority are particularly problematic in the study of texts because in my opinion, like religious traditions which are given shape by their adherents, texts are by their receivers, molded over the course of history. To assign a text’s ownership to its author would perhaps detract from the legitimacy of the various ways in which such works are taken up by those who derive meaning from them. To lock up a text’s “meaning” in the intentionality of the author ignores how these texts have become meaningful to their receivers. To me, the study of texts would be incomplete without both attempting to access the intentions of the author (no matter how limited the pursuit!) and exploring the ways in which the text has become meaningful to its recipients, who in many cases may have not known an author’s intent at all.
Just some thoughts!
Hey Roselle,
I'm intrigued by your comment that the text of modernity is contextualized in itself, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the availability of other texts that draw and contribute to a modern text, evidence which might not be available for ancient texts? Or are you referring to the self-conscious nature of writing in the modern age?
In response to your assertion that the onus for interpretation shouldn't rest entirely with the reader, I understand where you're coming from. Although I do think the interpretation is the reader's, it is mitigated by the fact that the interpretation is going to be heavily coloured by what the reader knows about the text, its author, and its context. Thus, these are the "controlling factors" so to speak, that guard a certain stability of meaning to a given text. I don't agree with the idea that each reader makes up a completely independent interpretation, I think that while the reader creates an individual reading, most readings will be generally the same because we're informed by mostly the same information. Of course, there's wiggle room in that we all bring our own unique life experiences to the text, but I think this impact is minimal on the final interpretation. Wow, putting that in writing sort of helped me put things together in my head...thanks!
Hey Roselle,
I love how you disagreed with Foucault! Unfortunately I now disagree with you =) But I love the debate that has arisen here!
In my blog this week I wrote about how I really liked Foucault's discussion for my area of study because most of the texts which I will be working on for my research thesis are pseudonymously attributed (as you will be reading my blog I will not expand here). My question is what do you do with a hidden author? Is there value in finding the "real" author if the purpose was to ascribe the text to another figure. Essentially writing through the hand of another? While I agree that the author can help to situate and contextualize the text (such as the exmple you gave), I also think that another method of contextualizing the text is through modes of discourse. I think that by looking at discourse and different elements within a text one can situate it in history without needing to supplement this discussion with questions of authorship.
Hey Roselle!
“That is to say, a text of modernity is contextualized in itself, while a text of age is situated within a broader spectrum of texts that surround it.”
Interesting concept, and something I can relate to. I disagree that a modern text contextualizes itself, although it is certainly easier to discern a Context for one. There is much less ambiguity on who wrote it and where it was written. However, it can be difficult to ascertain where ideas originate, who they were meant for and who is consuming it, since the flow of information is so overwhelming. This has proved to be a big problem for me, since some of the hate literature I’ve looked at appears to come out of the void, and it is difficult figuring out where random teenager A got his ideas. It is fascinating thinking of an ancient text being defined by the texts that surround it though, and that can certainly be true the farther you go back.
“For instance, the Ramayana - an ancient Indian epic - is often attributed to Valmiki. While this cannot be wholly ascertained, this attribution is in part to answer the question of authorship that our time in history, at least, seems to crave an answer to!”
Why is it something we crave? We all do, but what use is it attributing an author to a text when we aren’t certain who that author is? Valmiki adds context to a work because we can look at why the people reading it have assigned him authority to the work, but for original context it leaves many questions.
Great work tying in ethnography with this weeks readings. It’s been really fascinating seeing how we have all been able to apply our fields to this work.
Well argued post, and I’m glad it spurred some debate
Post a Comment