Upon making my diagrammatic outline, I found that I was much
more interested in how the theorists we’ve studied thus far invoke one another.
Yes, each theorist comes within (more or less) a larger movement; we can, for
example, name Coleridge as a “Romantic” and Barthes as a “Structuralist”.
However, I have valued our discussion of how many theorists overstep the
boundaries of those movements they are associated with. Eliot, although a “New
Critic” who criticizes Romanticism, invokes Coleridge’s secondary imagination.
Freud and Marx & Engels, fathers of Psychoanalytic and Marxist theories
respectively, have connections to Saussure and Structuralism. We gain a richer,
more complex understanding of the evolution of literary criticism when we view
theorists as individuals within unique movements and as pieces of an interdependent milieu.
I therefore decided to place the theorists we’ve studied
thus far in relation to one another by making a web. Theorists within movements
are grouped together, but the names of these movements have been omitted in
order to emphasize other aspects of connectivity; if we needed to know who
belonged to, say, Marxist critique, we could just look at the syllabus!
I think that my diagram will be helpful for the second
portion of Portfolio 4, the critical analysis of “The Los Alamos Museum” by
Arthur Sze, and other critical analyses to come. My diagram visually represents
how some theorists from different movements (or, in Portfolio 4’s case,
different columns) relate and speak to each other about a text. But, the
diagram also shows where contentions easily arise; outlier Sir Phillip Sydney’s
notion that art’s purpose is to “teach and delight” could provide unique
readings and challenges to other theorists.
Please comment below if you think of any other connections
between the theorists and I will add them! I also considered using red lines to
show where theorists reject one another, but I’m afraid it is beyond my
tech-savvy to do so. I am also aware and “so-sure” that I spelled Saussure
wrong on my diagram… I framed each picture and inserted names on an online
software and I can’t make changes. Whoops!
This is an interesting representation of the theorists we've read thus far for a number of reasons. But, for now, I shall only comment upon the most prominent element I see in the diagram (and leave some breathing room for our classmates to comment).
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love how this complicates the Hegelian dialectic. As we've discussed, Hegel (or, at least a reading of Hegel) can be a bit heavy-handed and totalizing. But with this diagram there is no master-slave tension to work through, meaning that each theorist can function in his/her own space while drawing on others (without the threat of being consumed by another). It's like an Edenic ecosystem.
That being said, I've noticed some peculiarities in your web. Do you think Plato needs to be connected to everyone? Shouldn't Lacan be connected to his friends, the French structuralists? Of course, your diagram is already complex (which I commend), but I'd be interested in hearing about the choices you made when framing this structure. Or do you think my questions are irrelevant, since the structure you've presented is a web (and therefore every theorist, if not explicitly connected, is implicitly connected)?
I'll let others hash out this last paragraph (it is break, after all). Anyway, great work.
This is a good diagram of our theorists. There are some really good groupings such as having Saussure, Wollestonecraft, and Freud coming from Hegel. I think the romantics are very good as well.
ReplyDelete