Perhaps literal meanings have fallen into doubt because of two factors:
1) A rebirth of fundamentalism, i.e., a knee-jerk appeal by the masses to resist the mis-perceived, out-of-touch academics who read into everything. So the masses, cling to something that is one-dimensional to validate themselves and by contrast, distinguish themselves from the so-called elites. Thus, academics, tend to distrust all the more, one dimensional readings.
2) And closely related, with the arrival of the 60's and the advent of post-modernism, many theoretical scholars became enamored with theory at the expense of text. This is a pendulum swingfrom the formalist, new-critics, and some theorists went to the opposite extremes whereby they sacrificed the plain meaning of a text on the alter of extravagant theory. This pushed literalness even further into the shadows. I tend to be more descriptionist than prescriptive. Prescriptive tends to take on overtones of directing and controlling thought. I think there is a time and place for both, but generally, I shy from manipulation. Grammar, then, has in post-modern times, been seen as prescriptive, as validating an ethnocentric view of a privileged class, and thus, in the spirit of times, has become less emphasized.
(In my opinion, Dr. Hada seems to be saying that literal meanings have fallen into the background due to the need of the non-academics to seperate themselves from the "elitist", as well as the post-modern push towards theory rather than plain-text readings. On a side note, he brings up how the two polar opposite schools of literal and theoretic seem to strengthen the followers of one or the other. In other words, those who read things literally do so to seperate themselves from the theoretical readers, and vice versa - each finding a need to think the way they do by the very existence of the opposing view. It's almost like an academic-commoner gang war.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This really sounds like Dr. Hada. He always has an interesting perspective on things. The end result of a war between literalists and theorists just further reinforces the controversy that we keep hearing about.
Yep. And like I just said on another post: most likely neither side will win.
It seems like the war or debate is there mainly to scoot are little language along. Almost like Democrats and Republicans fighting over ideas and eventually settling on something we all have to follow.
Seems like a very Hadan answer. He always has interesting answers. I especially like the whole theories just for the sake of theories part. I remember reading "Glass Managerie" and being told that the unicorn was a phallic symbol. And I still say, "Come on, really?"
I believe it. Things that represent male reproductive organs are all over the place. I've been reading some Romantic stuff for British Literature lately, and I've come across plenty of sexual innuendos.
Post a Comment