In most of the readings we have done for class so far, we have encountered systems of categorization that are three-fold: Leitch, M.H. Abrams, Aristotle- all find the triplet system of categorization to be most effective. And though I suppose a trifecta is slightly better than a typical western binary, I still can't help but feel that this characteristically western way of thinking is ultimately limiting.
For instance, take Aristotle On Rhetoric. He creates three "genera of rhetorics" (48): deliberative, judicial, and demonstrative. He them breaks these divisions into smaller sub-divisions, usually opposing each other: praise and blame, for instance, or past and future. And while several of Aristotle's distinctions make sense, the overall trend is unsettling. In my mind, the most dynamic rhetoric would be that which encompasses or moves throughout multiple categories.
Of course, in this class we are investigating specific historical trends in theory, the thoroughly western trends included. Certainly these systems, whether limiting or not, have value as critical tools. However, I do look forward to reading from a wider range of perspectives later this semester.
Blair, can you discuss more the source of some assumptions in your post? (I wouldn't ask if I didn't think they were worthwhile to pursue, but really, no assumption is safe; they all need more explication.)
ReplyDeleteWhose ideas or what sources have influenced your understanding of "western" and "binary"--and for that matter, that binaries are western constructions? And that Aristotle's treatises are western in their construction? What trio of perspectives does Abrams discuss?
By all means -- don't shy away from these, and don't be afraid to point us back to textual examples. Perhaps you could show us that you are thinking them through in order to work them out. But mainly, educate us on the sources of these assumptions so that we can take them up (or complicate them) as we try to determine whether these triplets are a part of their theorizing, or whether they are incidental, due to other factors.
I am actually eager to read more. I feel as if you only just started your posting before it ended -- before we got to the "meat." You have much to educate your readers about.
-Prof. Graban
I just finished reading Barbara Johnson's translator's introduction to Jacques Derrida's Dissemination, and several of Derrida's points coincide with the frustrations I was feeling in this post with "typical western binaries". I'd like to take a moment to clarify these frustrations with the help of Johnson and Derrida.
ReplyDeleteJohnson writes, "Western thought, says Derrida, has always been structured in terms of dichotomies or polarities: good vs evil, being vs nothingness, presence vs absence, (etc)... These polar opposites do not, however stand as independent and equal entities. The second term in each pair is considered the negative, corrupt, undesirable version of the first... the two terms are not simply opposed in their meanings, but are arranged in a hierarchical order which gives the first term priority" (viii). I think the frustration I was feeling was with the fact that this hierarchy is implied but not articulated, and that the hierarchy also implies a common set of value judgments for these pairs, value judgments I almost always disagree with.
Johnson goes on to discuss Derrida's "nonbinary logic." "In its deconstruction of the either/or logic of noncontradiction that underlies Western metaphysics," she writes, "Derrida's writing attempts to elaborate an 'other' logic" (xvii). This 'other' logic dictates that "unities of simulacrum... can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term" (xvii).
This isn't the first time I've read Derrida, and I've always found his writing to be difficult, but rewarding. This difficulty arises from the way we're taught to think in terms of pairs of opposites from the beginning- we learn, as Derrida says, that good is the opposite of evil, being of nothingness, and on- when in reality these concepts have much more complicated relationships with each other.
Hopefully the thoughts I attempted to articulate with this post are a little more clarified now, thanks to Johnson and Jacques!