Due to our latest readings, and especially after our discussions on the cannon and the qualities of what makes a piece of literature good, I feel like interpretations of texts and literature have to be subjective. I know a few people have brought this up on the blog already, but never agreed fully to the idea of subjectivity. They only admitted texts can sometimes be interpreted subjectively. I feel like we’ve been skating around these ideas of subjectivity and objectivity fairly frequently, but never addressed them head on.
To be truly objective one has to be free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings. Objectivism is based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions. In a world where so much emotion, thought, and personal ideas come from the author to create that text, how can a reader simply look at the facts of a text and create an interpretation? What even are the facts of a text? At this point the idea of anyone ever having a truly objective interpretation or opinion on a piece of literature seems truly impossible to me. How do you not let your personal bias, interpretive communities, and personal emotions not affect the way you are reading the text? Before I said that an objective opinion seems close to impossible, but now I really think it is. It is impossible to separate our mind from our personal beliefs and opinions to form a truly unbiased objective opinion.
Is there anyone who believes in objectivity? If so, I would be really interested in what you think.
6 comments:
So, I've been thinking about objectivity, and maybe it is impossible after all. Look at science. It's all theory. Nothing is true. Scientists can run tests until their faces turn blue and continue to find evidence to support theories that they are 99% sure to be true but they can't prove it. We discussed this in my psychology class today. Take for example smoking and lung cancer. Smoking causes lung cancer. Is this true? Many would probably say yes, and there has been overwhelming evidence to show that this is the case. Sounds like an objective statement, right? But it's not. It's a theory with evidential support and can never be truly proven. So maybe literary theorists are just the scientists of literature. No one can ever be satisfied and nothing will ever be 'proven,' just supported. I give up on objectivity. I'm throwing it out.
"Scientists of literature." I like that. So, then, literary critics present their various ideas and theories on a text with evidential support to back them up but in the end, that evidence--as we have seen--can be circumvented or turned around to mean something else. Other evidence can be found for different theories too in the same text, resulting in more theories that can never be fully proven.
"No one can ever be satisfied and nothing will ever be 'proven,'"
"It's a mess," as one, wise man said.
I concur.
Objective statements do not exist.
Anyone disagree? Please do. It's more fun.
Emily Franzen
"Scientists of literature." I like that. So, then, literary critics present their various ideas and theories on a text with evidential support to back them up but in the end, that evidence--as we have seen--can be circumvented or turned around to mean something else. Other evidence can be found for different theories too in the same text, resulting in more theories that can never be fully proven.
"No one can ever be satisfied and nothing will ever be 'proven,'"
"It's a mess," as one, wise man said.
I concur.
Objective statements do not exist.
Anyone disagree? Please do. It's more fun.
Emily Franzen
Emily,
So who is the "wise man?" Well, by saying "wise" I begin thinking, Shakespeare, George Washington, by god, even Vladimir Putin.
I think I've proved your point, somewhat, and I'll explain how. Your objective statement of history of someone (?) saying "It's a mess" implies that you were there. Thats great for you, but you're just saying it and leaving the interpretation open to me of whoever this wise man really is. Can we trust him? Is he the kind of man I would find wise? In all seriousness, we go into a text (such as a literary theories blog) with the expectation somewhat that you are telling the truth and that from that truth you are making statements. But just as with a literary text, you can be open to interpretation on even the simplist of all things. Even if I know who this "wise man" is, I still have the idea of my head of the "wise man"--a more general concept of which I've attached those specific words to. You could call it langue, parole, whatever, I see the words, I think of some "wise men." It is a mess, because nobody has any clear idea of what any text truly means, but we can at least tell where these ideas may originate, and where those originations took us and where they might take us, in the hope we have a future time to experience...
Michelle, I'm following your example and throwing objectivity out. This has been a big issue for me throughout the entire class, especially because I want to be an english teacher. I can't even fathom telling a student that what they saw and connected to in a text is "wrong" and then giving them the answers as if it were a math class. Yipes! And I think that the scientists of literature is an excellent description, although it definitely gives me the creeps- again, no clear cut answers in literature!
Even where I might see things as objective, such as words on a page, there are plenty of people who would argue that even to see the words or view an object as a book is subjective knowledge (thank you Fish).
My real question then is: What's so terrible about subjectivity? As long as someone reads a book and is moved and enjoys it, I think that's wonderful. I'd rather stop debating all the nitty gritty details that take us so far away from what we actually read, to the point that we almost forget what book we're talking about, or what we liked and disliked about it. I'm much more interested to hear what people saw in the work. The more interpretations and insights, the merrier!
Megan!!! I completely agree with you! Why are we so hung up on comming up with the "correct" interpretation of a text? I think part of the joy of reading comes from taking something personal from the text. Who cares if it's not what the author intended? If authors are writing for publication, they are writing for the readers, so it is our oppinion that matters. Also, we do not have the same interpretive communities as readers in the past. There is machinery, the world is a lot smaller now, we have science ot explain the world, so the readers are a dynamic group, why should texts be any different?
Post a Comment