How Big Is Political?
For
some writers literature is history. For some it is norms. For others it is just
about everything else. Or, so it seems:
Once
upon a time, humanity realized that many individuals were increasingly
withdrawing from the streets…into other universes: their rooms, skulls, echoes
of somebody else’s words…At that point in history, humanity started
compulsively thinking about the places where the soles touched the ground…and
everybody was wondering if those places were good for laying their weary feet
on the soil…nobody seemed to have an answer…The question was a
shuttle-locomotive running from one ear to another, drawing ellipsoid orbits on
the cracked inside of the crania… buildings were tumbling down outside…and
there was no answer…because nobody knew where was what…or from…or who…
This essay explores certain aspects
of the investment in creation. In order to elucidate the ways in which
writing-reading resists ossification, vocabularies concerned with the character
of literature and culture are put in
conversation. As a result, potentially illuminating insights are borne out of a
fruitful oscillation between dissensus and agreement, between and amongst
troublesome pairs: pleasure and normativity, inherent and culturally
conditioned, individuality and communality, authorship and text, biography and
hermeneutics, social plane and idiosyncratic intricacies, to name just a few.
The ideas of T.S. Eliot, Richard Rorty, Paul de Man, Terry Eagleton, and
McKenzie Wark are presented along with a metafictional case study to illustrate
the supposedly clashing axes and demonstrate the unsayable as the language of
the remix.
A perspective from which the
abovesaid issues can be observed is the one concerned with the dialogue between
formal literary features and their relation to extralinguistic realities. In
that context, one is yet again faced with the necessity of avoiding
reductionist portrayals of the encounter with a literary work. Neither cocooned,
overprotected from and/or indifferent to the cultural, nor overdetermined by it
seems to be the character of writing-reading.
Is that part of the way new formalism sees the activities occurring in the
world of letters?
If new formalism is a return to
aesthetics, then it’s right to implicitly indicate supremacist inclinations of
certain vocabularies. It is probably even more accurate in defining the
boundaries of the new movement by putting emphasis on the formality/formalism
distinction. Moreover, balancing between the legacy of the new criticism and
new historicism, new formalism rightly sees its potential territory in the
marriage of beauty and activity. T.S. Eliot:” [W]hen a people is passive, may
be torpor: when a people is quick and self-assertive, the result may be chaos”
(“Unity
and Diversity: Sect and Cult,” Notes
towards the Definition of Culture 71). And chaotic it was. The new world that humanity saw the first
half the twentieth century can surely be an explanation for the new critics’
insistence on a radical autonomy of literature, literary theory, and criticism.
Today, one is prone to see the legacy in a remixed form, along the lines of
Terry Eagleton’s thought:
From modernism proper, postmodernism inherits the
fragmentary or schizoid self, but eradicates all critical distance from it…From
the avant-garde, postmodernism takes the dissolution of art into social life,
rejection of tradition, an opposition to ‘high’ culture as such, but crosses
this with the unpolitical impulses of modernism […] An authentically political
art in our own time might similarly draw upon both modernism and the avant-garde,
but in a different combination from postmodernism. (“Capitalism, Modernism and
Postmodernism,” Against the Grain: Essays
1975-1985, 146-7)
However, one wonders how unpolitical
is unpolitical, if understood in holistic terms the way Eliot did: ”Yet there
is an aspect in which we can see a religion as the whole way of life of a people, from birth to the grave, from
morning to night and even in sleep, and the way of life is also its culture”
(“The Three Senses of Culture, ” Notes towards the Definition of
Culture 31). The fragmented culture that is today taken for
granted, if with different degrees of resistance, for Eliot and his
contemporaries was alarming enough to inspire designing a platform from which
to confront it: ”Culture
may even be described as that which makes life worth living” (“The
Three Senses of Culture,” Notes towards
the Definition of Culture 27).
The first half of the twentieth
century found the Western world bewildered by the newly emerged circumstances
in which war, destruction, collapse of order, and eroded morality played
crucial roles in shaping individual lives and socioscape alike. Strikingly
differing from anything that humanity experienced before, the world was faced
with a demand to respond to the novel realities. A devastating effect of The
First and the Second World Wars exposed the reasons for profound suspicion
about humanity and civilization. Individuals
whose life heavily relied on creation felt particularly compelled to speak
about it. Sometimes their voices were loud cries, sometimes shadow-talk.
Regardless of the tonal register,
they were patently calls addressed to fellow-contemporaries. At times, those
were embittered laments; often, they
were reanimating tactics. As a rule, they
acted as an injection of new blood in the humanity’s polluted body. In
other words, those calls were mighty weapons of regaining human dignity through
the power of creation against the acute aural infestation that invaded the
intersubjectival web. Concomitant with that was the noise precluding clear
vision from within. In response, fresh vocabularies are being devised. New
realities demand new ways of speaking about
new experiences: “When the poem has been made, something new has
happened, something that cannot be wholly explained by anything that went before. That, I believe, is what we mean by
‘creation’” (“The Frontiers of Criticism,” On
Poetry and Poets 112).

If all
comfort is to be found along the paths of theoretical art of mimicry, then all
poetry is always already subtonically historicized. If all genuinely mimicry-based theoretical
art is always already justified by its imperfection, then its reality is either
in its purposelessness or in its radically immutable variability. If the glow projected from the torch is always
already cast under sullenly tedious everydayness, the brutality of mundane
immediacy is always historically theoretizable. DaerfoYr, it carries in itself
potential for playing a role of the buffer between the dis-quiet buried deep in
the mind’s engine and itself. As such, it is a chimera of its own doubling,
while, in fact, it only acts as both—itself and a protection between itself and
something else. Since the buffering territory is where one’s juggling gift
finds its most fruitful justification, the chimera of doubling – i.e.
double-role-playing immediacy of everyday experience – is also where nearly
each subtonic pilgrimagist conjures up one’s way of researching the paths of
the historical nature of one’s
artistry and/or identity of a
theoretico-poetrician.
Names’n’Uses
If all
poetry happens in time, one moast always theorize. If theory reflects one’s
meditative perception of the world, one moast not replicate the object of the
metavocabulary. Even if one could. If theoryverse is a world in its own right,
its reality is lived out through its closeness to itself. And, by extension, to
reality. At bottom, the extension lies in its exegesis, i.e. in its originating
from a meditative search for the buffer between the profound dis-quiet with the
immediate everyday experience and the knowledge of a suspiciously empirical
character buried in the heart of the mind’s engine.
Poeticized Philosophy
Once
upon a time humanity found itself plagued by lexical proliferation. The
critical area of confusion happened to be the schizoid split within the term
privacy. On the one hand, the meaning of the word got atomized through the replication,
resulting in seemingly akin, yet, in fact, resolutely distinct concepts such as
intimacy, individuality, identity. On the other hand, however, the
fragmentation in question lead to an overwhelming sense of universality,
contained in the interaction between and amongst the particularities at stake.
The universality that, for some reason, felt unbearable. Unbearable for the
counterintuitive clash between resemblance and differentiation.
Counterintuitive because intuition presumes coincidence, resonance, and/or convergence between logically discordant
phenomena. Logically discordant because of the counterintuitive, a priori laws
of logic. Counterintuitive because of the logic of negation of innate
categories. Negation because of the facticity of the constructivist character
of the mind. Constructivist because of the counterintuitive nature of the
perception and meaning of the likes of color red as a stimulation of neurons,
communication between transmitters and the rest of the nervous system,
climaxing in the signal reaching the target in the central part of it,
revealing to the remaining parts of the organism that the sensory input
translates into Я-AE-D.
Dedivinizing Cultural Reshifting
Dead Words
Nonargumentative, poeticized uses of
text can, thus, be perceived as restorative deconstructionist naming of the
void. Within such a redescription of the notion of literature, theory, and
criticism, one wonders whatever happened to culture. Building on
Eagleton’s aesthetico-political reconfiguration
of the twentieth century vocabularies, the remix might be sketched along
the following lines: (a) The novel, pertinent to creative practices is what one
adopts from the avant-garde uncompromising uprooting; yet, one keeps the
awareness of having his or her vocabulary, to different degrees, inspired
by traditional ones--only remixed; (b)
Fragmentary consciousness that modernists made apparent is, unfortunately, part
of the realities one inhabits today; that, however, does not mean that one is
doomed to insanity; (c) Apolitical preservation of the autonomy of creation is
an integral part of the ultimate dream of freedom; this by no means prevents one from finding ways of
juggling these two seemingly incompatible vocabularies (aesthetic and
political, i.e.).
But how political is it? How
aesthetic? How formalist? Or, how pleasurable, for that matter, in an age of
uncertainty, when nobody knows whether the author is dead, or, whose voice it
is that one utters sentences in. Fredric Jameson: “[T]he end, for example, of style, in the sense of the
unique and the personal, the end of the distinctive brush stroke” (Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of
Late Capitalism 15). Analyzing architecture, Jameson claims that the human
subject has not kept pace with the mutations of the object, in which a new
space – hyperspace - has been created, and for which one simply does not have
appropriate perceptual habits. In other words, there has not been a mutation on
behalf of the subject equivalent and accompanying that of the object.
The subject’s apparent lagging behind the
advancement of the object can be understood as a consequence of the supposedly
atrophying constituents, affect and style/signature being among them. In a word, incongruence between the object
and the subject in contemporary world is commonly understood as a result of the
subject’s inability to follow the changes happening on the level of the object.
However, it turns out that the subject is not all that disabled. And that what
adds up to its idiosyncratic character (style/signature, for example) seems to
be alive and well. More precisely, unlike in hyperspace, for an entity of a
different shape, such as the style/signature, the subject does have a
corresponding perceptual apparatus: a response is not missing. Thus, the death
of the style/signature seems to be a make-believe reality that resulted from
the fear of the loss of authenticity. Or, the fear of authenticity not being
lost. If the former is the case, one mistakenly believed that what one feared would
happen, actually, did happen. If the latter, one was misled to believe that
something disastrous would happen, should have such a nightmare come true.
Consequently, one lived a delusion of a deprivation
of uniqueness, whereas death of the style actually never occurred. Even
prototypically inauthentic postmodernist works speak in an unmistakably unique
voice. Even those who dismiss the myth of originality create an idiosyncratic
vernacular. Even those who decisively defer authenticity are quite unlikely to
be mistaken for somebody else’s voice. Fredric Jameson:”[P]ostmodernism,
despite its systematic and thoroughgoing rejection of all the features it could
identify with high modernism and modernism proper, seems utterly unable to
divest itself of this final requirement of originality” (Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present 152). One would be prone to say
that whoever cares about authenticity
and the related issues and expresses one’s concerns about them--regardless of
the perspective--unavoidably does so in an idiosyncratic idiom.
Therefore,
death of the style/signature is, essentially, what makes postmodernist a
culture of and/or discourse of denial. The proclamation of the alleged death
comprises of a crass understatement, or, an overstatement about the life of the
subject. Postmodernists are right to inherit a broken image of reality from
modernists. However, such a picture should remain communicable or else the
polyphony is merely a simultaneity of individual, disjoined cacophonic noise,
disinterested in and immune to redemption. If this were the case, the adjective
individual should not be mistakenly
understood to be the stem for the derivation of the noun individuality, but rather of individualism.
Further, postmodernists are right to claim that there are as many
descriptions as there are idiosyncratic idioms, but this truth does not entail
a presumption that all of them are tenable. Finally, postmodernists are right
to believe in inauthenticity not because its opposite is untrue, but because a
replica is an impossibility.
Such impositions threaten the creative imagination
and the potential of the textual. Since the literature of the twentieth and the
twenty-first centuries has to a large extent been self-reflective, it has also
been a form of denial of its potential and a delusion about its dead-end. In
response to that, non-existent, inauthentic voices are heard as a call for
reanimation of the tired body of literature and supposedly nonexisting
readers/writers—subjects. Human, at that. Well, stories, to be sure, must have a say in that matter. [i]
[i] All pictures by the author. This essay, in a modified version and entitled "Nonprescriptive Narratives: Disruptions in Discourse, Wellspring of Words," was published in New Formalism Of/On The Contemporary, guest ed. Nicholas Birns. Spec. Issue of Pennsylvania Literary Journal 4.1 (2012).