bahtin thesis

8/12/2019 Bahtin Thesis

1/40

What Hath Bakhtin Wrought?Toward a Unified Theory of Literature and Composition

by Lee HoneycuttA thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of English. Copyright !""#Approved by$ Dr. %am &atson' Dr. Anita Moss' and Dr. David Amante

AbstractThe gro(ing influence of critical theory in English studies has produced a host of difficult and confusing ideas about

philosophy of language as applied to (ritten te)ts. Especially frustrating for many has been *acques Derrida+s theoryof deconstruction' (hich gained increasing influence during the !",-s' but seems to be losing ground to a variety ofopposing theories' including those of ussian philosopher Mi/hail 0a/htin. This thesis demonstrates ho( 0a/htin+s

dialogic theory of language counters deconstructive thought and restores harmony to Aristotle+s rhetorical triangle by placing the author on equal footing (ith his or her te)ts and readers. 1n doing so' it traces 0a/htin+s influence inliterary criticism and composition studies during the past decade and demonstrates ho( a dialogic philosophy oflanguage can lead us to(ard a unified theory of literature and composition and help define the course of Englishstudies during the electronic information age.

1ntroduction 0a/htin and 2is &orld 0a/htin and Critical Theory The 0ridge to hetoric Dialogics and the 3uture of English %tudies &or/s Cited

Chapter 1 - ntroductionDuring the past 4- years in English studies' practitioners in both literary criticism and composition studies have(itnessed the increasingly theoretical nature of scholarly debates concerning the three points of Aristotle+s rhetoricaltriangle. Though the gulf bet(een these t(o fields has seemed (ide at times' both have traditionally shared acommon bond in their study of the spea/er5author' the listener5reader' and the sub6ect5te)t. 7et sight of this commonground has been all but lost amid the clamor of recent theoretical debates' (hich have spa(ned a host of confusing'often contradictory philosophies of language that have served to fragment professional discourse in both fields.This fragmentation reached its 8enith in the !",-s (ith the advent of deconstruction as espoused by such thin/ers as*acques Derrida and 9aul de Man. &hile some tenets of deconstruction undoubtedly have enlivened professionaldiscourse and illuminated our understanding of various te)ts' deconstructive critical practices have created a

be(ildering' often nihilistic vie( of language that turns upon itself and devours the very (ords it uses in discourse.

As a result of such divisive debates' no unifying paradigm emerged in either discipline' (hich in turn served to(iden the e)isting gap bet(een literary criticism and composition studies' though they continue to have much incommon. 2o(ever' several scholars in both fields have been pointing recently to(ard a theoretical union of the t(odisciplines. :ne such scholar in composition studies is 9atricia 0i88ell' (ho argues for a unified theory based on thesimilarities of each field+s theoretical concerns. 1n her article' ; :n the 9ossibility of a Unified Theory ofComposition and


2/40


3/40

theory itself and present us (ith perhaps our first unified vie( of ho( language operates in both the (riting andreading of te)tual discourse.This thesis (ill trace the influence of 0a/htin+s ideas in both literary criticism and composition studies during the

past decade and demonstrate ho( a dialogic vie( of language helps point the (ay to(ard a unified theory ofliterature and composition. 0a/htin+s ideas on the social nature of language have been vie(ed by many as primarytheoretical support for a social constructionist vie( of language' (hich is increasingly being vie(ed as the reigning

paradigm in both fields. And as (e shall see in the conclusion' 0a/htin+s dialogics also seems poised to help use)plain the radical transformations our vie(s of language (ill undergo during the electronic information age. 7et

before e)amining 0a/htin+s influence in both literary criticism and rhetorical theory' it is important to understandho( an eccentric thin/er (or/ing on the margins of ussian intellectual life arrived at conclusions that can lead usto(ard a unified theory of literature and composition.


4/40

Chapter ! - Bakhtin and His Wor"d

Contrary to (hat many scholars may thin/' 0a/htin+s dialogics is not a radically ne( idea particular to the %ovietsphere' but a direct evolution of &estern thought into the modern age. As this chapter (ill demonstrate' 0a/htingradually developed his concept of dialogics through a deepening encounter (ith several strands of &estern

philosophy. That this evolution should emerge in English studies through the voice of an obscure ussian thin/er(or/ing in relative isolation is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of t(entieth@century intellectual history. 0ut foranyone hoping to understand 0a/htin+s ideas and their importance in critical and rhetorical theory' it is crucial toreali8e ho( his ideas evolved (ithin this &estern philosophical tradition.Dialogics is not an easy term to define' mainly because 0a/htin uses the (ord ;in so many conte)ts and in suchdiverse senses that it often seems devoid of clear definition; Morson and Emerson' Creation #" . 0ut in a generalsense' 0a/htin derives his term from the simple act of dialogue' the give@and@ ta/e e)change of language bet(eent(o individuals. &hile such a definition may seem quite obvious' dialogics' as 0a/htin describes it in a variety of(or/s' has radical implications (hen compared to traditional &estern vie(s of language. Haterina Clar/ andMichael 2olquist define dialogics perhaps best (hen describing the basic thrust of 0a/htin+s philosophy$

0a/htin+s point is that 1 can mean (hat 1 say' but only indirectly' at a second remove' in(ords that 1 ta/e and give bac/ to the community according to the protocols it observes.

My voice can mean' but only (ith others @@ at times in chorus' but at the best of times indialogue. Mikhail Bakhtin !

Though 0a/htin (ould develop and refine this basic concept over the course of a lifetime' the origins of his ideas began (ith his voracious reading of &estern philosophy (hile still quite young.0orn in the small ussian to(n of :rel in !G"F' 0a/htin graduated from the University of 9etrograd in !"!G (ith adegree in classics and philology. During the !" -s' he moved around to several to(ns in the %oviet Union' spendinghis days teaching and his nights debating philosophy' religion' and politics (ith friends' including IalentinIoloshinov and 9avel Medvedev. These late@night discussions of the 0a/htin Circle' fueled by strong tea and thesynergy of close friends' eventually led the young 0a/htin to begin (or/ on a ma6or philosophical treatise in (hichhe sought to ;fuse the three great sub6ects of &estern metaphysics @@ epistemology' ethics' and aesthetics @@ into asingle theory of the deed; Clar/ and 2olquist F, . 3ragments of this (or/ (ere later translated into English as Artand Answerability .Though 0a/htin never completed this pro6ect' the remaining fragments are important' because as Michael 2olquiststates' the material ;is the precondition for his later (or/' insofar as it contains many' if not most' of the ideas he(ould spend the rest of his life e)ploring' revising' and even contradicting; Art and Answerability )vii . 0a/htinidentified fairly early in life the issues of language and literature he (ished to address' but he apparently lac/ed theintellectual maturity and discipline at this point to put them succinctly into (riting.Dealing for the most part (ith the aesthetic problems of literary creation' Art and Answerability touches on manyaspects of literature and philosophy of language. The main essay' ;Author and 2ero in Aesthetic Activity'; lays outspecific problems involved in the relationship bet(een an author and his characters' the latter of (hich 0a/htinrefers to as the ;hero.; 2ere' 0a/htin e)plores various aspects of the author5hero relationship that foreshado('(ithout actually naming them' his later concepts of dialogics and polyphony. 2e tal/s in broad' s(eeping termsabout the relationship bet(een t(o sets of consciousness and the ;consummation; of consciousness in theauthor5hero relationship. 0a/htin feels that as (e interact (ith others' our consciousness is transformed by thise)perience of ;other'; and (e return into our isolated selves' (here (e ;consummate; this ;other; e)perience interms of ourselves.

0a/htin ta/es this some(hat simple concept and e)trapolates it into several different levels of interaction bet(eenan author and his hero' a relationship he e)plores in much further depth in later (or/s. &hile this early essay isdiffuse' it is held together by this continual theme of ;otherness; @@ that (e can /no( ourselves only throughinteraction (ith others$

1t is only in the other human being' in fact' that a living' aesthetically and ethicallyconvincing e)perience of human finitude is given to me' the e)perience of a human beingas a delimited empirical ob6ect. The other is given to me entirely enclosed in a (orld that
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Morson&Emersonhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Morson&Emersonhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Arthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Arthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Holquisthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Holquisthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Arthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Morson&Emersonhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Arthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Arthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Holquisthttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Art


5/40

is e)ternal to me? he is given to me as a constituent in it that is totally delimited on allsides in space. 4B

1t is no small (onder that 0a/htin failed to complete this pro6ect' for it sho(s an intellect striving for olympianheights of almost unattainable understanding. These fragments' though' demonstrate clearly ho( 0a/htin sought toground his ideas (ithin the tradition of &estern philosophy. Especially important for 0a/htin in these essays are the

erman philosopher 1mmanuel Hant and the Marburg school of Neo@Hantianism. Hant+s entire body of (or/ ise)tremely comple)' but his main contribution to &estern philosophy (as his ;transcendental; synthesis of t(oearlier schools of thought that had sought to e)plain the mind+s relation to the (orld @@ empiricism and rationalism.9rior to Hant' most modern philosophy had been divided bet(een


6/40

distinctively different from his o(n. 0a/htin coined this achievement ;polyphony'; borro(ing the term from a%oviet literary critic (ho in turn appropriated the phrase from music theory Problems - .#1$ &hile 0a/htin didnot originate this phrase' he too/ the basic principle much further in applying it to the (hole of Dostoevs/y+s (or/.Though most of this boo/ analy8es particular passages of Dostoevs/y' 0a/htin covers a (ide range of issues in

philosophy of language as (ell. Among these is the idea that language is indeed ambiguous' but (hereasdeconstruction (ould highlight this ambiguity as the inability of (ords to convey precise meaning' 0a/htin(elcomes this vagueness of language as a means by (hich to create meaning dialogically. 1ndeed' in describing thenature of the polyphonic novel' 0a/htin sees the entire scope of human life as a dialogic process (hereby (e findmeaning only through our interactions (ith others$

Dialogic relationships e)ist among all elements of novelistic structure? that is' they are 6u)taposed contrapuntally. And this is so because dialogic relationships are a much broader phenomenon than mere re6oinders in a dialogue' laid out compositionally in thete)t? they are an almost universal phenomenon' permeating all human speech and allrelationships and manifestations of human life @@ in general' everything that has meaningand significance. #-

0a/htin believed that most of &estern philosophy up until this time' especially the rationalist tradition' had vie(edlanguage and the perceived (orld in strictly monologic terms' (hich he says is ;only one of the possible (ays; of;perceiving cognition and truth; G! . 1n this rationalist' monologic tradition' anything that does not fit into a unifiedconsciousness becomes suspect' and he includes here both ;European utopianism; and ;utopian socialism' (ith itsfaith in the omnipotence of the conviction; G .Though 0a/htin believed Dostoevs/y (as the first artist to brea/ free of this monologic tradition' he does find some

polyphonic elements in other artists' such as %ha/espeare and 0al8ac 44 . 0a/htin sa( Dostoevs/y as primarily anartist of the ;idea; in that his characters represented ideological positions that reacted (ith one another ininterdependent relationships that 0a/htin believed (ere a reflection of all human thought$

The idea lives not in one person+s isolated individual consciousness @@ if it remains thereonly' it degenerates and dies. The idea begins to live' that is' to ta/e shape' to develop' tofind and rene( its verbal e)pression' to give birth to ne( ideas' only (hen it enters intogenuine dialogic relationships (ith other ideas' (ith the ideas of others. 2uman thought

becomes genuine thought' that is' an idea' only under conditions of living contact (ith

another and alien thought' a thought embodied in someone else+s voice' that is' insomeone else+s consciousness e)pressed in discourse. At that point of contact bet(eenvoice@ consciousness the idea is born and lives. GG

3or 0a/htin' true thought is not to be found in the isolated minds of individuals' but at that point of dialogic contact bet(een people engaged in discourse.Though 0a/htin mentions %ocrates as a primary influence in his thin/ing' his concept of dialogics as espoused inthis and later (or/s also o(es some debt to Martin 0uber and other thin/ers (ho formulated a dialogical philosophy

prior to 0a/htin. #!$ &e /no( that 0a/htin (as introduced to 0uber+s early (or/ in his teen years Clar/ and2olquist , ' and as some critics have noted' there are stri/ing similarities bet(een 0a/htin+s concept of dialogicsand 0uber+s philosophy as outlined in his !" 4 boo/ I and Thou . 1n this (or/' 0uber sought to outline an ;ontologyof the bet(een; in (hich individual consciousness can only be understood (ithin the conte)t of our relationships(ith others' not independent of them Theunissen ,!@ , .&hile no one has suggested that 0a/htin ;copied; his dialogics straight from the pages of 0uber+s I and Thou ' heseems to have been at least influenced by 0uber+s earlier (or/s and a number of other philosophers (ho (erethin/ing along the same lines. Nina 9erlina reminds us that 0a/htin and 0uber ;belonged to the same culturalepoch; B and probably arrived at their conclusions simultaneously through their common fascination (ithCohen+s philosophy and their interest in oethe' Christ' and %ocrates . And even though he built his concept ofdialogics on the shoulders of other philosophers' 0a/htin seems to have been the first thin/er to apply this generalconcept (idely to the fields of language and literature.1n latter sections of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin introduces another concept /no(n as ;metalinguistics'; (hich isone of his fe( neologisms that he bothers to define concretely' a tendency some critics suggest has led to varyinginterpretations of his thought. 0a/htin (as highly critical of the ideas of %(iss linguist 3erdinand de %aussure as
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Problemshttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Problemshttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/chap2n.html#1http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Problemshttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/chap2n.html#2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/chap2n.html#2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Theunissenhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Perlinahttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Perlinahttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Problemshttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/chap2n.html#1http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Problemshttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/chap2n.html#2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Clark&Holquist2http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Theunissenhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/bib.html#Perlina


7/40


8/40

importance for understanding the style and historical destinies of the modern Europeannovel' that is' the novel since the seventeenth century. This latecomer reflects' in itsstylistic structure' the struggle bet(een t(o tendencies in the languages of European

peoples$ one a centrali8ing unifying tendency' the other a decentrali8ing tendency thatis' one that stratifies languages . The novel senses itself on the border bet(een the

completed' dominant literary language and the e)traliterary languages that /no(heteroglossia. B,These centrali8ing and decentrali8ing forces are referred to in another essay' ;Discourse in the Novel'; as;centripetal; and ;centrifugal; forces' (hich serve to promote the continual evolution of language and the novel.The centripetal and centrifugal forces (ithin heteroglossia are (hat change the ;official; language of a culture overtime' usually by infusing diverse' unofficial forms of language into official forms via the speech of various literarycharacters.1n ;Discourse in the Novel'; 0a/htin also e)tends his description of dialogics and discusses the various obstaclesany individual faces in attempting to forge an authentic' authorial voice (hen confronted (ith the dialogic nature oflanguage. Assimilating the disparate utterances (e have heard or read in our early language e)perience into a solidtone of a confident (riter is a difficult process' as 0a/htin (ell understood$

The (ord in language is half someone else+s. 1t becomes ;one+s o(n; only (hen the

spea/er populates it (ith his o(n intention' his o(n accent' (hen he appropriates the(ord' adapting it to his o(n semantic and e)pressive intention. 9rior to this moment ofappropriation' the (ord does not e)ist in a neutral and impersonal language . . . but rather it e)ists in other people+s mouths' in other people+s conte)ts' serving other people+sintentions$ it is from there that one must ta/e the (ord' and ma/e it one+s o(n . . . .


9/40

eified materiali8ing' ob6ectified images are profoundly inadequate for life and fordiscourse. A reified model of the (orld is no( being replaced by a dialogic model. Everythought and every life merges in the open@ended dialogue. Problems of Dostoevsky's

Poeti"s "4*ust as &erner 2eisenberg and other physicists grappled (ith (ays in (hich to describe the strange' ne( (orld of

the quantum realm' 0a/htin seems to have been groping also for (ays in (hich to e)press his ne( ideas onlanguage.0a/htin had a penchant for neologisms' (hich can be vie(ed as a necessity for describing the radically ne(concepts of language that came to mind in light of Einstein+s theory. This also might e)plain 0a/htin+s peculiar useof ussian grammar' (hich Clar/ and 2olquist noticed throughout their biographical research$

The more (e /no( about 0a/htin+s life' the clearer it becomes that he (as a supremeeccentric' of an order the ussians e)press better than (e in their (ord "udak ' (hich hasovertones of such intense strangeness that it borders on "udo ' a (onder. And this

peculiarity is reflected not only in the strange history of his te)ts . . . but in his style as(ell' if one may spea/ of a sin!le style for one (ho (as so concerned (ith ;other@voicedness.; ussians immediately sense this strangeness$ again and again (hen (e havegone to native spea/ers (ith questions about a peculiar usage of a familiar (ord or anunfamiliar coinage' the ussians have thro(n up their hands or sha/en their heads andsmiled ruefully. )vi

%uch eccentricities' combined (ith dialogics+ challenge to the monologic' rationalist tradition' have opened 0a/htinto charges of being a relativist (ho ta/es no firm stand on important issues in philosophy of language. 0ut in theDostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin anticipates and counters such charges by arguing that polyphony ;has nothing in common(ith relativism . . . . =0>oth relativism and dogmatism equally e)clude all . . . dialogue by ma/ing it eitherunnecessary . . . or impossible . . . ; B" .3ollo(ing &orld &ar 11' 0a/htin (as allo(ed to return to his university position in %arans/' and it (as from herethat he set about reviving passage of his dissertation' (hich in the interim had become a politically sensitive sub6ect.3ollo(ing the (ar' a ne( (ave of intellectual oppression s(ept through ussia' and 0a/htin+s dissertation (asdenounced on ideological grounds by several po(erful scholars (ho found it ;ob6ectionable for its blasphemy andscorn of dogma; Clar/ and 2olquist 4 # . Though 0a/htin (as eventually granted a candidate+s degree' he (as

denied publication of his dissertation' (hich (ound up collecting dust in the institute+s archives for the ne)t !years. After 0a/htin (as discovered by Mosco( graduate students in the early !"B-s' ho(ever' he revised thedissertation for %oviet publication' and it (as later translated into English as %abelais and &is World .

abelais (as one of 0a/htin+s favorite authors' and he sa( Gar!antua and Panta!ruel ' (ith all its ba(dy humorand veiled social satire' as ;an encyclopedia of fol/ culture; abelais FG . 0a/htin touches on these carnivalisticfol/ genres in his earlier (or/ on Dostoevs/y' but in %abelais and &is World ' he provides a detailed history of (hathe calls ;grotesque realism; and sees abelais and other enaissance (riters consciously dra(ing from theseliterary forms as inspiration for their (or/. Central to grotesque realism is the principle of degradation' ;thelo(ering of all that is high' spiritual' ideal' abstract...to the material level' to the sphere of earth and body in theirindissoluble unity; !"@ - .1n ancient cultures' this degradation found its communal e)pression in times of carnival' (hen the people;celebrated temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and from the established order; by engaging in feasts ;of

becoming' change' and rene(al; !- . Especially important in such carnival festivals (as the inversion of official

hierarchies through the uncro(ning of /ings and the elevation of fools to regal status. 0ut 0a/htin is quic/ to pointout that carnival should not be confused (ith mere parody or subversive anarchy? (hile carnival does usedegradation to subvert authority temporarily' ;it revives and rene(s at the same time. 0are negation is completelyalien to fol/ culture; !! .

%abelais and &is World is a highly circular and diffuse (or/ (hich is considered by many 0a/htin scholars to beone of his least important (or/s' though it is generally seen as a ma6or contribution to enaissance literaryscholarship. &hen it (as first translated into English' the ew (ork Times Book %eview called it a ;(indy' repetitive'disorgani8ed and clumsily@ translated mass' thic/ (ith sentences that hobble across the page burdened by non@meanings . . .; Miller . 0ut through all its digressions' 0a/htin see/s to demonstrate that abelais (as the last


10/40

person to fully understand (hat carnival meant to Medieval man and ho( the (orld has since lost this understandingas carnival devolved into literary forms of satire.After the abelais dissertation (as re6ected' 0a/htin continued teaching in %arans/' (here he began (or/ on one ofthe most important essays of his career' a fuller e)amination of his earlier concept of the utterance. This essay' ;The9roblem of %peech enres'; (as not published in the %oviet Union until !","' (ell after his revived status as anoted thin/er' and (as later translated into English in a collection entitled )#ee"h Genres and *ther ate +ssays .&ritten bet(een !"F and !"F4' ;The 9roblem of %peech enres; is one of 0a/htin+s most succinct argumentsagainst %aussurean linguistics' a sub6ect first touched upon in The Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s . 0ut unli/e theDostoevs/y boo/' ;%peech enres; gives us an in@depth description of metalinguistics' (hich depends on (hat0a/htin felt (as the smallest linguistic unit of conte)tual meaning (ithin an everyday situation of speech @@ theutterance. 3or 0a/htin' the utterance is$

a unit of speech communication . . .d etermined by a change of spea/ing sub6ects' that is'a change of spea/ers. Any utterance @@ from a short single@(ord re6oinder in everydaydialogue to the large novel or scientific treatise @@ has' so to spea/' an absolute beginningand an absolute end$ its beginning is preceded by the utterances of others' and its end isfollo(ed by the responsive utterances of others . . . . The spea/er ends his utterance inorder to relinquish the floor to the other or to ma/e room for the other+s active responsiveunderstanding. ,!

0y comparing this concept of the utterance to those units of speech defined by traditional linguistics @@ sentences' phrases' (ords' and phonemes @@ 0a/htin demonstrates the stri/ingly narro( limitations of prevailing linguistics inanaly8ing the conte)tual environment of speech and language.3or 0a/htin' the isolated sentence lac/s ;semantic fullness of value? and it has no capacity to determine directly theresponsive position of the other spea/er' that is' it cannot evo/e a response; ,# . Utterances are characteri8ed by achange of spea/ers in a ;specific finali8ation; determined by three aspects of a (hole utterance$ semantic e)haustionof the theme? the spea/er+s plan or speech (ill? and generic' compositional forms of finali8ation ,B@,, .&hat 0a/htin means by these three characteristics of the utterance is fairly simple. 3irst of all' an utterance+s;relative finali8ation; is determined by ;specific authorial intent; ,, . That is' an utterance reaches its end (hen aspea/er intends it to' (hen the impulse of speech has momentarily e)hausted itself and either e)plicitly or tacitlyas/s for response from the listener. Closely lin/ed to this intent is the listener+s perception of the spea/er+s speech

plan$

=&>e embrace' understand' and sense the spea/er+s speech plan or speech (ill' (hichdetermines the entire utterance' its length and boundaries. &e imagine to ourselves (hatthe spea/er (ishes to say. And (e also use this speech plan' this speech (ill as (eunderstand it ' to measure the finali8ation of the utterance. ,,

Most importantly for 0a/htin' though' is ho( the utterance+s finali8ation is often determined by our choice of a particular speech genre' genres (hich are relatively stable but of (hich (e are often unconscious. As 0a/htin states'(e acquire language ;from concrete utterances that (e hear and that (e ourselves reproduce in live speechcommunication (ith people around us; ," .Through these socially acquired speech genres' a listener is able to anticipate the length and compositional structureof another+s speech from its very first (ords' thereby forming a sense of the (hole e)pression' ;(hich is only laterdifferentiated during the speech process; ," . 0a/htin feels that if (e had not tacitly integrated these genres intoour consciousness throughout our lives and instead had to ;construct each utterance at (ill for the first time' speech

communication (ould be almost impossible; ," .0a/htin+s theory of utterance counters the prevailing linguistics of his time by denying that utterances #arole are;completely free combination=s> of forms of language; and therefore ;purely individual acts'; (hile the system oflanguage lan!ue is a social phenomenon G! . 3or 0a/htin' both %aussurean terms are socially derived' and in hisvie(' most linguists of his day sa( in the utterance ;only an individual combination of purely linguistic le)ical andgrammatical forms . . .; G! . The conscious or unconscious choice of an individual speech genre' according to0a/htin' is determined by both the spea/er+s semantic plan and by his emotional evaluation of the utterance+ssemantic content? this is one area of speech that most linguistic systems fail to address$


11/40

Can the e)pressive aspect of speech be regarded as phenomenon of lan!ua!e as asystemJ Can one spea/ of the e)pressive aspect of language units' that is' (ords andsentencesJ The ans(er to these questions must be a categorical ;no.;


12/40

health declined. 1n the last noteboo/ entry before his death' 0a/htin concluded (ith this statement about the dialogicnature of language$ ;There is neither a first nor a last (ord and there are no limits to the dialogic conte)t it e)tendsinto the boundless past and the boundless future ; )#ee"h Genres !,- .1t is this ;boundless dialogic conte)t; that allo(s us to escape the prison house of language that so many

poststructuralist thin/ers have erected for us during the past t(o decades. #&$ According to 0a/htin' our individualacts of language are tied indissolubly to all previous and future acts of language in the never@ending act of dialogue(ith others.


13/40

Chapter % - Bakhtin and Critica" Theory

As (e have seen' 0a/htin+s dialogic philosophy of language (as developed and refined over the course of a longand prolific life that straddled a number of turbulent periods in ussian history. 0ased in part on several strands of&estern philosophy ranging from %ocrates to phenomenology' dialogics overturns older paradigms that vie(edcommunication as being so much mail relayed by a sender to a particular receiver? instead' dialogics seescommunication and meaning residing on the boundaries of consciousness bet(een t(o people' (ho use (ords thatare both socially originated and infused (ith past and future voices.0efore e)amining 0a/htin+s influence (ithin critical theory' it is important to understand the theoretical conte)t into(hich his ideas (ere appropriated during the !"G-s. 3or 0a/htin+s ideas did not become popular at this time only

because they (ere first undergoing translation' but because they ans(ered a deep theoretical need that had arisenever since the deconstructive angel first spread its (ings. That need concerns the question of ho( @@ given all the

poststructural theoretical challenges to rationalist vie(s of discourse @@ (e ever manage to communicate (ith oneanother at all.9rior to the !"B-s' critical theory had little of the importance in English studies that it has today. Modern English

philology arose in the nineteenth century' modelling itself on the ;long@established study of 0iblical and classicalte)ts; 3elperin 4 . This hermeneutic influence continued into the t(entieth century and (as challenged onlyduring the !"4-s and !"#-s (ith the advent of Ne( Criticism as practiced in America by the Agrarian critics at

Ianderbilt University. This school of criticism concentrated on ;highlighting the te)t and refining techniques for itsanalysis'; as opposed to the factual scholarly research of the earlier philological tradition Cain "F . &hile itespoused a pseudo@scientific method based on a ;close reading; of the te)t' the Ne( Criticism (as far fromscientific and contained a certain amount of idealism about literature' as 2o(ard 3elperin points out$

=:>nce upon a time there (as a special category of (or/s designated as


14/40

study. This attitude (as e)pressed most famously in oland 0arthe+s essay ;The Death of the Author'; in (hich hestates that the ;image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author' his person'his life' his tastes' =and> his passions . . .; !#4 . The actual physical author (as not presumed to be dead' but insteadthe institutional concept of authorship that had long dominated criticism at the e)pense of linguistic and semioticanalysis.%tructuralism ruled academic theoretical debates through much of the !"B-s until a ne( (ave of 3rench thoughtfound seed in American soil. At a conference on structuralism held at *ohns 2op/ins University in !"BB' *acquesDerrida delivered his famous paper ;%tructure' %ign' and 9lay in the Discourse of the 2uman %ciences'; (hichcreated quite a stir and ;acquired a mythological significance as the fountainhead of American deconstruction;

0ergon8i !4" . Derrida+s (ritings are e)tremely dense and complicated' and have been interpreted in a variety of(ays' but the basic gist of his thought hinges on %aussure+s division bet(een (ords and their referents. 2o(ever'Derrida carried this concept one step further by stating in his !"B, boo/ *f Grammatolo!y ' ;There is nothingoutside of the te)t; !FG . 0y denying the possibility of a /no(able reality outside of (ritten language' Derridaemphasi8es that our only source of reality is the free play of signifiers' (hich ultimately deconstruct of their o(naccord and call into question previous &estern concepts of meaning. As Michael 2olquist e)plains$

=The> Deconstructionist vie( . . . holds that ;No one o(ns meaning;$ the very conceptionof meaning' to say nothing of persons' invo/ed in most traditional epistemologies' begins

by illicitly assuming a presence (hose end Niet8sche really (as announcing (hen he letit be /no(n that od had died in history. ;9olitics; !B#

Derrida ma/es a number of other claims about language and philosophy' such as his assertion that the (hole of&estern discourse is ;logocentric; because it erroneously privileges speech over (riting? ho(ever' for brevity+s sa/eit is more important to concentrate discussion on his influence (ithin critical theory.Derrida+s concept of deconstruction had an immense impact on theoretical debates during the !",-s' gathering anumber of dedicated and vocal proponents and a varied assortment of equally dedicated and vocal detractors.Among those (ho too/ Derrida+s theories to heart (as a contingent of critics at 7ale University' (here Derridamaintains part@time residency. These critics spent much of the !",-s applying Derrida+s ideas in different (ays to ahost of canonical (or/s? for e)ample' 9aul de Man sought to demonstrate ho( the language of any (ritten te)tdeconstructs of its o(n accord ichter "#"@F- . 2o(ever' at least one deconstructive critic' odolphe asche' hassuggested that application of Derrida+s thought to e)ploring ne( interpretations of literature is$

parado)ical' almost perverse' since Derrida+s revolutionary contribution (as to treat philosophical te)ts as if they (ere bound by the same sorts of linguistic ambiguity andfluidity that had long been thought to characteri8e literature. qtd. in ichter$ "#"

1ndeed' Derrida+s main purpose' if he could be said to have one' seems to be the decentering of &estern philosophy'to sho( that its metaphysics has incorrectly assumed a guiding ;presence; in the (hole of its inquiries? as (e shallsee later' this is one area (here 0a/htin+s thought differs radically from deconstruction. 0ernard 0ergon8i seesDerrida+s follo(ers ta/ing either one of t(o forms$ those (ho vie( him as a ;subverter of meanings' including hiso(n; and those (ho believe he is ;a true philosopher...restating traditional philosophical problems in a ne( (ay;

!44 .As the deconstructive star began to rise in the American academy during the !",-s' the ne)t decade sa( theemergence of an eclectic band of critics from various bac/grounds and ideologies (ho began to attac/ Derrida+sideas' often citing the ideas of other philosophers and language theorists as support. :ne early e)ample of such achallenge (as *ohn %earle+s heated rebuttal of Derrida+s critique of *ohn Austin+s speech@act theory. #1$ Anotherchallenge that came from (ithin poststructuralism itself (as that of Ne( 2istoricism' (hich dre( its critical

inspiration from a number of sources' but relied primarily on the ideas of 3rench thin/er Michel 3oucault andMar)ist philosopher


15/40

host of other %lavic thin/ers emphasi8ed the social nature of language and felt that meaning resided neither (ith theindividual' as the traditionalists believe' nor (ith no one' as deconstruction (ould have it' but in our collectivee)changes of dialogue$ ;The %lavic vie( holds that K&e o(n meaning.+ :r...K1f (e do not o(n it' (e may at leastrent meaning+; ;9olitics; !B# .As (e have seen' 0a/htin (rote the bul/ of his (or/s prior to !"F-' yet it (ould be more than 4- years before thefirst of his te)ts made their (ay into English translation. %abelais and &is World (as printed in English in !"BG'follo(ed by Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s in !",4. Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e @@ a te)t ofdisputed authorship that is vie(ed by many scholars as being at least influenced by 0a/htin #!$ @@ also (astranslated into English in !",4' positing' among other things' a social vie( of language theory.During the !"B-s and !",-s' (hile American criticism seemed obsessed (ith structuralism and deconstruction'0a/htin (as being studied to a large degree by European scholars (ho had earlier access to his (or/s. According toThe Bakhtin ewsletter ' bet(een !" "' (hen 0a/htin published the first version of his Dostoevs/y boo/ in ussia'and !"G!' (hen The Dialo!i" Ima!ination (as translated into English' there appeared !# critical articles ma/ing atleast passing reference to the 0a/htin Circle? only !# of these (ere in English Thomson' The Bakhtin ewsletter

o- . !@!" . Although this bibliography is far from e)haustive' it does demonstrate the English and Americanacademies+ lac/ of interest in 0a/htin during this period' despite the fact that three of the 0a/htin Circle te)ts hadalready been translated.Those European scholars (ho too/ early note of the 0a/htin Circle included a host of structuralist and post@structuralist thin/ers' including oman *a/obson' ene &elle/' *ulia Hristeva' and T8vetan Todorov. *a/obson (as

perhaps the first of these to cite the 0a/htin Circle as a prominent influence' though he comes to 0a/htin through a boo/ of disputed authorship' Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e . As early as !"4!' in a letter to Ni/ola6Trubet8/oy' *a/obson spo/e the praises of this te)t' and later' in his boo/ )hifters/ 0erbal Cate!ories/ and the

%ussian 0erb ' he cites it again as a main influence Mate6/a and Tituni/ vii . &elle/' in an overvie( of Dostoevs/ycriticism first published in !"B ' briefly described 0a/htin+s boo/ on the ussian author as ;ingenious;

;1ntroduction; F ' though years later he (ould ta/e 0a/htin to tas/ and ;refute the description of Dostoevs/y+s(or/s as polyphonic or carnivalesque; German 4F, . Hristeva' in the !"BB essay ;&ord' Dialogue' and Novel;(ritten prior to her poststructural conversion' enthusiastically endorsed 0a/htin+s theory of dialogics' stating it ;may(ell become the basis of our time+s intellectual structure; F" .0ut among all those European scholars ta/ing an early interest in 0a/htin' T8vetan Todorov (as the one (hoembraced his theories the most emphatically. 1n a !"G# article' ;A Dialogic CriticismJ; Todorov details hisconversion from structuralist thought to 0a/htinian dialogics oodson , ' and in the same year' he published

Mikhail Bakhtin$ The Dialo!i"al Prin"i#le ' one of the first monographs to address 0a/htin+s theories as a (hole.During this initial period of European interest in 0a/htin+s (or/s' those English language articles that did appear

(ere mostly scattered revie(s of 0a/htin+s %abelais and &is World . 2o(ever' a fe( detailed English languageanalyses of 0a/htin+s (or/s did e)ist? perhaps the most note(orthy of these (as a translation of %oviet linguistIyacheslav I. 1vanov+s !",# article' ; ro(th of the Theoretical 3rame(or/ of Modern


16/40

Don 2. 0ialostos/y sees 0ooth' in this introduction' as ;establishing a common ground bet(een his ChicagoAristotelianism and 0a/htin+s dialogism on the questions of ideology and form; ;0ooth+s hetoric; 4 . %till' 0oothdoes have some criticisms of 0a/htin+s thought' particularly 0a/htin+s contention that Dostoevs/y+s ;polyphonic;novels lac/ any authorial voice? as he states in a !"G! intervie(' ;=0a/htin+s> a great mind' (ho is @@ li/e all greatminds' 1 suppose @@ 6ust as challenging (hen you thin/ he+s (rong as (hen you thin/ he+s right; 2op/ins #G .0ialostos/y himself has been instrumental in promoting 0a/htin+s dialogics (ithin both literary criticism andrhetorical theory. 2is !"GB PM A article' ;Dialogics as an Art of Discourse in


17/40

Another problem for any Mar)ist appropriation of 0a/htin concerns the difference bet(een dialectics and dialogics't(o terms (hich Mar)ist critic 3rederic *ameson attempts to lump together in The Politi"al 1n"ons"ious G#@GF .2o(ever' as obert 7oung points out' ;0a/htin . . . ma/es it very clear in those te)ts signed (ith his o(n name thatdialogism cannot be confused (ith dialectics. Dialogism cannot be resolved . . . . Dialectics' according to 0a/htin'are monological; ,B . 1ndeed' in a noteboo/ from his later period' 0a/htin contrasts dialogics (ith the Mar)istsense of dialectic$

Dialogue and dialectics. Ta/e a dialogue and remove the voices the partitioning ofvoices ' remove the intonations emotional and individuali8ing ones ' carve out abstractconcepts and 6udgments from living (ords and responses' cram everything into oneabstract consciousness @@ and that+s ho( you get dialectics. )#ee"h Genres !#,

The question of (hether or not 0a/htin (as indeed a Mar)ist' ho(ever' is incidental to an understanding of hisintellectual legacy. %lapping labels on his (or/ does no one any real good' though there are some aspects of his(or/ @@ such as his insistence on the social nature of language @@ that could be interpreted as having Mar)istovertones. 0ut to label 0a/htin a Mar)ist seems to be a gross e)aggeration in light of his early philosophical (or/sand his apparent belief in ussian :rthodo)y. 1f he (as a Mar)ist' he (as not a Mar)ist in the dogmatically politicalor academic sense (e understand today.More recently' there has been a trend to fuse 0a/htin+s theories in a variety of (ays (ith feminist critical thought'ta/ing the e)ample of *ulia Hristeva some t(o decades earlier. %uch feminist appropriations of 0a/htin+s dialogism

seem much more logical than those by Mar)ist critics. Although 0a/htin (rote nothing specifically about feminism'his dialogic theory of language holds a certain attractiveness for feminist critics' (ho vie( it as subverting theauthoritative' monological language of the ruling patriarchal society. 9eter 2itchcoc/' for one' in Dialo!i"s of the*##ressed ' uses 0a/htin+s theories to analy8e the (or/ of four noted feminist (riters.0ut 0a/htin+s theories have been applied by feminist critics in a number of (ays. Dale M. 0auer and %usan *aretMcHinstry have used 0a/htin+s theories to forge (hat they call a ;feminist dialogics'; (hich simultaneouslycounters contemporary assumptions of a singular feminist voice ! and subverts male@dominated forms of discourse

4 . %till other feminists have concentrated on applying theories of 0a/htin+s other than dialogism. Toril Moi' fore)ample' uses his concept of carnival from %abelais and &is World to assert that$

anger is not the only revolutionary attitude available to us. The po(er of laughter can be 6ust as subversive' as (hen carnival turns the old hierarchies upside@do(n' erasing olddifferences' producing ne( and unstable ones. #-

2o(ever' it could be argued that Moi and others have made erroneous use of 0a/htin+s carnival by trying to apply itas a counterforce to modern political or social authority. 1n Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s ' 0a/htin states thatcarnivali8ation (as a phenomenon specific only to ancient times leading up to the enaissance and foresees

problems (ith any modern application of carnival$

To understand correctly the problem of carnivali8ation' one must dispense (ith theoversimplified understanding of carnival found in the masquerade line of modern times'and even more (ith a vulgar bohemian understanding of carnival. Carnival is pastmillennia+s (ay of sensing the (orld as one great communal performance . . . . =T>here isnot a grain of nihilism in it' nor a grain of empty frivolity or vulgar bohemianindividualism. !F"@B-

7et appropriation of 0a/htin+s dialogics by the above feminist critics and a host of others #*$ has served to broaden

the scope of feminist critical theory by placing it in a dialogue @@ one not necessarily terminally combative @@ (ithmale@dominated society. Diane 9rice 2erndl' ho(ever' sees a danger in applying dialogics to feminist criticism'arguing it has encouraged competing varieties of feminist theory that may cause ;feminists to dro(n out their o(nvoices and thereby return to silence; - .%ome poststructuralist thin/ers have also cited 0a/htin+s influence in their (or/s' including Ne( 2istoricist Michael0ristol+s relevant appropriation of carnival to demonstrate the ;vitality and po(er of popular culture in theEli8abethan period; %elden !-G . There have also been suggestions that 0a/htin+s dialogics is someho( compatible(ith or complementary to the ideas of Derrida. #+$ 0ut there can be no compromise bet(een 0a/htin and deconstruction' a fact understood all too (ell by one of itsforemost proponents' the late 9aul de Man. 1n his !"G4 essay ;Dialogue and Dialogism'; de Man critici8es 0a/htin+s


18/40

dialogics and poses the follo(ing question$ ;=2>o( does dialogism . . . cope (ith and indeed seem to overcome theever@recurring question of the status of fact' meaning' and fiction in the novelJ; !-B . :f course' de Man ans(ersthat it does not' and (hile admitting a certain admiration for some of 0a/htin+s (ritings' he describes dialogism asincompatible (ith any true ;hermeneutic understanding; !! .De Man+s argument here is e)tremely comple)' but hinges on (hat he sees as 0a/htin+s erroneous definition oftropes as ;pure episteme and not a fact of language'; (hich in turn ;e)cludes tropes from literary discourse . . . andlocates them' perhaps surprisingly' in the field of epistemology; !! . Mathe( oberts' ho(ever' ta/es de Man totas/ for incorrectly assuming 0a/htin+s dialogic concept of epistemology belongs to ;that Ktheoretical (orld+ ofabstract unity' (here a Kcommon logic+ (ould ensure complete decodability of te)ts'; (hich oberts argues it doesnot !44@4# .&hile there may be similarities bet(een Derrida and 0a/htin' there are a number of mar/ed differences also. 0oththin/ers sought to overturn earlier rationalist theories of communication (hich posited that meaning resided in either an abstract ideal or an individual consciousness. 0ut (hen faced (ith the ne( vie( of language posited bystructuralist thought' 0a/htin steered clear of the nihilistic trap that ensnared Derrida and his follo(ers and led themto believe that any attempts to (ring meaning from a te)t are an illusionary scam of the &estern critical tradition.0a/htin ac/no(ledges some of the inherent ambiguities of language' but (here the deconstructionists (ouldhighlight this ambiguity as the inability of (ords to convey precise meaning' 0a/htin (elcomes this vagueness oflanguage as a means by (hich to create meaning dialogically through the socially derived and shared medium oflanguage. As David


19/40

&hile Derrida may be correct in believing that &estern assumptions of a transcendental' guiding presence outsidethe system of language are indeed an illusion' the very fact that language is acquired from others (ho are outside our individual consciousness is the ;loophole; that Derrida seems to have ignored in his e)treme s/epticism aboutlanguage.That language is an open' socially acquired system is (hat gives particular credence to 0a/htin+s concept of the;superaddressee'; (hich appears to be nothing but a human e)aggeration of the limitless ;dialogic conte)t...=that>e)tends into the boundless past and the boundless future...; %peech enres !,- . &e learn our (ords from others'and (e produce them bac/ to others' and though the precise meaning of (ords may change due to our individuale)periences along the (ay' (e can never divorce our (ords from the dialogic conte)t from (hich they came. As0a/htin states in ;Discourse in the Novel';

Discourse lives' as it (ere' beyond itself' in a living impulse to(ard the ob6ect? if (edetach ourselves completely from this impulse all (e have left is the na/ed corpse of the(ord' from (hich (e can learn nothing at all about the social situation or the fate of agiven (ord in life. To study the (ord as such' ignoring the impulse that reaches out

beyond it' is 6ust as senseless as to study psychological e)perience outside the conte)t ofthat real life to(ard (hich it (as directed and by (hich it is determined. Dialogic1magination "

Derrida' for all his claims that he opposes rationalist' Cartesian vie(s of language' appears to be operating under the belief that language is indeed a closed system from (hich (e cannot escape' an idea vehemently contradicted by0a/htin+s dialogics.During the past decade' deconstruction as an influential critical fad appears to have (aned some(hat' though it can

by no means be considered dead as a critical tool. Many of Derrida+s ideas have been instrumental in helping usmove beyond earlier rationalist ideas regarding language as a precise medium of communication' and as a result'deconstruction has had a tremendous impact' for better or (orse' on all ensuing theoretical debates. As %tanley 3ishrecently noted' ;Deconstruction is dead in the same (ay that 3reudianism is dead. 1t is every(here; %tephens # .0ut if deconstruction is not dead' it does appear to have at least deconstructed' (ith its ideas being assimilated intoother theoretical schools' at least as a point of reference.A quic/ scan of most critical 6ournals today (ill sho( that 0a/htin is slo(ly but steadily surpassing Derrida in termsof critical influence. 0a/htin+s impact is also evident in the number of doctoral dissertations citing his (or/s. Arecent electronic search of the Dissertation Abstra"ts *nline database sho(s a total of #B! entries matching the/ey(ord ;0a/htin'; compared to 4#! such matches for ;deconstruction; and 4G! for ;Derrida.; 1t must be noted thatnot all of the dissertations deal e)clusively (ith these sub6ects' but merely mention them in their abstracts. &hilethis electronic search is not a firm indicator sho(ing that 0a/htin has eclipsed deconstruction and Derrida as a pointof reference in doctoral dissertations' it does suggest that 0a/htin+s status as an often@cited critical theorist is risingin graduate schools across the country.0ut there are inherent dangers in 0a/htin+s increasing popularity. &hat are (e in English studies to gain if the cult of Derrida is simply replaced by a cult of 0a/htin' free of any critical e)amination of his ideasJ ecent interest in0a/htin+s (or/s is similar to the adoring attitude ta/en by one of the Mosco( graduate students instrumental inrescuing 0a/htin and his (or/s from obscurity in the early !"B-s. Iadim Ho8hinov' in a memoir (ritten F yearslater' recalls that during a pilgrimage to see the e)iled 0a/htin in %arans/' one of his fello( graduate studentsdropped to his /nees in front of 0a/htin and implored$ ;Mi/hail Mi/hailovich' tell us ho( to live so that (e can

become li/e you ; qtd. in Emerson' ;The ussians;$ # 4 .%uch adoration' then and no(' promises to dilute the importance of 0a/htin+s ideas in favor of a cult of personality.0ernard 0ergon8i' (hile seeing promise in his theories' encourages tempered enthusiasm about 0a/htin' especially

since most of his (or/s have only recently been translated into English$:ne must resist seeing 0a/htin as the U% Cavalry' riding in to rescue a threatenedhumanism from ho(ling poststructuralists.... 1t (ill ta/e time for the implications of his(or/ to be properly assimilated and understood? the process involves transposition from acultural conte)t that is more remote than the 3rench. 0ut the gro(ing interest in itsuggests that it offers both a possible (ay out of present impasses and a (ay for(ard.

! G


20/40

More importantly' far too much emphasis has been placed on the biography of 0a/htin' (ho led a colorful' yetascetic lifestyle' and on simple e)plication of his theories' (hile scant attention has been paid to (hat impact histhought might have on our o(n critical practices.This is a gro(ing trend that &illiam Cain has observed in The Crisis in Criti"ism2 Cain argues that instead ofconcentrating our critical debates on the theorists themselves' (e should analy8e ho( their theories can lead to agreater sense of reflective practice$

A ma6or tas/ for theory at the present time is to initiate and encourage the re@e)aminationof English studies. &e need to use and dra( upon theory to specify the aims of (or/ inEnglish' the purposes of teaching the s/ills and values that (e see/ to transmit in

pedagogy and research.... Theory should force us to underta/e acts of self@scrutiny and 6ustification and should enable us to say precisely (hat (e do' (hy it is important' and(hat ma/es it cohere. )iii

:ne such re@e)amination of English studies has been to question the position that literary criticism should play incounterpart to its emerging step@sister of rhetoric and composition studies. As 9atricia 0i88ell has noted' suchdivergent literary critics as &ayne 0ooth' E.D. 2irsch' *onathan Culler' and Terry Eagleton have sought in rhetoricaltheory ans(ers to many of the questions that have been the center of critical debates during the past three decades

;:n the 9ossibility; !,F@!,G .1n iterary Theory ' for e)ample' Eagleton calls rhetoric ;probably the oldest form of Kliterary criticism+ in the (orld;

-F and states that (e should ;recall literary criticism from certain fashionable' ne(@fangled (ays of thin/ing ithas been seduced by...and return it to the ancient paths (hich it has abandoned; -B . 1n a similar vein' ichard


21/40

;0a/htin 5or Ioloshinov 5or Medvedev$ Dialogue 5or Doubletal/J; As is evident from the precedingchapter' this thesis (ill focus only on those (or/s undeniably attributed to 0a/htin.

4. Notable e)amples include the (or/s of various modernist (riters' including *ames *oyce and Iirginia&oolf. 3or a 0a/htinian interpretation of *oyce' see Hershner? of &oolf' see 2errmann.

#. 3or a comparison of 0a/htin+s concept of carnival (ith Mar)ism' see


22/40

Chapter & - The Bridge to hetoric

3or those literary critics' such as Eagleton' (ho see/ to merge their practice into the larger rubric of rhetoric'0a/htin+s ideas provide a perfect bridge' for his simultaneous and (ide@spread influence in both fields isunprecedented (ithin English %tudies. Though some might denounce his influence as ;trendy'; 0a/htin' more thanany other theorist of the past three decades' has brought all the diverse elements of the critical and rhetoricalspectrums into a continual dialogue that points the (ay to(ard a unified theory of literature and composition.0a/htin has been the only grand theorist popular enough in both fields to demonstrate the practical and theoreticalsimilarities that can help us achieve a unified rhetorical paradigm.According to &illiam McClellan' 0a/htin+s appropriation into rhetorical theory during the late !"G-s (as a natural

process' since 0a/htin+s theory of dialogics' though it first too/ hold in literary criticism' shares many commonattributes (ith the rhetorical tradition$

2e employs the same communication model of spea/er5utterance5listener' and he preserves' or rather' reinvents the conflation of speech and (riting (hich occurred in thetheory of the Middle Ages (hen rhetoric' a theory of oratory' (as adapted to the study ofte)ts. 0oth modeling schemes stress the persuasive aspect of discourse and emphasi8e theimportance of the other' the listener' in its generation. 0oth frame(or/s are orientedto(ard conte)tuality$ the practical' ideological environment in (hich discourse isconducted. 3inally' rhetorical and dialogic theory have a materialist vie( of language.3or both' the utterance is the ideological body of language. 4F

McClellan believes that in developing his theory of dialogics' 0a/htin employs t(o basic concepts from traditionalrhetoric$ ! personification' or the ;ascription of agency to inanimate ideas and ob6ects'; such as in his concept of the;hero'; and polemic' or the ;aggressive focusing upon another+s (ord or utterance; 4B .7et McClellan believes 0a/htin differs from the classical tradition of rhetoric in that he assigns much more activeroles in shaping discourse to the listener and sub6ect #4 . Additionally' unli/e earlier classical theories' (hichultimately assume a system of absolute values' 0a/htin grounds his theory of rhetoric in the ;concrete socio@historical conte)t; of heteroglossia' (hich in turn lends itself to the analysis of a variety of te)ts' from novels toethnographies #B . This fle)ibility that 0a/htin+s ideas provide rhetorical theory allo(s for

specificity and thic/ness of the social in the analysis of an artistic (or/ and the precisionand sophistication of literary analysis in the reading of scientific ones. 1n the terrain of0a/htin+s (or/' these and other' heterogeneous discursive practices interact' formdialogic relationships and promise profound ne( insights. McClellan #B

1n addition to his recent incorporation into rhetorical theory' 0a/htin+s deep and profound understanding of historythro(s the distant and recent past into confrontation' bringing us full circle bac/ to the roots of all philosophicallanguage in the &est @@ the %ocratic sense of dialogue as a prime force in theoretical inquiry. The 9latonic concept of absolute truth unveiled through logical contemplation may be dead' as Derrida and other poststructuralists havenoted' but the sense of dialogue as a necessary first step in any philosophical quest lives through the influence of0a/htin+s emphasis on the dialogic principles first espoused by %ocrates. Therefore' before discussing 0a/htin+sinfluence in modern rhetorical theory' it is important to understand his relationship to the classical tradition ofrhetoric.1n notes for his !"B4 revision of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin (rote that the rudiments for ;overcoming themonologic model of the (orld; could be found in the %ocratic dialogues' (hich represented ;the first step in thehistory of the ne( genre of the novel; Problems "!@" . 1n fact' in several passages of the revised boo/' 0a/htin(rites that the dialogic tradition (hich reached its pinnacle in Dostoevs/y sprang directly from the %ocraticdialogues' (hich he felt had begun ;almost as a memoir genre; or a recollection of conversations (ith %ocrates.2o(ever' the dialogues soon moved beyond the ;limitations of history and memoir; !-" ' retaining only traceelements of the %ocratic method of inquiry$

At the base of the genre lies the %ocratic notion of the dialogic nature of truth' and thedialogic nature of human thin/ing about truth. The dialogic means of see/ing truth is


23/40

counterposed to offi"ial monologism' (hich pretends to #ossess a ready3made truth ' andit is also counterposed to the naive self@confidence of those people (ho thin/ that they/no( something' that is' (ho thin/ that they possess certain truths. Truth is not born noris it to be found inside the head of an individual person? it is born between #eo#le collectively searching for truth' in the process of their dialogic interaction. %ocrates called

himself a ;pander;$ he brought people together and made them collide in quarrel' and as aresult truth (as born? (ith respect to this emerging truth %ocrates called himself a+mid(ife'+ since he assisted at the birth . . . . !!-

This %ocratic emphasis on the dialogic nature of inquiry eventually (ea/ened under 9lato+s influence' (hen it;degenerated completely into a question@and@ans(er form for training neophytes catechism ; !!- .1n another section of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin goes into a lengthy discussion of the ;carnival; roots of the

polyphonic novel' touching on a sub6ect he e)pounds upon further in %abelais and &is World . 0a/htin felt the genreof %ocratic dialogues gre( out of$

3ol/@carnival ;debates; bet(een life and death' dar/ness and light' (inter and summer'etc.' permeated (ith the pathos of change and the 6oyful relativity of all things' debates(hich did not permit thought to stop and congeal in a one@sided seriousness or in a stupidfetish for definition or singleness of meaning @@ all this lay at the base of the original coreof the genre. This distinguishes the %ocratic dialogue from the purely rhetorical dialogueas (ell as from the tragic dialogue . . . . The %ocratic discovery of the dialogic nature ofthought' of truth itself' presumes a carnivalistic familiari8ation of relations among people(ho have entered into dialogue' it presumes a familiari8ing of attitudes to(ard the ob6ectof thought itself' ho(ever lofty and important' and to(ard truth itself. !4

3rom these passages' (e can see that 0a/htin (as greatly influenced by %ocrates in formulating his concept ofdialogics. 0a/htin (as a(are of ho( the dialectic of %ocrates differed from the philosophical system of 9lato' andhaving studied classical literature e)tensively' he undoubtedly /ne( of the historical differences bet(een %ocratesand the %ophists.%ocrates lived during an age that e)perienced (hat classicist Eric 2aveloc/ has called ;the crisis . . . in the history of human communication' (hen ree/ orality transformed itself into ree/ literacy; The Muse ! . 9rior to %ocrates'

education in Ancient reece (as characteri8ed mainly by instruction in an oral' poetic tradition reaching bac/hundreds of years. %ocrates+ crime' for (hich he (as tried and sentenced to death' (as his proposal that ;thiseducation be professionalised' its conte)t being no longer set by poetic tradition and by practice...but by dialecticale)amination of Kideas+; 2aveloc/' The Muse F .According to 2aveloc/' %ocratic dialectic stemmed directly from this conflict bet(een the older oral tradition andthe ne( literacy offered by the ree/ alphabet. The ree/s used different (ords for these t(o distinct forms ofhuman communication @@e#os ' (hich characteri8ed orally preserved forms of speech and poetic tradition' and lo!os '(hich referred to ;discourse both as spo/en and as (ritten . . . and also to the mental operation the reasoning

po(er required to produce it . . .; 2aveloc/' The Muse !!4 . This ne( concept of lo!os eventually formed thefoundation of all subsequent &estern moral philosophy by giving rise to the concept of the #sy"he ' since ;theinscribed language and thought and the person (ho spo/e it became separated from each other' leading to a ne(focus on the personality of the spea/er; 2aveloc/' The Muse ! - .:ne of the first groups of philosophers to challenge this early poetic tradition (ere the %ophists. :ur modernunderstanding of these philosophers has been distorted by the fact that 9lato+s condemnation of their ideas;contributed to the loss of %ophistic te)ts and neglect of the remaining fragments; 0i88ell and 2er8berg .Though fe( of their (or/s have survived' the e)tant te)ts suggest the %ophists pondered many of the same issues

prevalent in today+s debates about philosophy of language.9rior to the %ophists' ree/ philosophy in the fifth century 0.C. (as characteri8ed by a burgeoning interest in thenatural (orld' as philosophers sought to ;replace the mythical idea of a degeneration from a primeval perfection;(ith ;physical theories of the evolution of life from inanimate matter; uthrie' The )o#hists B-@B! . This increasingconcern (ith the natural (orld led to an e)amination of the connection bet(een physical reality and language'

bet(een #hysis and nomos . According to &. H. C. uthrie' the most influential strand of 9resocratic philosophy (asthe e)treme monism of 9armenides and his follo(ers' (ho re6ected the empirical senses and placed faith entirely in


24/40

a unified absolute beyond the natural (orld. This philosophy ;inspired a violent reaction in the empirical and practical minds of the %ophists' (ho opposed it in the name of common sense; uthrie' The )o#hists #, .The %ophists undoubtedly came to repudiate the vie(s of 9armenides and others through their contact (ith culturesoutside the ree/ peninsula. This contact ;made it increasingly obvious that customs and standards of behaviour(hich had earlier been accepted as absolute and universal' and of divine institution' (ere in fact local and relative;

uthrie' The )o#hists !B . 2o(ever' uthrie believes other elements also led to the %ophistic movement and itsre6ection of earlier tradition' such as the advent of Athenian democracy !" and the gro(th of atheism andagnosticism 4 .0ut regardless of (hat spa(ned the %ophistic movement' most of the %ophists (ere characteri8ed by an e)tremes/epticism and a belief in linguistic relativity' (hich in turn caused them to endorse rhetoric as the only means by(hich to shape the course of human affairs. 1n doing so' they challenged the earlier monism of 9armenides and other Eleatic philosophers and ;abandoned the idea of a permanent reality behind appearances' in favour of an e)treme

phenomenalism' relativism and sub6ectivism; uthrie' The )o#hists #, . The %ophists (ere often paid handsomelyfor their services by (ealthy Athenians' (ho found their rhetorical instruction helpful in arguing their cases beforethe Assembly and courts of la(.9erhaps the most famous of the ancient %ophists (as 9rotagoras of Abdera' (hose sub6ective philosophy is beste)emplified by his saying$ ;Man is the measure of all things' of the things that are that they are' and of the thingsthat are not that they are not; uthrie' The )o#hists !,! . 9rotagoras (as famous for his school of rhetoricalinstruction' in (hich he trained his pupils to argue both sides of an argument' but underlying this instruction (as his

belief that ;=t>ruth (as individual and temporary' not universal and lasting' for the truth for any man (as simply(hat he could be persuaded of . . .; The )o#hists F! .Another of the (ell@/no(n early %ophists (as orgias' (hose philosophy is best summari8ed in the fragments ofhis treatise *n ature or the on3e,istent . As uthrie notes' orgias set out in this te)t to refute 9resocratic monism

by arguing three main points$ ; a that nothing e)ists' b that even if it does it is incomprehensible to man' c that'even if it is comprehensible to anyone' it is not communicable to anyone else; The )o#hists !"4 .During the past decade' there have been several attempts to resurrect the %ophistic tradition as a model for modernrhetorical theory. #1$ Thomas Hent' for one' has noticed stri/ing similarities bet(een the %ophists anddeconstruction' the former of (hom ;understood that (e are prisoners of language; and ;that (e can find our (ay inthe (orld only by follo(ing the labyrinthian t(ists and turns of language; ;9aralogic; 4F . Hent argues that the%ophistic tradition can be used' along (ith poststructuralist thought' to forge a ;paralogic rhetoric; in (hich (e are;forced to reconsider a history of rhetoric grounded in the commonplace notion that rhetoric springs fully formedfrom the brain of Aristotle . . .; 4" . 1n doing so' he invo/es 0a/htin as support' but he fails to ta/e into account thedistinctions bet(een 0a/htin and deconstruction' as (ell as those bet(een the %ophists and %ocrates' the latter of

(hom 0a/htin considered the founding father of dialogics.&hile the 9latonic dialogues contain most of our information about %ocrates' (e can' as 0a/htin did' sense %ocrates+underlying concept of dialectic that (as some(hat disfigured by the monologic transcriptions of 9lato' (ho (ent(ell beyond %ocrates in positing a theory of absolute /no(ledge. According to 2aveloc/' %ocrates stands at thecrossroads bet(een the %ophistic and 9latonic traditions' embracing a some(hat parado)ical vie( that 0a/htin(ould find appealing more than t(o thousand years later$

:n the one hand he clung to traditional orality @@ the uttered (ord only as heard. :n theother' he brusquely turned a(ay from its e)pression in rhythmic poetry or casualconversation and substituted a truly radical style' of inviting the e)pression of atraditional oral statement from an interlocutor and then sub6ecting its terms' its meaning'to a drastic interrogation. The process required a coincidental partnership of t(o or more

people? (hereas a te)t did not. ;The :rality; ,,@,G*ay 3arness also shares this parado)ical vie( of %ocrates and argues that (hile %ocrates condemns (riting in the9latonic dialogues' ;specifically its distance from conversation and the dialogical situation of embodied language';there is still much ;that is disconcertingly (riterly about the language style of this master of face@to@face discourse;

#, .%ome of this parado) that 2aveloc/ and 3arness have noticed can be e)plained by (hat classical scholars refer to as;the %ocratic problem'; that is' ho( to differentiate %ocrates as an historical figure from his representation (ithin9lato+s dialogues. &hile some scholars might argue that such a tas/ is impossible' uthrie feels (e can move

beyond this %ocratic problem by e)amining three other sources@@Aristophanes' Penophon' and Aristotle@@all of(hom provide additional material not found in 9lato+s dialogues %ocrates B . Though some thin/ers have critici8ed


25/40


26/40

comple) (eaving of the play of meaning'; then it becomes clearly evident that 9lato (as ;a (riter=(ho>...understood both the forever@playing nature of the search for meaning and the danger that (riting presents inits ability to seem to end that play; !"G@"" . 1ndeed' the inherent danger of absolute closure presented by the(ritten (ord seems to be the main message behind 9lato+s condemnation of (riting in the Phaedrus and in otherte)ts.

Neel believes that in condemning dialectic and attempting to equate %ocrates (ith the %ophists' Derrida has missedthe entire point of the Phaedrus . 9lato may indeed privilege speech over (riting' but to insist that the entire scope of &estern discourse is ;logocentric; is seemingly preposterous. Derrida simply overstates his case on this point' usingas 6ustification his reading of the Phaedrus and a fe( other select te)ts. &estern philosophy has in no certain termsever privileged speech over (riting' but perhaps it should' (hich is 0a/htin+s main point and that of %ocrates as(ell.&hile both 0a/htin and Derrida can be seen as (or/ing against the monologic tradition that stems from 9lato+sconcept of absolute forms' 0a/htin+s insistence on the dialogic nature of language differs from Derrida+s e)tremelys/eptical vie( that language is nothing but the free play of signifiers. 1n fact' 6ust as %ocrates stands at a pointmid(ay bet(een the %ophists on the one hand and 9lato on the other' so too does 0a/htin stand in the center of alinguistic spectrum that has at one end Derrida and at the other someone li/e E.D. 2irsch or the Ne( Critics ofdecades past.0ut to vie( such competing theories of philosophy of language as merely a static spectrum (ould be to perhapsmisrepresent the situation' especially in light of (hat some consider to be historical cycles of philosophy. Classicalscholar 0. A. . 3uller' in the second volume of his &istory of Greek Philoso#hy ' states that all of philosophy ismuch li/e the stoc/ mar/et in that it e)periences polari8ed s(ings bet(een periods of

intellectual hope and enthusiasm and constructive activity' on the one hand' and intervalsof mental depression' loss of confidence in the po(er of reason to deal (ith the problemsof e)istence' and even out and out intellectual panic' on the other. !

1ndeed' 3uller believes such bi@polar shifts began (ith the highly constructive' 9resocratic epoch' (hich he sayslater ;crashed in a turmoil of s/epticism; (rought by the %ophists ! . The %ophistic enlightenment (as' in turn'follo(ed by an ;up(ard s(ing; of the %ocratic era that culminated under 9lato and Aristotle. %imilarly' this second

period of certainty lead to another' more prolonged round of philosophical s/epticism' (hich then gave (ay to yetanother constructive period that (as /ept in chec/ by the moderate forces of the %toics and the Epicureans.According to 3uller' it (as not until Neo@9ythagoranism and Neo@9latonism combined (ith advancing Christianitythat philosophy reached a relatively stable period that lasted for roughly a thousand years .Though 3uller vie(s the constructive periods of philosophy as highly productive' he is quic/ to point out the valueof the destructive periods of s/epticism' especially if they are dominated by acute and po(erful critics. 3uller

believes that such periods help to ;deflate current dogma and pretension' and stand as a perpetual (arning toconstructive philosophers against overcredence and over@speculation; .These philosophical mood s(ings that 3uller mentions shed a great deal of light on our current situation in

philosophy of language and English studies. *ust as the %ophists (ere responsible for overturning the e)trememonism of the 9resocratics' so too has Derrida been instrumental in clearing a(ay the overly rigid vie(s oflanguage that e)isted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a result of the Cartesian quest forcertainty. 0ut it appears that this recent cycle of s/epticism has run its course' as (itnessed by the declining criticalinfluence of Derrida+s ideas in English studies' though the impact of his thought can hardly be considered dead.


27/40

According to 0a/htin' a spea/er does not communicate to a listener about a ;sub6ect;?instead' ;spea/er; and ;listener; engage in an act of communication (hich includes the;hero; as a genuine rhetorical force. The difference here is significant. 1n ourconventional analyses of discourse...=s>ub6ects are actually conceived as ob6ects. They are

passive' inert' po(erless to shape the discourse. 1n 0a/htin+s terms' the hero is as potent a

determinant in the rhetorical paradigm as spea/er or listener. The hero interacts (ith thespea/er to shape the language and determine form. At times' the hero becomes thedominant influence in verbal and (ritten utterance. F"F

. Allen 2arris' borro(ing %chuster+s idea of a 0a/htinian rhetorical circle' applies dialogics to an analysis of thedialogue in Phaedrus and discovers mar/ed diversity in the remar/s of each spea/er' (hich in turn demonstratesho( ;the authorial voice is a distillation of an untold number of prior voices; !, .Iie(ed in 0a/htinian terms then' the ;%ocratic problem; is really no problem at all' for all communicationconstitutes a borro(ing of other voices for purposes of individual authorial intent. 9lato borro(s %ocrates to ma/e a

point' as %ocrates during his lifetime borro(ed and imparted' accepted and challenged' the thoughts of others in anever@ending' dialectical inquiry. ;Truth; in the Phaedrus emerges only through the act of dialectic' and once that

process stops' truth itself becomes suspect.%chuster and 2arris both give us an idea of ho( 0a/htin stands in relation to classical rhetorical theory' but (hate)actly is 0a/htin+s standing (ithin modern composition studiesJ


28/40


29/40

7et any attempts to apply 0a/htin+s ideas mechanically to the (riting classroom are bound to meet (ith failure' forhis ideas serve mainly to provide composition instructors (ith tacit insights into the often difficult engagements thatstudents have (ith their o(n te)ts and those of others. The role of the teacher thus becomes one of helping studentsguide their processes of transforming ;authoritative discourse; into ;internally persuasive discourse'; and thenhelping them shape the disparate internal and e)ternal voices of their lives into a te)t voicing their o(n intentions.As Nancy &elch has noted' 0a/htin helps us see (riting not 6ust as a means of private reflection or public

production' but ;rather as the dynamic meeting of reflection and production$ a comple) and ongoing interplayamong personal and public voices; #"# . 0y being /eenly a(are of ho( the often discordant inner voices of ourstudents operate (ithin this interplay bet(een reflection and production' &elch believes the (riting teacher canopen up a dialogue that helps guide students+ language development$

Through responses that a(a/en ne( (ords and open up the possibilities for continueddialogue and continued learning' a teacher can help a student . . . to continue thisevolution from ;reciting by heart; to claiming and asserting the po(er of her o(n (ords.And through this evolution' =the student> ta/es charge not only of a particular te)t and a

particular revision but also of the person she is and the person she is becoming. F-!1n a similar vie(' *oy %. itchie states that the various linguistic influences our students bring to the classroomcontribute to their ;confusion and an)iety; as (ell as the ;rich te)ture of possibilities for (riting' thin/ing' and fornegotiating personal identity; !F, . itchie feels that 0a/htin+s ideas sho( us that (e learn ;by appropriatingvarious voices from the community and transforming those into our o(n unique idioms; !,4 .Most of the above authors have focused on ho( 0a/htin can illuminate our understanding of individual studentdiscourse as being an assimilation of both e)ternal and internal influences. 0ut 0a/htin+s ideas have also been usedto e)tend these dialogic vie(s of authorship into the field of collaborative (riting' as


30/40

language is holistic and achieves meaning only in concert (ith a ;comple) net(or/ of other utterances'; and thatcommunication ta/es place (ithin a dialogic sphere that affords no room for private language ;2ermeneutics and

enre; G4 . 3or Hent' 0a/htin+s concept of speech genres is essential for moving beyond strictly cognitive vie(s of composition that are rooted in the rationalist tradition and often emphasi8e internal (riting processes over socialconte)t. 1nstead' 0a/htin helps us forge a unified concept of ;communicative interaction; free of Cartesian dualities$

&hen (e understand that communicative interaction ta/es place largely through genresand . . . that genres are public constructs @@ and not internal transcendental categories @@(e no longer need to thin/ of the production and the reception of discourse in terms ofinternal cognitive processes that' in turn' lead directly to the old Cartesian problems ofs/epticism and relativism. 0ecause all communicative interaction ta/es place through theutterance and is consequently genre bound' both the production and the reception ofdiscourse become thoroughly hermeneutical social activities and not the internalsub6ective activities of a private mind. ;2ermeneutics and enre; 4-

Amy *. Devitt also sees 0a/htin+s concepts of utterance and speech genres as essential ingredients in helping usforge a unified theory of language (hereby (e can ;reintegrate te)t and conte)t' form and content' process and

product' reading and (riting' individual and social; FG# .E(ald believes' ho(ever' that (hile 0a/htin has some similarities (ith the e)ternalists' mainly his ;stance to(ard

old Cartesian dualisms' such as self5other'; he is neither ;fully social constructionist nor e)ternalist; and therefore;seems yet to straddle our theoretical fences; 4#- . 7et she tends to overemphasi8e the theoretical differences bet(een social constructionism and e)ternalism' ignoring ho( the t(o (ere born of the conflicts bet(eenrationalism and poststructuralism.E(ald+s criticism of the various interpretations of 0a/htin (ithin composition studies also presumes a monologicunderstanding of theory formation (ithin any given discipline? as


31/40

that (e are not being purposive and single@minded enoughJ 0a/htin suggests that suchconflict is natural' even inevitable' and that (e need to accept such dialogue or quarrel asa starting point since real coherence in a te)t may come about less because the manyvoices have been suppressed and silenced' than because they have become dialogic'spea/ing (ith' even at times yelling at' each other and the ;(riter; (ho is made up of this

community of voices. Maybe (e need to be more open to accepting this plurality and thisstruggle. Thinkin! 4 .%imply stated' many composition scholars vie( 0a/htin+s dialogic vie( of language and literacy as a maintheoretical influence in e)plaining (hat transpires (hen a reader pic/s up a novel or manuscript and (hen a (riterta/es pen to paper.The insistence of such scholars as 9helps and Oebros/i on a firm connection bet(een theory and practice is (hat hasmar/ed composition studies as an academic field of gro(ing significance and influence in recent years. And asmentioned earlier' the social constructionist emphasis on the role that language plays in the generation of /no(ledge(ithin any given discipline has been the driving force behind the most practical movement to arise from Englishstudies in quite some time @@ &riting Across the Curriculum.0ut (ith the present dichotomy bet(een literary criticism and composition studies' ho( are (e in English studies to

play the central role that has been cast for us in demonstrating ho( literacy s/ills are at the heart of all learningJ Theans(er is that (e cannot. 7et as (e have seen' 0a/htin+s dialogic theories of language and literacy and hissimultaneous influence in both fields can serve as a much needed bridge bet(een the differences that no( divide usand prevent us from assuming a central position (ithin the emerging information age. 3or (hat is at sta/e is nothingless than the question of (hether (e (ill rule technology' or (hether technology (ill rule us.

Chapter & - 'nd (otes

!. 3or additional e)amples of %ophistic revivalism' see Cro(ley' *arratt' and Neel.. 3or comparisons of Iygots/y and 0a/htin' see Emerson' ;:uter &ord and 1nner %peech;?

&ertsch? and Oebros/i' Thinkin! Throu!h Theory .4. The essay to (hich &eiss ma/es reference is ;The 9roblem of the Te)t in


32/40

Chapter ) - .ia"ogics andthe /uture of 'ng"ish 0tudies

As (e have seen' a host of scholars in English studies have argued in recent years for a theoretical union of literature

and composition studies based on social and rhetorical vie(s of te)tual interpretation and production. At present'none of these scholars has made much head(ay in such a 2erculean tas/' and for those readers (ho began thisthesis hoping to see this labor completed' 0a/htin+s ideas (ill ultimately prove to be some(hat disappointing.0a/htin (as an eccentric philosopher (ho reveled in the comple)ities and parado)es of life and language' and he(ould undoubtedly oppose any theory of language that tried to pass itself off as ;unifying; anything? one canimagine him' (ith a (ry' bemused loo/' vehemently condemning such an idea as a monological illusion.7et 0a/htin+s dialogic vie( of language' (ith its simultaneous influence in both literary criticism and rhetoricaltheory' has given us the first in/lings of (hat a theoretical union bet(een the t(o disciplines might loo/ li/e' eventhough a systematic' unified theory of literature and composition may forever remain a dream deferred. Though hisideas are scattered across several te)ts and have been interpreted in a variety of (ays' 0a/htin is the first theorist

popular enough in both fields to present an influential conceptual schema that e)plains ho( people acquire languageand read and (rite te)ts. 1n this period of present disharmony' his gro(ing influence in both disciplines should because for celebration. As regory Clar/ notes in his boo/ Dialo!ue/ Diale"ti"/ and Conversation $

3or people studying rhetoric and composition as (ell as for those studying literature'0a/htin+s (or/ provides perhaps our most comprehensive e)planation of the processthrough (hich social /no(ledge is constructed in a cooperative e)change of te)ts.2o(ever diverse its particular applications' 0a/htin+s e)planation persistently ande)plicitly affirms the t(o complementary assumptions about language that support asocial constructionist point of vie($ that our language creates rather than conveys ourreality . . . and that it does so in a process that is collaborative rather than individual . . . .

G@"As English studies begins to move beyond its traditional scholastic solipsism to(ard a more active role at the centerof modern education' 0a/htin+s ideas seem to fill a definite need in formulating a general theory of ho( people readand (rite.

0a/htin believed that our individual acts of e)pression' both (ritten and oral' are the result of a difficult internalstruggle in (hich the various voices of our past and present are lin/ed to one another through the social (eb oflanguage. &e acquire language by internali8ing the voices of others' and (e spend our lives re@e)ternali8ing theseassimilated forms in a never@ending dialogue (ith our peers. Additionally' each individual act of language ta/esshape and becomes meaningful in the space bet(een ourselves and our audience and is highly dependent on ouroften unconscious choice of stable' yet transparent genres of both speech and te)t.1n addition to being influential in both literary criticism and rhetorical theory' 0a/htin+s ideas seem similarly poisedto help us e)plain the drastic changes the printed (ord (ill undergo as the result of ne( computer technologies'changes that should not be vie(ed as necessarily threatening to our humanist values. As ichard


33/40


34/40

emerging technologies' combined (ith other social and theoretical forces' (ill help return liberal arts to a centralrole in education' a repositioning that has already begun (ith the &riting Across the Curriculum movement The

+le"troni" Word !!B .Merrill &hitburn ma/es a similar argument in calling for more active participation by English departments inshaping the values of our emerging information society. &hitburn believes that the solely contemplative nature ofmany literary scholars' along (ith their gadfly attitude ;to(ard the rest of academic and public and professionallife'; has /ept English studies from assuming its proper place in the information age 4G . 2e is also critical ofthese same scholars for their often disparaging attitude to(ard

a range of educators in areas such as speech' rhetoric' and 6ournalism

bahtin thesis

Documents