Understanding Nation and Empire: Understanding the Literary Studies

Let me step fully the layer of superstructure: Fictional world, a layer where understanding taking its place. In the very beginning of critical theory class, the question being asked continuously is,” what is the use of literary studies? What is the function of discussing the fictional novel in this very world? Where is humanist place within the society?” All the questions suddenly came forth when I was trying to understand the issue related with Nation and Empire.

If the economy subjects being concerned in my previous post, the understanding on nation and empire will take my time during the history class. National pride as the crucial element in building the nation may appear when the people recall the past. It is parallel with the issue I judge as the ridicule one within the society. It was written in my textbook that the problem that usually occurs after the colonialism or after the independence day was drowning in all the mighty the people had ever had in the past: drowning in the past discourse. Thus, Said’s argument points out that if the exceptionalism is the base of the nationhood as well as colonialism, then the post-colonialism empire will only become a rerun of the previous colonialism by the difference of the hero and the villain.

What I understand now from those recall of the past, the recall of my history class literary, and Said’s arguments about the worldly text is the understanding of the questions on being an English Department student, on learning literary studies. By studying fictional novel, fictional works, I expect to learn how to filter the “make sense” plot, to indicate the logic sequences, to realize the odd within the story, and the character, then finally identify how all those effect being produced. Only by doing these processes we would realize the myths that have been integrated within our society that own the huge political, economical, and biological risk. Moreover we should be able to overcome, to resist, this myth by learning literary studies: by doing demythification. Literary studies help each of the students become immune to ignorance. As the contrary, we, as the scholars, will be able to, as Pary says, “show[s] [more] suspicion about the craft of representation” and structure the massive superstructure within the full consideration of its base.

Infrastructure as the Supporter of Superstructure: How the Myth of My High Schools years Turns Upside Down.

I used to think that in critical theory, we would have a certain issue for each meeting. Thus, since the issue in each meeting is different, I needed to grasp eleven issues during fourteen meetings of the course. I thought it would be such a waste to focus on all of them because the issues that seemed to resemble to my final project might be only a few. However, I am now getting confused by how each of the issues works to build my comprehension towards literature. Not until the class discussed on class and economic was I aware of this relation, to which definitely objected my previous thought on the separation amongst the issues being discussed within the class.

I finally realize that it would be possible for me to understand the discourse of the class and economy without having a context of Aristotelian which have been built most of the myth on nowadays daily life, a problem of representation, a matter of structure and an awareness of desire and self o forming text. I am still amazed on the fact that the further discussion on literature basically builds my comprehension about the surface of the society where I belong. Infrastructure and superstructure that Marx explained were the instances of it.

I had studied economy for 6 years and I felt that I only understand a few simple things like there were Marxist as an opposing party of liberalist view in conducting the economic activities, or the price depended on the scarcity of the commodity. Talking about economy was only about the money flowing from one hand to another throughout the market.

Nevertheless, those simple things I saw as the simple things in the surface of the economy were actually the fundamental elements, if this economy is considered as the structure, which build culture and society. My comprehension becomes upside down. What actually viewed as the surface of the economy is actually the infrastructure of the society, and the society, which I assumed to be the founder of the economy, is the superstructure: the structure produced by the support of the infrastructure or base structure. Thus, Marxist critic on humanist as the ones taking the infrastructure for granted is reasonable by this sense.

It comes to my mind that when we define the infrastructure, we will penetrate to superstructure layer since any movements towards understanding is in superstructure. It will be troublesome since I have mentioned earlier that the infrastructure is the support system of the superstructure while I define this support in the superstructure: I specify the relation as the supporting and the supported.

Eventually, at the end, the myth of seeing the economy surface only has been banished. It is a must for me to be aware of the society and the culture is built up from the matter of the lack of self, the desire of self that turn into exchange activities as we are aware that the text is constructed by a lot of discourse as its infrastructure. After all, the society, the culture, and the text are all in superstructure, which will always be parallel with the level I am on when I try to understand the base structure.

The Law of Scarcity in Irigaray’s Woman on The Market

Irigaray’s “Women on the Market” somehow reminds me of the scarcity law in economy subject I have ever taken. The more rare the commodity is, the more it will be valued. It is an ancient myth that is last up till now. How each woman “[is] not [be] equally desirable”, as Irigiray argues, indicates how women as commodities have varied level of being desired.

My teacher taught me that the scarcity is the one, which rises up the value of the commodities. The scarcity is commonly caused by natural source(s), such as how gold being precious since one must dig or do other efforts to find it. Another example is gas. When the process of obtaining the commodity is longer, it possibly increases the scarcity as well.

Yet, there is also the scarcity which is unnatural since it can be obtained but in different results, such as skills in a service.  All designers have same skills, which are to make the fabric into the clothes, for example. Despite the same skill, they actually have their own styles and techniques. The different execution towards the fabric that decreases the possibility of imitation will definitely increase the value of such designers.

Now, if I look back into what Irigaray has stated, then in economy, including the women, will have these elements: the lack of self, the different desire, and the scare commodity. The lack of self-making one will exchange what one has more to gain what one has less. If the fulfillment of this type of lack encounters a lack, maybe what my senior high school teacher stated as basic needs, then, the society needs other motive to do another exchange activity to which is the fulfillment of desire.

This desire emerges when the basic needs have been filled. This desire will come up in various to individuals. The desire will follow the law of scarcity. The desire, the price or value, will rapidly decrease if the level of imitation is increase.

Text and Textual Technology: The Fragmented and Layered Body

I am interested in the idea of text as the fragmented body. Both Barthes and Hayles argue the same way; that the text consists of the elements, the fragments. I think the idea of fragmented body means realizing the gaps between the elements that construct the text. It is risky to say the gaps since the gaps that is explicit is the space and if we say we try to find the implicit meaning, it will be misunderstood as trying to find the moral value or doing interpretation. Yet, I think what we need to seek another thing that might be overlap between the elements, to realize, as Barthes discusses, "the very plural of meaning"(1977:159).

As I think of the gaps between the elements or what I called earlier as the overlap area is similar to the I.A Richards' concept of ground(1963) as the overlap area between tenor and vehicle. Yet, I am not sure about it.

However, on her essay, Hayles has focused on "what difference the medium makes"(2004:68) instead of what the difference between work and text, as Barthes has done before. The different medium can consist of the layers. I come to think that the text is not only the fragmented body, but also the layer one, although the fragments and the layers may be vary.

The idea of the fragmented and layered body, parallel to the idea on the building of identity of the text and "inductive -deductive science of text"(Barthes,1977), will be important for my final paper. The overlap area of logic is the gaps I need to find out in Poe's works as texts. The fragment and layer of logic might exist as well. The building of text identity that consist of science of text is matter too because I argue on the deduction, induction, and the abduction, which I finally know later as the deconstruction[of logic].

Self and Desire: To(or Not) Reflect and Be Reflected

I am interested in class discussion on how the self and the other are build and how they are related to desire. The self needs to signify the other signifier to realize its existence and desire is the thing indicate the process of the becoming.

Furthermore, it came to the discussion of various activities valued as the activity of the identification of self and other: being, knowing, throwing, seeing, and reading. The term being seems to relate to the function of the existence; for whose sake the being is. Yet, it is quite debatable to actually answer what the being is used for. In my opinion, there is a possibility to use the being, both the self and the other, for more than one sake. When the being is used for other, in the very same time the self and within itself can use it as well.

Seeing has , maybe, the special dimension to be talked about for me since it relates to the issue about subject, object, and abject. As in the class discussion las week, there is a problem if one tries to defining those three terms. I am aware that many of us define which one is subject or object based on whether the being is passive or active because that was what most of the teacher in high school would explained on those matters. Nonetheless, the passive or active become "useless" when the subject of the law is the passive side, the one with law's authority within him/herself--I realize that mentioning "authority" will cause more problem--.

In Lacan's essay on mirror stage, I note the stage consist of the act of reflection. In order to build the whole body, as a self, the fragmented body must own desire: it might be the desire to observe the image, observe the reflection. The becoming self, because it is neither the whole nor the fragmented one, needs to find reflection of itself or of other in order to integrated its fragmented knowledge become whole. Lacan explains gonad of the female pigeon maturation and the migratory of the locust to show that " by placing the individual within reach of the field of reflection of mirror" or "exposing individual , at a certain stage, to the exclusively visual action of similar image" will help the becoming process of the self.

However, it seems to be this integrated-fragmented-body, the integrated body that used to be fragmented, still emerging in the self somehow and being repaired in the process of the dreaming. This integrated body finds its freedom as fragment only in the dream. Maybe that is we can form anything in our dream because we can separate each fragment of us to be whatever it is without worrying to reflect it in another form or to be reflected by any forms. Is this fragmented body is the abject eventually?

Deconstructing The Logic in Poe's Works

I am interested in analyzing how does Poe’s works, or imitating Barthes’ translated word, texts, in constructing the logic. In Poe’s Black Cat and the Tale-tell Heart I realized the odd logic within both texts. What I mean by logic is the pattern I have understood when I was in senior high, math logic: a reason as “a premise of an argument in support of a belief, esp. a minor premise when given after the conclusion.[1]” Logic what I learned was if A means B, and B means C, then the conclusion must be A means C. Nonetheless, it is not what happens on those text. They own odd logic since their main characters try to deny this Aristotelian logic pattern.

Yet, after I read Miller’s essay on Heart of Darkness, it remains me on my own analyzing on the logic. His elaboration on explaining the deconstruction happening on the text, until now, is the easiest work to help me to realize the issue might be related to my ongoing research. There is a possibility that what I try to figure out is the deconstruction. The characters on Poe’s texts try to deconstruct the logic, to trespass beyond the border of normality and to “ruin” the steady construction of the Aristotelian logic. The rejection to apply the mainstream logic, the logic being considered as the normal throughout the society, is the using of deconstruction. And what is the significance of my statements? Or what the significance of questioning the significance of anything?

My analysis is still ongoing on the logic studies and deconstruction theory. Any responses on my hypothesis, or moreover any recommendations on any related texts within the issue are highly appreciated.

---

[1] Derived from The Oxford American Dictionaries as the application that comes with MAC OS X.

Literature and Theory

The Functioned Poetry

Horace states a poet should "inform or delight" the spectators. It means, the poetry he or she delivers must be pleasurable, has a sense of enjoyment, and applicable, has a sense of practical use. He further argues that "fiction [ parallel with poetry] invented in order to please should remain close to reality", when we note the phrase in order to,we realize that the subject of the sentence need to have a benefit, whatever it is.

Later on, this benefit becomes important since it turns to be a standard in defining a good and bad poetry. With the need of function within itself, a judgment toward poetry can be done by measuring whether or not the function is there. The value of this judgment depends on how a poetry can leads its audiences into one being ; being acknowledged, delighted or maybe both. The farer a poetry drives its spectators into delight or acknowledgment, the more society value it. The more epiphany, open-mouthed people, and applaud, the more it has a meaning in society. In brief, it can be infer that the more poetry function for the society, the higher its position is.

Eventually, it is only about of making a poetry fit to each and every spectators while Horace himself confesses that it is hard. It will be quite problematic since  the spectators will vary and there will be a matter of minority/ majority or inferiority/superiority among themselves.

The Justification Of Imitation

I like the way Horace puts forward the issue of regeneration, or that is what I conclude, in literary works before he ever mentions about mimesis or imitation. He emphasizes that the regeneration within works has been “destined” the way “ forest changes it leaves. However, Horace says, the death of the previous works that” have lapsed in use will be reborn”(my emphasis). I understand reborn as the way works form a new thing out of left-over from the past. Its process, more or less, will include the mechanism of imitation as well. It is a good way to avoid defensive effect on literature.

In other way, Plato tries to justify this imitation. He is fully aware that the imitation may contains “ true lie: for the lie I words is only a kind of imitation.” He states that this kind of imitation, in words, is benefit to bring about an account beyond our understanding. Moreover he also argues that if one drops the imitation on his or her poetry, then his/ her poetry “becomes a simple narration” which is not a good sign. About how much the imitation goes will affect on the style of the poetry. Even though at a certain level, Plato as well as myself, still question about the problems of mimetic art; whether to be allowed or not, what one need to do about it.

The Intruder of Conformity and How Can It Still Have Any Benefits.

Resistance to literary theory flourishes as the question about the validity in literature arises. Mainly, De Man says, “the resistance to theory is a resistance to the use of language about language.” After all, De Man puts an interesting idea about it. He argues that the literary theory, which is “[reveal] the mechanism of [ideologies workings] upsets “the owner” of them. He further states, “it upsets the established canon of literary works and blurs the borderlines…” So to speak, this theory intrude the conformity built by the long history of tradition and that is why it needs to be blocked somehow. Nonetheless, he thinks it is not sufficient to accommodate the whole issue on this “suspicion reason.”

Nevertheless, to answer the final question on how literary studies be beneficial for society without abandones the fact about its resistance, I am with De Man’s analogy; “to claim[ a problem beneath the resistance to the theory] would be like rejecting anatomy because it has failed to cure mortality”. Although Scholes argues about the benefit we gain when our literary works that we studies is close to reality, or more classic one which Aristotle or Plato argues about how a literature can build the elements of society, people, what I can say is that literary study just needs to be there and take its part on the society’s discourse whether to grow and to be grown or to fall or to be fallen.