Discourse, representation and listening
It has become impossible to ignore the constant use of Marx’s statement about the East, “They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented,” in criticizing issues related to representation and the power relations within it, despite our precise or inaccurate comprehension of it. According to this common usage, the phrase in principle indicates the existence of at least two parties: a high-powered party and a weak party. Given the fact that the weak are unable to represent themselves, the high-powered must represent them.
However, over a century and a half after Marx had stated the phrase it is impossible today to accept the apparent meaning without delving into a turmoil of questions regarding the balance of power and the expression of self/selves without medications or representatives. Questions such as who gave you the right to speak up? or who represents whom? or where does this discourse come from? are no longer extraordinary to attempt to criticize humanitarian epistemological discourses in general. The authority of Western epistemological discourse, academic discourse in particular, has become an inevitable topic to analyze the logic and epistemology of colonialism in its classic and new forms. Therefore, it is not surprising that positionality itself is an essential part of the curricula of various Catabolic schools today, despite their different political agendas and epistemological perspectives.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to disregard the fact that most of these questions centered on the speaker/representative dualism. These questions analyzed the power disparity between them and its impact on the discourse, whether with regard to content, form, or other things, overlooking other dimensions that shape the process of discourse production. Among these dimensions, I draw attention to what I refer to here as listening, that is a process of hearing that involves intentional and focused hearing to understand the underlying meaning of the discourse. It is clear that listening is closely tied to the recipient of the discourse, regardless of whether it is delivered directly or through a representative.
The challenge can also be shaped as a focus on the duality between the speaker/representative dualism. Questions of representation mostly overlooked the criticism of discourse reception, assuming at first that the potential consequences are merely an extension of positionality and power dynamics. As a result, the debate continued to center around the frameworks of representation, its accuracy, and its pluralism, without a similar exploration into the effectiveness of the future and the potential of attentive listening.
Therefore, the article’s argument is based on the assumption that being aware of the positionality of enunciation itself is an integral part of the discourse and its content. If the recipient of the discourse remains oblivious of the reasons and the complexities associated with the positionality of enunciating it, as well as its fundamental connection to its contexts and consequences, it becomes impossible to discuss understanding the content without giving priority to the recipient’s authority in determining what is expressed. In simpler terms, prioritizing representation of a voice over actively understanding and listening to the voice itself. Even if we recognize the necessity of a direct enunciation of the speech, without mediation or representation, it does not imply that everyone can comprehend the speech initially (especially that the issue could potentially worsen if the speech is explicitly representative). Thus, it is the responsibility of the discourse recipient to hold themselves accountable in order to emerge from cognitive deficiency towards active listening to what may lie beyond the scope of their familiarity. This process simultaneously enriches and deepens the intricacies and depths of the discourse being listened to.
Demarcation of the problem’s boundaries
Delving into the essence of the argument without first determining whether it is a problem that requires research might be nothing but a waste of time. The main question to consider is: Have the enunciation/representation theories overlooked the future of discourse? How is representation, or its absence, associated with listening? It is also crucial to note that the following lines are based on the assumption that not listening to a literary work necessitates its representation, with varying degrees of representation. For example, when a reader imposes their own understanding onto a work, as a consequence they may only extract what they already know without considering the possibility that their reading is imposed on the text rather than emerging from it. This point will be further discussed later.
In order to answer the two questions about the representation above, I will provide a few examples that may demonstrate the need for this article. The first example that is inevitably mentioned in enquiring about representation and what it entails is Edward Said’s study of Orientalism. Said proposes three theoretically distinct concepts of Orientalism, each addressing a different aspect. The first is Orientalism as an academic study of the East, the second is Orientalism as a way of thinking based on the ontological and epistemological distinction between East and West, and the third is Orientalism as a Western tool to maintain the political and intellectual subjugation of the West.
The common factor between these three definitions is that Orientalism is in all cases a representation. From the first pages of the book, Edward Said emphasizes the centrality of representation in everything that is associated with Orientalist epistemological discourse. The East, which is the subject of research, is merely an imagined concept that is seen as the opposite of the West. Therefore, Orientalism is a framework that creates the reality it claims to research and explain. In addition, the East’s representations and the ideas built upon them are simply imagined constructs in which the identity of the West and the Western overlap with their reflections in the process of producing discourse.
I cannot assert that I fully comprehend all the consequences of Said’s concepts nor the themes emanating from them. The central focus of this brief reference is the recognition that one of Orientalism’s pillars, according to Edward Said, is based on a specific understanding of the nature and direction of representation. The conception can be formulated as follows: The West represents the East, based on non-reality.
Despite potential essentialist and historical issues with Edward Said’s conception of the West, it is possible to assume that undermining such Orientalism is possible through the mediation and representation of discourse and its production. This would allow the East to represent itself outside the epistemological and ontological frameworks imposed on it. Said’s Orientalism conception centered around specific questions of representation, including: How does the West represent the East? How realistic is the representation? Another important question related to how the Orientalist discourse would shift if the authentic Oriental speaker were able to express themselves outside the frameworks of Orientalism.
The main focus of Edward Said’s presentation on Orientalism is not the future of the discourse, but rather the examination of power dynamics and knowledge and representations of the East by Western scholars. It also delves into the various images of the East created by Orientalists, their origins, and their consequences without actually addressing the problems of the future of Orientalist discourse, whether positively or negatively. For example, let us consider two readers of The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. One of them is more interested in analyzing the Orientalist discourse in English novels by authors from countries affected by colonial and imperial powers. Can we disregard the significance of the first reader’s interest whenever he saw in the novel stereotypical, demonizing depictions of an Eastern essence? Wasn’t this interest what drew attention to dimensions of the work that may not necessarily have been apparent to others?
A similar problem can be observed in Buruma and Margalit’s presentation of Occidentalism. They fail to analyze discourses from the perspective of their recipients and do not position the recipient of the discourse as an active participant in the process. The subtitle of the book, The West through the Eyes of its Enemies, highlights a fundamental theme that differs from Edward Said’s presentation. The problem here is not how does the West represent the East, but rather how to represent the West for non-Westerners or for those who consider the West as their existential enemy. The book attempts to understand the foundations of representations of the West and their impacts, particularly emphasizing the us/them dichotomy, the demonization of the other, and the problems of knowledge produced within these two perspectives. It seeks to establish that the war against the West as an inherent aspect of human nature, manifested in feelings of hatred towards the other’s perceived success and our failure. However, unlike Said’s concept of Orientalism, Occidentalism lacks the theoretical and cognitive weight to give its main idea significant value. Further, it can be seen as a feeble, dreamy attempt to respond to criticism of Orientalism, particularly due to its reliance on simple ideas such as the Attack on the West […] An Attack on the Mind of the West or the West having a robust essence of the West since ancient history.
Even if the book’s idea is considered seriously, the reader will soon discover that the book itself is evidence of the risk of limiting oneself to analyzing discourse as if it stands on its own. This is especially true if the book forms discourses within preconceived frameworks of their meanings and is merely an extraction of these discourses from their positionality, which is one of the risks of neglecting to criticize the reception of discourse. The two writers repeatedly fail to understand the symbolisms and representations within their contexts, which makes their analysis par excellence nonhistorical. For example, they adopt the theme of hostility to the West as a common characteristic with different causes but are interconnected in various times and places. As a result, they use the same analytical lens to read Dostoyevsky’s works and analyze the motives of suicide bombers, describing it as hostile to Western Scientism and Rationalism.
Another key example is what Gayatri Spivak concludes in her article Can the Subaltern Speak?. In response to Foucault and Deleuze’s argument regarding the oppressed ability to represent themselves, Spivak refutes their conclusion of the possibility of direct representation, stating that the subaltern cannot in fact represent themselves, but rather needs someone to speak on their behalf. Her conclusion primarily centers on the assumption that the subject is merely an extension of the abstract individual self of the Other within the Western context, according to Foucault and Deleuze. In simpler words, the concept of the subject who is capable of representing himself is per se a product within the Western discourse. This results in eliminating the concept from the ideological and imperial contexts in which the discourse of Foucault and Deleuze is set. Hence, the subject who represents himself, based on their perspective, is nothing more than a part of the historical processes that shaped the concept of its effectiveness and limitation in the first place.
In contrast, Spivak’s argument is that the subaltern’s expressive action may be disregarded among intellectuals because they are fundamentally unable to perceive the act of expression or realize the possibilities of meaning involved in it. Each attempt to understand the meaning of an action is part of speaking on behalf of or representing the subaltern. Therefore, familiarity with the cultural climate surrounding the act does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the subaltern expressed himself. Spivak has demonstrated this in her deconstruction of the story of Bhaduri’s suicide. Then, the subaltern cannot speak, and the subaltern, as a woman within the presented example, cannot be heard or read except through an intermediary capable of perceiving and speaking.
In her critique of Foucault and Deleuze, Spivak’s partially refers to the theme of reception of discourse and their failure to acknowledge what lies outside their discursive positionality. However, she does not delve into the complexities of the reception of discourse itself. This means that she shapes the connection of representation within the question of the possibility of enunciation at its foundation, without shaping the reception of the occurred act of enunciation. To illustrate this, let us take the example of The Kite Runner. If we accept Spivak’s argument that Bhaduri’s suicide in the article is an expression that needed to be deconstructed by the intellectual to gain significance, we must question why Spivak was the one who understood its meaning and not others. How was she able to receive the expressive discourse and reshape it into another form of discourse? Why was the act of suicide itself considered non-actual, despite its direct nature? These questions become even more complex when we acknowledge that Spivak, a brilliant Bengali philosopher, mentioned in an article that she struggled to comprehend Bhaduri’s suicide, as did the family members who could only see it as a consequence of an illicit love affair. Thus, it is clear that relying on the speaker/representative dualism alone is insufficient to grasp these questions and the resulting complexities.
The fourth and final example is not related to the two sides of the enunciation/representation dualism only, but rather to the fabric through which the process takes place. In other words, it is related to the medium that allows the process to occur in the first place. For example, Jerry Adelman’s criticism of global history and allegations of it being subversive, decentralized narrative indirectly demonstrate this fabric. Adelman believes that the rules and concepts of global history are essentially formulated within a space in which the game’s rules are still dominantly Western, therefore the attempt by non-Westerners to contribute to the narrative of global history will be neither more nor less an assertion of the dominance of the rules emanating from it. The problem grows as we remember that the integration of narratives is only possible through a common language – English in this case –, thus, what do subversive, decentralized contributions signify as long as they adhere to the rules and mediums they aim to undermine?
It is difficult to overlook the implications of Adelman’s criticism, specifically if the question of enunciation/representation is posed within the framework of a common language. However, it is possible to overcome his criticism in principle with two focal cognitive steps: First, for example, the subaltern’s adoption of the language of the dominant does not suggest that they automatically accept all of its rules and contents. Part of the manipulation of language and the disconnection of its associations lies in efforts to untangle the word or meaning from its cognitive elements. Hence, adopting English does not necessarily indicate that the speaker positions themselves within different worlds of meaning, and may subjugate the language – while considering its dominance – in order to break the control of its vocabulary and grammar.
The second step is based on the fallacy of essentially separating language from the surrounding processes involved in the formation of knowledge. Language is neither prior nor subordinate to the acquisition or production of knowledge, and every assumption of its priority means limiting the role of other important factors in understanding the world. I have selected from these various factors what I shall refer to as empiricism, which forms the foundation of the experiential knowledge acquired by an individual through his involvement in an experience. I do not believe that defining empiricism or the knowledge derived from it is possible. Clarifying both concepts can be achieved by considering the example of reading a novel about losing a mother. The experience is vastly distinct for an individual who has undergone such a loss compared to someone who has not (provided that both individuals have lived and encountered similar circumstances of motherhood. The matter becomes more complicated when we consider the difference in these experiences that we believe to be the simplest). The same applies to someone who reads a text or watches a movie that touches on what he has previously experienced. The individual’s ability to immerse themselves in reading a specific text or watching a specific movie and emerge from them with a profound understanding of their details becomes greater than someone whose experiences lie outside of them. This allows for the possibility of expression beyond the apparent meaning of language without being subject to its restrictions.
I mentioned these two steps with the intention of, on the one hand, overcoming the problem of sanctifying language as the main determinant of meaning, and on the other hand, to delve into the primary argument of the article that revolves around the voices of literature. In addition, the primary argument of the article can be formulated as follows: Providing that we do not intentionally seek to listen to a literary work, we may wind up talking to ourselves without realizing what may fall outside the framework of what we are familiar with. In this particular context, it is important to note that listening does not simply mean engaging in close reading (although it is indeed a fundamental aspect of it). instead, it encompasses a broader understanding of the various contexts that surround a piece of work and involves critically examining its connections with reality. This listening entails recognizing that we – as recipients of discourse – play an essential role in the production processes of discourse, including enunciation, representation, or frameworks that enable all of these elements.
Nonetheless, prior to examining the dimensions of the main argument and its problems, it is necessary to delve into the empirical knowledge in literature to justify its choice and understand the underlying principles assumed by the article. It is also necessary to note that the subsequent discussion is based on reflections and investigations pertaining specifically to the genre of the novel, thus the perception of the literary work is mostly conceived as an imaginative narrative work.
How does literature change our understanding of the world?
I start by rejecting two prevailing schools of thought in conceptualizing literary work. Firstly, the school that grants literary work sovereignty and independence. According to this school perspective, the processes of understanding and interpretation of the work solely revolve around its internal elements, without any external references. An example of this is Eikhenbaum’s formalism, which emphasizes the necessity of adopting a literary science that is independent and factual, highlighting the important of this science to disregarding the problems posed by social sciences as it is solely a literary discipline. In addition, Barthes’s structuralism partially plays a role in this context, since the structure of the work is understood as determining meaning alongside its determination of interrelations within the narrative and the uses of the narrative parts. In both examples, the analysis focuses on the literature in the literary text.
Calvino’s article Why Do We Read the Classics? provides a clear example of this school of thought. In his analysis, Calvino presents fourteen descriptive definitions of the classic work, with his omission of an analysis of the connection of the classic work to its historical context or its impact on readers during its time. Specifically, Calvino analyzed the classics as if they have always held their esteemed status, disregarding the specific socio-economic forces that contribute to shaping the production and reception of works. Furthermore, he analyzed the works without examining the authority involved in the process of demarcating the titles of the literary canon from which Calvino draws his definitions of classics.
The main concern regarding the argument of this article is the ahistorical tendency within these schools which creates a perception that the text exists in isolation, elevating its importance above all. This is a result of literary works interacting with one another and with reality within pre-established formulas, as if they are swimming in their own world! Literary work on its own does not hold historical importance except within its place in the history of literature alone.
The second dominant school of thought is the one that opposes the sovereignty and independence of literary works. This school indicates that the work is a pure manifestation of the historical circumstances within which it is created. In other words, literary works are viewed as a mirror reflecting its historical reality without delving into the unique characteristics of the work in addressing the reality or manipulating it through its tools and frameworks. A relatively early example of the demarcation of this school is so-called social-scientific criticism, described by Hyman in 1947 as criticism that “begins with Vico who explained authors in terms of their historical conditions in La Scienza Nuova, and continues in Herder’s view of literature as primarily the product of national and temporal conditions.”
Similar deterministic approaches can also be seen in streams of Feminist, Marxist, and Cultural criticism of literature. For example, Susan Lanser’s analysis of the obstacles encountered by academic Feminist criticism by women of color, underprivileged women, and lesbians. These women have expressed the issues related to authority and representation within the academicized criticism based on the positionality of the privileged. In other words, academic Feminist criticism has overshadowed the conditions and experiences of women who lack privilege by focusing on certain literary works over others. The currents can also be represented by Barbara Foley’s presentation on the focus of Marxist literary criticism on socio-economic classes, allowing readers to thoroughly explore the literary work through the sovereign structures within it. In addition to these approaches, the Cultural criticism considers the literary text as cultural for being “a dynamic moment that mediates between society and the individual, between the past and the future.”
These currents share the belief that the literary work is a “product” of its contexts and circumstances. Their main focus is to study various aspects of the literary work in a manner that reflects these contexts and circumstances. However, this approach poses a great challenge that these currents face, as it reduces the work to a mere factual document through which circumstances are extrapolated and deprives the work of its transformative power. Despite starting with the text, it always ends focusing on external factors. The problem becomes evident as most of these currents are rooted primarily in realistic literature, which often involves a specific relationship between the work and the reality it represents where it is possible to explore its dimensions.
Escaping the consequences of the previous issues requires reimagining the literary work beyond its role as an independent world or a mere reflection of its reality. It also requires realizing that a literary work does not exist on its own at any stages of its formation, production, or reception. Instead, its existence itself is a relational existence. From this standpoint, I propose prioritizing the literature-reader relationship in approaching literary work, which I will adopt within the scope of this article.
The literature-reader relationship centers around the literary work as an arena which the author and the reader share in terms of imagination and creation of meaning. Literary work includes what can be called the dialogic or dialectical dimension. The first aspect explains how the reader tries to impose a kind of totality through the elements and themes he perceives while reading. This totality is based on the reader’s knowledge and preconceptions regarding the process of reality in general and literature in particular. The second aspect of dialogic dimension may empower a literary work to fulfill its work, as it can remove preconceived notions and knowledge by dissolving the connections the reader is familiar with. Since examining and clarifying this point requires returning to the main argument of the article, it is appropriate here to discuss again the empirical knowledge and the voices that should be listened to.
Voices of literature and the shift of meaning
The first consequence of prioritizing the literature-reader relationship is comprehending that the assistance of mediums is our only method to perceive reality, regardless of its form. In the case of a literary text, it is clear that language plays a pivotal role in mediation, therefore its criticism in the process of understanding is also pivotal. However, engaging in currents of criticism, such as the above mentioned, will not lead to a specific conception of literature-reader relationship. Currents of criticism should be replaced by criticism of concepts and intellectual categories, so the dialogical interaction becomes more clear.
In general, this criticism combines the perception of literature as a cultural product belonging to specific historical circumstances and as a means of addressing reality more than depicting it in a simple sense. Then, questions of intentionality in the text are of utmost importance: Why did the author choose to cut these dimensions from his literary world? Did he choose to depict these dimensions with alleged objectivity, or was he evoking it manipulatively? How can the work be observed among other works belonging to the same era and place, regardless of what the works address? Is the author’s use of language critical or normalized?
Likewise, when the reader delves into the work loaded with preconceived knowledge and concepts, their engagement is limited to the dialogical process to the degree that they let go of objectifying the literary work’s frameworks and their qualification to read the literary work as a different world that requires a closer examination. The work may reveal a fundamentally different experience than what the reader is familiar with or has experienced, which means that they must make an intentional effort to place themselves within this different framework in order to understand the work. In addition to the points mentioned earlier, we should consider the literary work as not a reflection of reality as much as addressing it. This means that the reader must extrapolate and study the literary, linguistic and historical aspects of the work in an attempt to understand the world through which the experience is expressed. The crucial point is that language does not corner a single meaning of experience and it is not necessary for experience to be perceived through the surface of language. Rather, it should also be considered part of everything that surpasses the limitations of language and a means of entering worlds we had not previously perceived. One of the usually overlooked values when the question of the value of literature is raised intellectually and culturally is present within here. Literature holds a significant position in shifting the angles and patterns of thinking through which we are adapted to understand the world by its ability to provide us with experiential knowledge. This means granting us the opportunity to have various experiences which would reestablish ourselves in a unique way. As a consequence, we will view the world differently once we begin to listen to works, forsaking passive readings.
The jeopardy of the illusion that literary works throughout history contain a latent human essence which enables readers wherever they are to recognize the works is evident in such an approach. This is due to the fact that understanding and listening to the voices of literature requires familiarity with its history and the consequent criticism of its contextual reading methodologies. This implies that the positionality of the works and their authors is an essential part of understanding and researching and is not merely an addition to the independence and sovereignty of the work and what it entails. Therefore, even if we consider the existence of a human essence, its manifestations across times and places vary, requiring the reader to make efforts to grasp its meanings, lest they merely rededicate themselves.
There is no doubt, reading literary work as a unique case and an expressive moment in which self, society, time and place intersect is an initial step towards listening to the voice emanating from it without submitting to representations and mediations. It also becomes evident that readers need to engage with the text actively and purposefully within these intersections, in order to deepen their comprehension of the work and expand their own conceptual frameworks forcing it to move away from the narrowness of familiar meanings and towards the expanse of potential meanings. To have a keen ear means to abandon our own perspectives as much as possible and actively listen to the speaker within their frameworks and meanings in the best way possible. Through this, we can begin to recognize the extraordinary nature of the work and begin to criticize ourselves in a way that reshapes our relationships with others and the world.
T1683
