A Notebook of Theory

some notes taken from my reading of texts on critical theory (and other interesting stuff)

[ctheory-anotebook]

Myth and Meaning by Claude Lévi-Strauss

In Myth and Meaning, the anthropologist Lévi-Strauss explicates on his main theories about mythology. Myth originated in primitive societies. In Lévi-Strauss' opinion, human mind -- I suppose brainpower might be the more appropriate word -- has always been the same, except that different skills are developed in different circumstances. Thus it is incorrect to say that primitive people were less mentally developed than modern men. Lévi-Strauss also rejects two influential views of primitive men: Malinowski's functionalism that primitive people were driven by basic needs, and Lévy-Bruhl's theory that emotion was the source of their behaviour. He argues that primitive men can be both disinterested and intellectual. What differentiates their disinterested thinking from scientific thinking is that they aimed to gain total understanding of the world, contrary to science, which investigates nature bit by bit. The central conflict between myth and science may lie in the role of the senses: due to the influence of thinkers such as Bacon and Descartes, scientific inquiry, unlike myth, is very much dissociated from the senses. However, Lévi-Straussthe thinks that contemporary science, which attaches greater weight to the senses, may bridge the gap. Incidentally, he thinks that scientific progress may solve philosophical problems; for example, neurophysiology may put an end to the battle between rationalism and empiricism. Another similarity between myth and science concerns the method of inquiry. Lévi-Strauss maintains that science can process in two ways; first, reductionism, namely using fundamental concepts to solve complex problems; second, structuralism, namely seeking the invariant from the apparent disorder -- exactly what Lévi-Strauss' structural anthropology does. Moreover, the content of myth may correspond to science in some ways. In the context of a Canadian myth, Lévi-Strauss draws a parallel between the two positions of the skate -- either showing the large face of its fin or the thin blade of it -- as well as the state of wind -- either blowing or not blowing -- and the binary system in computer science. Such correspondence not only implies a connection between science and myth, but also hints at some consistency between human mind, represented by myth, and reality, represented by science. Meanwhile, the distinction between myth and history is even more blurred. Undoubtedly, the medium of myth is not written documents, so the content of a myth may vary within the same structure; and myth, unlike history, is a closed system, where the same themes recur. However, myth and history share certain elements, one of which is that they are both told from different perspectives(which implies that history, like myth, does not have a definitive version either).  For Lévi-Strauss, the most important thing about myth is that, despite the apparent arbitrariness, different mythologies share certain themes; thus myth, in a way, reflects some universality in humankind. Such universality equates to order, the source of meaning. He compares several myths from the Americas and shows the link between harelip, twins, and breech birth, proving the order in mythology. Within the same myth, the recurrence of the same element also contributes to order. Such a recurrence of themes is apparent in music, which Lévi-Strauss deems closely resembling myth. For example, in Der Ring des Nibelungen by Wagner, the theme of renunciation of love appears throughout the whole opera. Myth and music are also similar in two other respects: firstly, both music and myth must be understood as totality; secondly, the reconciliation of conflict in myth -- Lévi-Strauss describes it as a conjugation between thesis and antithesis, similar to Hegel's philosophy of history -- is apparent in the musical structure of the fugue. On a more fundamental level, Lévi-Strauss considers the construction of both myth and music generally similar to the structure of language. In language, phonemes constitute words, which subsequently constitute sentences; in music, notes, similar to phonemes, constitute melodic phrases, similar to sentences; in myth, 'mythemes,' similar to words, constitute stories, similar to sentences. However, compared to language, one level is missing in both music and myth: in music, the word level; myth, phoneme. Nevertheless, the association is clear. Furthermore, according to Roman Jakobson, language has two sides, meaning and sound; Lévi-Strauss opines that music centres around the sound, while myth around the meaning. Thus myth and music are like "two sisters, begotten by language." However, in the 17th century, music began to take over the intellectual and emotive functions of myth -- and in modern society, history has largely replaced myth. 

[ctheory-anotebook]

"The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes

Barthes' attempt to dissociate literary works from the author was particularly impactful on literary criticism. He claims that, instead of one voice, that of the author, multiple voices are behind narration; thus it is inappropriate to regard the author as the origin of the text. In primitive societies, storytellers were merely a medium; however, modernism accorded great importance to the author, who began to permeate literary discourse. The French poet Mallarme argued that language takes precedence over the author and is independent of the latter in literary creation; similarly, Valery maintained that the nature of writing is linguistic and accidental. As in the case of Proust, which Barthes cites, it almost seems that the author does not create literature; instead, literature shapes the author. Surrealism, by transforming the practice of writing, further destabilised the status of the author; and linguistics, showing the independence of utterance, finally toppled it. The absence of the author has huge implications. The author does not precede the text, but comes into existence with it; writing is the movement of the author's hand, and language is the source of everything. At one point, Barthes seems to stress intertextuality: a text is the product of numerous cultural influences -- not a message of the author, who can never be original. What matters to literature is not the author's emotion, but the author's vocabulary, the words in which explain each other and form a separate body. Hence, with respect to literary criticism, the author has no bearing on the meaning of a text. Who then matters? According to Barthes, it is the reader, an almost hypothetical being "without history, without biography, without psychology," who embraces the multiplicity of meanings in a text."The reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of."

[ctheory-anotebook]

Ion by Plato

Ion, written by Plato, is a dialogue between Socrates and a rhapsode, or a reciter of epic poems, Ion. Ion claims that, though he can interpret Homer perfectly, he is unable to have the same level of understanding with regard to other poets and he deems them inferior to Homer. Socrates rebuts this point for mainly two reasons: firstly, a person conversant with a branch of art can apply his knowledge to any work, irrespective of the artist; secondly, if one is unable to comprehend an artist’s works, he is in no position to judge the artworks. Why then is the rhapsode able to interpret Homer only? Socrates explains that the nature of a rhapsode’s work is not art or knowledge, but inspiration; so is that of poetry. The creation of poetry is an expression of divine will; in other words, God speakers through the poet. The inspiration is then passed on from the poet to the rhapsode and finally to the audience. Due to the chainlike flow of inspiration, it is understandable that a rhapsode may receive inspiration from one poet only. Incidentally, Socrates seems to regard emotion as a proof for the possession of mind by inspiration. Socrates advances his point further by arguing that the rhapsode actually does not have perfect comprehension of Homer’s poems, for certain passages about particular subjects or trades do exist in a poem, of which an expert in the field is able to have greater understanding than the rhapsode. The claim is premised on the assumption that branches of the arts are fundamentally different and no one can be knowledgeable about every branch. The examples given include extracts about driving a chariot, fishing, and prophesying, the rhapsode’s interpretation of which would not be comparable with that of a charioteer, a fisherman, and a prophet respectively. However, the rhapsode is unwilling to accept Socrates’ argument completely; Socrates thus accuses him of dishonesty and compels Ion to agree that he is possessed by inspiration. Socrate’s whole point in this dialogue seems to be that poetry, including the recitation of poetry, is of a different nature from other branches of the arts: firstly, the source of poetry is inspiration instead of knowledge, which explains why conversancy with one poet may not be transferable to another; secondly, poetry seems to be an amalgam of different kinds of art, so no one can claim to be an expert in poetry. The conclusion, if my reading is accurate, is rather striking: poetry is not art.