If ‘language’ is ‘power’ – examine how the relationship between language and power is established in your text. Compare this constitution to the relationship between the two elements in the other texts.
Taking a look at Hamlet we see a good example of the relationship between language and power in Claudius’s interaction with Hamlet (p. 420) beginning with “’Tis sweet and commendable…:”
Claudius first plays the ‘human experience’ card that youth should listen to the wisdom of elders: it is fine in “filial obligation … to do obsequious sorrow,” but get over it - persevering in grief is “unmanly.” Then he stabs at Hamlet’s self-esteem: “impious stubbornness,” “a heart unfortified,” “a mind impatient,” “unschool’d.” Then he threatens with heaven, nature, reason – and guilt-trips him: “the dead,” and finally a not so discrete threat that he, Hamlet, may end up like his father: “You are the most immediate to our throne,” insultingly he takes such words into his mouth as “dearest father,” “nobility of love … do I impart towards you.” And then, of cause, he finishes it off: “remain here … in … cheer and comfort” – because Hamlet is definitely next, he himself must suspect.
The power of language here lies in its ability to sophisticatedly render a threat on different psychological levels: kindness, reproach, guilt, irony. In a language-less world surely a power relationship between a Claudius and a Hamlet could exist and be sustained, but not with such communicative sophistication. That is what literary language can do, and sensitive readings reveal; we need no other justification for reading literature, and for making it an integral dimension of education.
Units exploring the following texts/images would deepen and contextualize the focus question:
- H. Ibsen: A Doll’s House (1879)
Notice how Ibsen in the opening scene establishes Nora’s subservient role in the marriage, and socially, through Helmer’s nicknames of her, “chirping lark” etc. - M. Duchamp: Fountain (1917)
His display of a urinal entitled “Fountain” shook up the art world as it forced upon it the notion that art might be more than a matter for museums. A visual kind of language and power. - P. Picasso: Guernica (1937)
Likewise, Picasso’s painting in response to the war crime: image as a language of disgust and revolt activating language in its appreciators. - E. Spenser: The Faerie Queene (1590)
Poetic language offering a dramatic, visually enticing experience.
Focus question for “Representing the American West”:
“The American West” – as an idea or concept directly or indirectly invoked in texts – signifies a cultural construction. Give examples of how such cultural construction takes place in your texts. E.g., make a list of what might be called “components of cultural construction,” and organize them in groups based on similarities and differences.
The Spirit of the Bear Walking is a tender story about purity or cleansing of mind, here awarded with a vision. Whenever a representative of one cultural hemisphere reconstructs another culture e.g. by retelling their myths, it is prudent to be cautious. E.g., which connotations do names and idioms have within their original context; which are produced in the particular form of the storytelling? Similarly, when Native American authors express themselves in short stories or novels – are they creating a 3rd culture?
Units on these topics could further explore cultural construction:
- Cowboy poetry
Organize topics from a selection of poetry. - Dances with Wolves (1990)
How does the film portray Native Americans? - Mormon history and religious writing
Does the Mormon experience and description of ‘The West’ differ from non-Mormon depictions? If so, how? - Contemporary Native American literature
Analyze the text/s for dimensions of cultural construction and determine their difference or similarity to immigrant depictions.
Powerlessness of language
The section on “Language and power” (pgs. 397-502), comes to 105 pages, consisting largely of reprinted works of literature, a couple of questions to each piece of literature, very brief, general introductions of the authors, and three images. Thus, outside of the reprinted literature, perhaps 2-3 pages total are from Daniel Anderson’s own hand, very easy. (This is typical of the entire book’s 947 pages). Of this, both the questions and the introductions are entirely average, displaying a less sophisticated spectrum of ideas than if you simply googled the matters. The magnitude of the topic of this section (even if we separate it into its components: language, power) is so daunting, so complex, so fundamental, with such a rich, intellectual history behind it, that it is only fair to expect – to be more than cooperatively diplomatic – slightly more guidance from someone who dares to raise the issue in a textbook, than what we get in the 54 words + 3 words title on p. 397. “Language shapes us,” “language influences our thinking,” “words… have a direct impact on human lives,” “this power of the word and its implications for the decisions we make.” These platitudes force us to seek enlightenment elsewhere.
The book as a whole is a celebration of the powerlessness of language. Not that there isn’t plenty of language; but jump-skipping from one literary effort to another, never anchoring one’s feet firmly into a literary effort, but subjugating ideas and art to loosely sketched ‘lenses,’ makes WMLA a sort of educational equivalent to the QVC-channel. Hence, as an anthology it spreads its arms too widely; as an instrumental treatise on pedagogy, it doesn’t dig deep enough.
“Of the paintings… which do you prefer? Why?” (p. 891) – Apart from the readymade skill-level needed in order to pose such a question, it is unfortunate in signifying the ultimate capitulation of ideas. It also seems, the overarching purpose of WMLA is not to complicate its users’ sense of self-esteem.
I hope these comments testify to the fact, that what we are doing in a class such as this, belongs to the most laudable and important undertakings possible in educational training.
No comments:
Post a Comment