Against Theory

First off, I found it very interesting that, at the end of this class, we read a piece basically telling us that everything we did in this semester was a waste of time. I do think he brings up some interesting points about the problems with looking for authorial intent, and I think it's important to try to focus on the text and what it says to you personally, not what it says according to what other people say the person saying it was trying to say. (I know that's one of the most confusing sentenses I've ever written, and I think that speaks to the problematic nature of authorial intent). I may not agree with all the things that Knapp and Michaels are trying to say in this piece, but I think it's important that someone reminds us all to not get too locked in or stuck in literary theory and it's rules of analysis. How we analyze things in our own mind are important, too.

theory

My stance about theory before reading this article: while I do not wholly agree with some theoretical claims and the end they seek at times, I still appreciate the points of view that can be utilized when experiencing text.

My stance after reading this article: pretty much the same.

The article, for me, was a pretty rough read. It seemed to go in circles, and say the same things over, but with differently worded sentences. But, this was probably the goal. The authors point out specific problems, and then approach them from different areas. Intention versus meaning lasts for like 5 pages, and in the end, says one thing. Now that I think about this “method,” however, it seems that I am breaking the authors’ rules; I pointed out that there was repetition in the essay. I pointed out that this “seemed” to be part of their goal. In essence, I am interpreting their “speech act,” which is intentional/meaningful, through formal theory tools. They would disagree with use of theory. But repetition is a commonly used tool within the practice of “speech acts,” both spoken and written.

Going back on topic, it seems as though the beef with theory is that it tries to solve problems that don’t exist and that it is a tool used to replace literary practice. The latter would seem to come from a poet who has been critiqued. The former seems to be the larger problem. From the tone of the essay, theories are seen as attempting to become law. I do not see this, and if I did, I would not agree with theory either. As stated, I think of theory as a way to incorporate new ideas and points of view. If they were called "literary viewpoints" or something along those lines, would the authors still have the problem with "theories" attempting to solve something?

When the authors spoke of beliefs, it seemed as though one “theory” was left out, which is the “Reader Response.” This theory allows readers to impose their beliefs onto the text, to engage it in the way personally deemed necessary, but also realizes that these beliefs are not necessarily true. They are simply responses.

Response: Knapp & Michaels Against Theory

For our last blog, we were asked to respond to Against Theory by Knapps and Michael. The essay proposes that, "meaning is just another name for expressed intention, knowledge just another name for true belief, but theory is not just another name for practice. It is the name for all the ways people have tried to stand outside practice in order to govern practice from without. Our thesis has been that no one can reach a position outside practice, that theorists should stop trying, and that the theoretical enterprise should therefore come to an end."

For my part I do not recognize a problem with theory, and for the most part I believe that Knapps and Michael harm their claims by relying upon truth claims and value judgments. In fact, there is a fundamental element of discourse I believe may not have been covered in the section of the essay that we have read.

The way I understand it, all that is required for an assertion about a text in Critical Theory is that it needs to be grounded in the text. That is, for any assertion that one might make, one must first provide evidence present in the text to support such a claim. This is my grasp of the theoretical project. I do not understand critical theory to suppose value judgments or dismiss one interpretation of a text in favor of another, rather it is simply to propose a method of analyzing any given text which makes an interpretation possible. The goal of critical theory should never be to discourage or inhibit an interpretation, I should think, and no interpretation should be taken as definitive, including the author's: i.e. if the author reads a text in a certain way, while everyone else reads it to mean something else, then so long as these interpretations are grounded in the text, they are always valid. However more than anything else I believe the project of theory amounts to a demonstration of the subjectivity of meaning.

"Against Theory" Makes My Head Hurt

I’m going to start off by saying that I agree with the other guys that this reading was egregiously loquacious and pretentious. Basically, it made my head hurt.

On a more serious note, perhaps the one thing I did get out of this reading involved the last two pages about Fish. This seemed to be the one part of the text that stood out to me as truly interesting and semi-comprehensible. “The truth of knowledge, according to Fish, is that no beliefs are, in the long run, truer than others; all beliefs, in the long run, are equal. But as we have noted, it is only from the standpoint of a theory about belief which is not itself a belief that this truth can be seen” (741). This little section, and the rest of the paragraph that follows, had me thinking – should we really throw away all beliefs just so we can separate Item A from Item B? Can one live without the other? Do we really need theory? Do I really need to keep asking questions like this? What I am trying to get at here is that Knapp and Michaels continue on to say that theory “has no practical consequences not because it can be united with practice but because it can never be separated from practice” (741). Fish, Knapp, and Michaels want us to go against theory? Well, after reading that entire text and still not being fully confident as to understanding what I read, I am going to agree with those three men and say, “To hell with theory!”

Against What?

Okay, so I passed in and out of consciousness while trying to decipher this pompous work. I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this post, but two things I feel the need to clarify:
Language, as they say, is intentional. The two are inseperable. Language is organized, and the purpose of language (its intention) is to communicate ideas effectively. Language, as they stated, is representational and is consitent of signifiers that are tangibles for the concepts they represent. Such that the actuality of the language is defined by the existence of that which it is trying to represent. The words on the ocean, if made by accident, represent nothing therefore the signifier is seperated from the signified, and it fails. So I think I'm with them on that.

The whole spiel about de Man's interpretation of naming Marion, or at least producing a sound that resembles Marion (seems like such an arbitrary distinction), is a bit much. Rousseau named Marion, nonetheless. He spoke words and language before the wondrous utterance of the resembling "sound," and he spoke language afterwards. But we are supposed to believe, upon Rousseau going back to the moment in his mind, that he is able to now re-interpret what the actuality of the sound was. At the moment, it seems, that he spoke 'Marion' it was language filled with intention. Going back to that moment, he has re-interpreted it as nothing but an immediate reaction, spoken by someone who speaks the language of intention, but not intending anything at all. Therefore, as author of this text 'Marion,' he himself has given to us two definitions. If we were with him when he said it and before analyzing it, we would agree with his author's intention which is the only viable thing, and called it language; now upon re-examination we call it non-language. Rousseau as author and intender leads me to believe that (1) there is an intention existant that is separate from the author's full knowledge (i.e., he doesn't know what he really means), and (2) that the concept of language itself can be separated momentarily from intention. We as readers, subscribing to author's intent now have come to believe two things. He meant it, now he didn't meat it. There is an intention existant and solid, immutable throughout this time period. Roussea's understanding of this intention is the variable. We as readers are the result of Roussea's misunderstanding of his intention. The language is mutable. And maybe there isn't such a rigid connection between the two.

I don't even know if I made sense just now. Anyways, the other thing that I meant to address is the difference between belief or knowledge, or non-difference as they put it. As if we can believe something without analysing our beliefs. I believe chocolate is good for me, but it doesn't lead me to become disinterested in studies showing that it may not be. An understanding of belief as being largely opinionated and unfounded (in a complete sense) by facts leads to an attempt to attain truth. I believe until I know. Belief is my journey, knowledge my destination. But one can also believe in facts, I guess, or that some facts are true and others skewed. However, information is nuetral, numbers I guess signifiers and defined only by the value we place on them. Interpretations exist on all levels. Without a belief that what you are saying is true, that you are speaking the truth, there is no connection between you and what you are saying. I don't know where I'm going with this anymore.

So I'll just end it here.

Against Theory

I completely agree with Shawn. There are a lot of points during class where it seems theories are applied just for the sake of applying them. I believe this article somewhat speaks out on this concept. Theories seem to generalize a lot about different interpretations of a text. It never seems so simple to just say, “you are using feminist theory” or “that’s a psychoanalytical analysis” because it is hard to shape your opinions into one underlying thought process.

To me, the conclusion of the piece seems something worth noting. I disagree somewhat with the authors when it comes to separating pieces. There seems to be too many small details and signs that are available in large texts. I also believe that some things may be separated. However, the authors’ main goal is to have readers regard the piece as the whole. I believe this should always be kept in mind.

Against Theory

"From the standpoint of an argument against critical theory, then, the only important question about intention is whether there can in fact be intentionless meanings. If our argument against theory is to succeed, the answer to this question must be no (727)." This statement is all that I got out of the entire article. As many of my classmates have stated earlier, this article is one we could have done with out. The arguments were very confusing and quite frankly not very convincing. Hirsch never gave a firm argument for his theory or lack there of. His argument that "the meaning of a text "is, and can be, nothing other than the author's meaning" and "is determined once and for all by the character of the speaker's intention (725)." His argument is flawed. One can not only rely soley on the authour's intent. Sometimes there are things that come out with out the author even realizing it. This is why we analyze and interperet text using a wide range of techniques. The authors intention is only one aspect of analyzing and intepreting texts to is full potential.