Something that continues to come up in class is people either asking or arguing “Well, then what is the true meaning of _______?” We have had this discussion about the terms theory, theme, structure, symbolism, etc. It seems to be an emerging pattern—particularly in the two class periods we spent on Brook’s Irony as a Principal of Structure. Sure, we seemed to come to a general conclusion about what Brooks determined to be the meanings of the terms “irony” and “structure” and their interdependence in a literary aspect. But, just because we believe that we have found what Brooks thinks these terms mean, do we really believe this to be the true meanings of the terms universally? Well, of course not.
So what I wonder is, what are we seeking when we theorize the meanings of these basic literary terms that are the foundation on which most literary theory is based? Do we seek a true meaning (if anyone believes that one can actually be found) or a common understanding of the terms in general or for each theorist we happen to analyze?
3 comments:
PS: I forgot to sign my name for the "Terms and Theory" posting!
~ Kristen
Because words are representative of ideas, I don't think there can be a "true meaning" for a given word. Instead, we should seek to agree upon a general notion of what a word means solely for discussion purposes. We are arguing either for or against a particular idea, whether it be an author's or a classmates, and therefore we must meet the speaker on the terms of his or her definition. Is it truly fair to argue against an author's ideas based upon redefining his/her terms? I don't think so.
Example: In the Richter reading on Freud, he explains that Lacan redefined what Freud meant with the Oedipus complex to make it more appealing to women. Instead, is it not more progressive to refute and revise a theory rather than attempt to reinterpret it for one's own purposes? That just seems to be a cop-out to me.
-Julie
But what if we think that the author's definition of a term is really bad? Wouldn't we have to argue against his or her ideas in that case? What's unfair about arguing over terms?
Wes
Post a Comment