I agree with dr. m. that theory at its best presents a set of questions rather than definitive answers. Throughout this semester I have found, that each theory we studied in fact has fewer and fewer answers to offer and instead, asks you to question yourself and take stock of what assumptions you are making about literature, about words, texts, people, and reality itself. This can seem a daunting task sometimes, especially when one has to move beyond simply the reading stage—a stage of input—into the writing or response stage, which requires output from oneself. It is at this stage where the assumptions one is making, whether one is assuming the existence of a fixed, stable identity or individual control over one’s thought and freedom.
Throughout this semester I have been fascinated by the way each theory builds upon the one which came before. Even those theories which disagree with their predecessors owe some debt to that predecessor for giving them specific premises with which to disagree. This principle, however, has been most interesting to me within the example of structuralism and poststructuralism. As dr. m. said, I felt like I understood structuralism best through the lens of poststructuralism. The scientific approach of structuralism seemed a little clinical and foreign to me—understanding the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified was interesting but a little sterile. However, poststructuralism uses that idea of arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified as a building block and applies in on a grander scale, pointing out the arbitrary center of a structure, its endlessly deferred string of supplements AND the inevitable absence of the center in the end. This broader application makes the focus of structuralism much more relevant—I can see it now as a necessary part of the poststructuralism viewpoint.
While taking this course in theory, I have also been doing a directed study on postcolonial theory and literature. At the beginning of the semester I was concerned about the two courses overwhelming me, especially since I had very little direct exposure to theory prior to this semester. However, it became clear to me early on that these two courses would strongly inform each other, and it worked out very well because one would always help me understand the other and vice versa. For example, reading Homi Bhabha’s description of the colonial hybrid helped me understand Derrida’s concept of play. For Homi Bhabha, the colonial hybrid is the indigenous person who symbolizes colonial power in the colonized space. Even though this person contains all the symbols of colonial authority, he can never fully embody that authority because he will always be indigenous (usually this difference is very visible, in the form of racial difference). Therefore, his existence as indigenous while symbolizing the colonial authority inevitably destabilizes the colonial authority, which partly depends upon one race being powerful and the other submissive. This is the play within the structure of colonial power, which according to Homi Bhabha is always already present. That is, the hybrid, or the play, which is that which disrupts structure is a built-in part of the structure. It is always already there. Thus, the structure is inherently unstable.
This example which I learned reading about postcolonialism greatly helped me understand important elements of poststructuralism because it gave me a more concrete example. This may indicate that I have a more simplified understanding of the concepts because I see them through more concrete—rather than purely theoretical—examples, but I think that is a worthy step towards building a more complex understanding of theory.
This leads me to think about the discussion of the relationship between theory and practice. I think this relationship is one that weighs heavily on postcolonial critics and theorists, as well as feminist theorists and critics (another area in which I am interested). I am still struggling with this quite a bit. On the one hand, I understand the need to separate theory from practice to allow it to be thought out in its own real, and to allow ideas to be fully developed without concern for practical consequences (I am thinking about Derrida’s discussion of forgiveness—true forgiveness cannot be asked for and apologies cannot be demanded; they must be freely given, without prompting, or it is not forgiveness. This is separate from the idea of reparations or reconciliation). I also see the danger in thinking one’s theory is revolutionary enough, and that action is not required, even when there are clearly great wrongs in the world which require actual political action, rather than politically charged theorization. However, I do think that theory is inevitably political, as almost everything is. And I do think that the social ills in the world, such as imperialism and patriarchy as clearly enforced by a backing theory. Therefore, changing the theory behind them—exposing the patriarchal discourse as the cause of sexism—seems a necessary part of political change. This of course raises the question is political change possible at all? And we are back to the beginning—good theory raises more questions. It does not give answers.
And so I exit, with many thanks.
And the inquisition infinitely continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment