10/6/07
Undecidability
Friday in class we discussed the idea of "undecidability" in post-structuralism, particularly referring to Requelme's article. I wanted to know what everyone thought about this. Before discussing post-structuralism, on multiple occasions people have expressed the opinion that there is not a right answer or interpretation, that there can be multiple interpretations. Do you think this is the same idea expressed in post-structuralism? Our class seemed to end on the decision that "undecidability" implies that one interpretation can't be picked over another, that the reader reaches a point at which a decision can't be made. Does everyone agree? Is it possible to see ambiguity and yet still choose one interpretation over another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It seems like post-structuralism definitely acknowledges the possibility of multiple interpretations for the same text. However, I think that most readers are uncomfortable with this undecidability. Even though a decision can't be made because there is textual support for both sides, I think readers still choose one. When I think back to my reading of "The Dead," I saw the various interpretations that were possible, but the story seemed unfinished until I chose one of the meanings for myself. I think most readers search for a feeling of closure when they get to the end of a story, and if there is an open ending with multiple interpretations possible, the reader usually will pick one. Of course, the possible meanings do need to have textual evidence to back it up. But ultimately, undecidability leads to an unsatisfying experience for the reader, as readers tend to look and desire closure, even if the text does not supply it.
Perhaps undecidability is what makes the text more realistic and allows the reader to reflect one's individual disposition. Some readers will choose one side, based on the evidence given. Some will choose the other side. However, can't there be some who see both sides and refuse to choose because both are valid? For these readers, the text might be unsatisfying if they were guided into a decision rather than allowing each side to be ambiguously equal. The undecidability might make the text more complex and interesting because of its many possibilities. Furthermore, there are probably readers who look at both sides, negate them completely, and make a third side. I'm reminded of political parties. As a reader, are you the conservative, liberal, or independent? Maybe I'm getting too far off track here, but don't we all read texts, at least to an extent, with our own experiences and views in mind? In this way, the sides we pick (or don't pick) show us our own ideas on decision-making.
We are going streight back to Reader Responce theory. If we are confronted with a contradiction in a text and allowed to choose what to believe, there is no such thing as "undecidability." The readers will merely make something up that will support what they want to see in their world view. I think it's really difficult to seperate the different critical aproaches now that we have read so many, but this aspect of Structuralism and Reader-Responce Theory appear to be in direct conflict with one-another. The fact that readers can make a decission when there are two options denies that there is any such thing as "undecidability."
I agree with Emily D. that "most readers are uncomfortable with undecidability." As Fish argued, interpretive communities / strategies make up the reader and therefore determine what ways they will interpret a particular text. They will invariably chose one because many of us (who are not theorists) prefer solid reliability, the fact that we can come to a conclusion that we at least can accept and prefer over possible, other interpretations (even if we can also acknowledge that these other interpretations are possible alongside our own).
Emily F.
Post-structuralism allows the possibility of multiple interpretations within a text. But, I agree with the idea that readers are uncomfortable with “undecidability.” Most readers will have to pick one side based on the way they interpret the evidence given. I agree with the theory that, readers need to make a decision in order to gain a sense of closure on the text. If they leave the text opened ended or undecided, there is a certain level of uncertainty that will most likely be unsatisfying to the reader. But it is important, like Sylvi said, to not mix this theory up with reader response theory. However, where does one draw the line between this type of structuralism and reader response theory? It seems like these two theories are contradicting each other if we look at them side by side. Are we supposed to take each theory individually and only focus on that theory, or are we allowed to compare, contrast and analyze all the theories together?
-Kim
I think Emily makes a good point, and I agree with the idea that readers are uncomfortable with undecidability between interpretations. I think many readers read in order to find meaning within the work they read, or some sort of a connection. But, if there are several interpretations open to discussion and there is no hierarchy between the interpretations, then no conclusion can be reached. So do readers perhaps when there is no hierarchy, create a hierarchy of their own in order to create personal satisfaction from reading?
Not only are most readers uncomfortable with it, as said above, I think most readers will purposefully avoid it if at all possible, grasping at straws that are unimportant, underdeveloped, etc., simply to construe a solid--or at least gelatin--argument.
It is this "undecidability" in texts that are arguable fantastic literature--like the works of Joyce--that make me question what we consider canonical or good literature. "Undecidable" texts seem the most complex, linguistically-ponderous works available. Exclusion of these works from canon, though, seems to imply that there is a threshold for complexity. Are we lying to ourselves when we say that good/great literature should be complex?
Post a Comment