Maggie, (and anyone else who has read this article please comment), here are my questions after reading it for the 2nd time. I almost think that the second time around confused me more, but I have zoned in on what specifically does not make sense right now.
Mostly, I am confused about the explanations that start off the essay. When Levinas's concept is applied to the characters in the book, I think it's fascinating and makes complete sense, adds a new dimension to the story. For whatever reason I don't feel like I've been able to fully grasp his theory of psychology when it is standing alone and not in terms of the book (perhaps you would think it should be the other way around).
"The self naturally reduces, or totalizes the Other into digestible concepts- concepts which can be used by the self to construct a distorted identity from a complex existance"---
This confuses me. Does this mean that the Self cannot ever percieve the Other without "digesting" it first? As if we are not comfortable with things until we can develop a personal perception of them, or a "concept" that is digestible to us as individuals? And what does he mean by a concept? Is there an example of that? And "Form a "complex existance"-- as in we form percepteions and these then complicate our existance? Thinking of it this way makes sense in terms of the "Face" concept I think, for example this sentence- "The relation with the face can surely be dominated by perception"...
But then this "Face" also confuses me- "the basis for the Other's resistance to the Self's totalizing tendencies"- so the face is the broad then, or what we comprehend before we form perception, and then the Other is a perception of a specific thing or person- as it is tainted by the way we percieve it and therefore becomes "totalized"?
Here- "Face which demands discourse as a means to escape the reductictive tendencies of the self"- I think that he is relating Reducing to Digesting, right? But why does this then "demand discourse"?
I also don't understand this line, direct from Levinas: "The saying is a way of greeting the Other, but to greet the Other is already to answer for him"
---There are so many examples in the text of what Levinas goes on to describe- "It is difficult to be silent in someone's prescense...It is necessary to speak of something, of the rain and fine weather, no matter what, but to speak, to respond to him and already to answer for him" ...I just don't understand this automatic "answer for him" part of it.
"as Self uses discourse to create a relationship with the Other, meaning is constantly deferred, forcing the Self to totalize...." I don't understand why the meaning is necessarily "deferred" by this in the relationship between the Self and the Other.
I'm sorry, I realize that this is way too much to hash out on the blog. We can talk about them later better, but it seems that I am just confused mainly about the larger ideas in the essay: the difference between the Face and the Other (as we tried to tackle it in class) and how the relationship with the self is different in each.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And, I was also wondering, just curiously, because it was mentioned in the essay and I realize I didn't really place a lot of meaning on it when I was reading, what anyone made of the part in the book when (as put in the essay) "At the very height of her enthusiasm, Mick feels creativity swell within her and needs to express it. Yet, she cannot translate this experience into words; she has no means to convey her deepest creative impulses. The best she can do is write pornographic graffiti and her initials on the walls of the unfinished house, but even this leaves her unsatisfied"- what did you make of this scene?
ReplyDeleteGrace, I was also fascinated by this assertion in the essay you read and then started to notice it more in other scenes as well. Maybe physical manifestations of creative, intellectual or even emotional needs/desires that we cannot communicate are deeply connected to the idea of "the other" and "the self"--how, I'm not yet sure. You ask A LOT of really good questions and I would be happy to talk through many of these with you and Maggie.
ReplyDeleteGrace, I just had another idea--how does "demanding discourse" have to do with BOTH the music article and the paradox article? It seems that, in a way, these three articles are saying the same thing from a different "lens". Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteOkay that would be undoubtedly helpful. I'm not sure what to refute, or perhaps modify. Even though I don't understand the concept fully, it seems so aptly applied to all of the characters, it gives the book a completely new angle to read from! I tend to agree with it...
ReplyDeleteI'm confused but also curious to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe the Other and the Self could be manifestations that we ourselves create, I kept thinking of them as physical human beings that reflect/are interpreted or viewed by us as our relationship to them as sole individuals, "self's"...its interesting to think that maybe creativity, art, music, are projections of this "other" , or more obviously the way we release/express the failure of expression,failure of language- the "Self's" way of "constructing a distorted identity from a complex existence". Maybe creativity is the other side of this.
I don't know if I'm saying what you mean, or if I'm saying anything at all for that matter, but something about your idea makes sense.
Going off what you said about what I said (which was only what I thought I wanted to say--your article was so abstract and jargon-filled!), what if "expression" is really the key to your article and the way we make the "other" seem an extension of the "self"? And what if "expression" is also deeply connected to crafting this novel so that it appears as a fugue, a unified piece of individual parts? And, finally, what if "expression," be it creative, physical, intellectual, etc. is how we attempt to "reconcile" that paradox of the need for privacy and desire to be misunderstood? I guess what I'm trying to say is that all these articles seem to be saying the same thing with different jargon. Each of these articles, it occurs to me now, are trying to say, clumsily and convolutedly, what McCullers does simply.
ReplyDelete(That final sentence is undoubtedly a bias on my part--if your article represents reading literature through a psychological lens, and the Fugue one represents reading it through a musical lens, then my statement represents a desire to let literature stand alone.)
I like the last part of your comment alot.
ReplyDeleteI'm really excited about this idea.
Expression I thin is EXACTLY that paradox, what cannot be said- isn't that what art has done for centuries?- triggered emotion. Why can we (or I) stare at a single piece of art work for hours and feel so many different emotions that I would never be able to articulate to anyone verbally? Why does Mick sit by the radio as if it is everything she knows and can't say? I think that's exactly what expression is, the paradox that we will never understand- and maybe art and music and anything expressive is the closest we get to understanding- to reconciling, and that is why it is such a big part in our world.
I'm confused about this (Of course the only part about my own article...) what you said " what if "expression" is really the key to your article and the way we make the "other" seem an extension of the "self"?" I want to understand it better.
I think that this novel is so beautiful because of the way that Mcullers melds it into one unified idea, perhaps melds together all of these different experiences of this one ginormous paradox into one story (maybe through the way that it resembles the fugue)- but that we can still see the individual parts through it all, and it's valuable that way because we can analyze all of these different ways that the characters are dealing with it by observing their expression. WRiting that just made me think of how they teach you in art- that when you look at a painting your brain naturally totalizes it to form a whole image in accordance to the way that the lines and strokes are crafted on the surface. The eyes take in the direction first, all automatically, and then the direction creates depth and perspective, and all of it contributes to the unified perspective of the painting as a whole, as one image. And then you move closer and you see all of the individual parts, and it looks different, and in some paintings, as you move closer the image looks more distorted and doesn't look nearly as unified as when you are standing far away.
Grace, having just read Libbey's post and Anna's comment to it, I think that those ideas apply, too. More on this soon!
ReplyDelete