[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.e.it has as its starting point the end product, the last text, asits given knowledge, and treats earlier texts, with which its critical analysis starts, eachin turn, as written with the final product before the eyes, as the final end, the telos,towards which all these texts in a more and more perfecting fashion strive.Theyexist, according to this view, in order to make possible the realization of the end product,the final text.The crucial consequences of this mode of reading are thus that thetexts read are regarded as moments in an evolutionary process thus creating, as weshall see, a continuity where none necessarily exists and thereby different texts specificityare systematically played down or ignored, denying  the relations between their concepts,objects and conditions of existence (Savage, 1983:29, italics mine).Now, it would be rash to deny that there may be a continuity between texts writtenby the same author, but the point is that this does not occur because the author sointends, intentions may fail:  It is always possible that he may not have said what hemeant (Searle, 1977:202, italics mine, with an approving nod from Derrida, 1988c:6077).Neither are an author s intentions necessarily  just one coherent thing from beginningto end of the creative process (Dutton, 1987: 196), intentions  change and grow(Beardsley, 1981:458), and especially so it is reasonable to suspect over longerperiods of time.15 So, this continuity is not, then, something of which the author isin full command from the outset it follows rather from the logical properties ofhis concepts, theory(ies), etc.Similarly  and obviously, one is tempted to addcontinuity may exist between texts not written by the same author.And here, too,The teleological mode of reading 91command is not in the hands or minds of the authors, but of the concepts, theories,etc.In both cases we are dealing with texts inherent properties.But, as MichaelRiffaterre has pointed out, the intentions of the author should not be entirely dismissed.While agreeing in general with the positions on this question presented above, headds the observation that in the case of a stated intention in the text,  the explanationshould consist in showing the effect of the statement of intention , the result of whichmay be  that two simultaneous readings are called for (Riffaterre, 1983:5, italics mine),thus implying possible rifts in the text.Now, the function of the focusing on the author s intention is, in the case of theteleological mode of reading as in other cases of intentionalism, precisely to drawattention away from the specific properties of the text, thus reinforcing the tendencyof obliterating the individual text; as Samuel Weber says, its function is  in actualcritical practice to obscure the question of the text itself  (Weber, 1986: 199),instead generalizing critical practice to cover the works of an author, where theauthor, as Foucault observes,constitutes a principle of unity in writing where any unevenness of productionis ascribed to changes caused by evolution, maturation, or outside influence.In addition, the author serves to neutralize the contradictions that are foundin a series of texts.Governing this function is the belief that there mustbe at a particular level of an author s thought, of his conscious orunconscious desire a point where contradictions are resolved, where theincompatible elements can be shown to relate to one another or to coherearound a fundamental and originating contradiction.(Foucault, 1977:128, italics mine; cf.also Wimsatt, 1968:211)Now, to the extent that the author s intentions function as a  principle of unity ,to that extent his works becomes a  system that compensates for the deficienciesof all others,  balancing out their deficits, integrating their exclusions (Weber,1986:198).It gets  the status of a self-contained, homogeneous, and meaningfulobject (Weber, 1986:199).The text itself, with its own particular qualities, becomesan endangered species and especially so when the reliance upon the author s intentionsis combined with a teleologically inspired mode of reading.To this could furthermore be added an observation concerning the theologicalconnotations that might be involved here.Kenneth Burke draws attention to this,pointing out that:  Creation implies authority in the sense of originator, the designeror author of the things created (Burke, 1970:174), and furthermore that  the authorhas come to mean  production ex nihilo& a  dim analogue of Creation  (Burke,1970:8; cf.also Barthes, 1982a:146 and Moi, 1985:8).16 This  romantization ofthe author will of course affect the reading process in a certain, determined direction,reinforcing the illusion that the text is spontaneously produced  in isolation as itwere, with no internal determination of its own (cf., for example, Frye, 1973:96fand Kermode, 1961:1 29); the text is an expression of the author s inner self asthought in romanticist expressive criticism, aptly summarized by M.H.Abrams:92 The reading of theoretical textsA work of art is essentially the internal made external, resulting from a creativeprocess operating under the impulse of feeling, and embodying the combinedproduct of the poet s perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.The primary sourceand subject matter of a poem, therefore, are the attributes and actions ofthe poets own mind; or if aspects of the external world, then these only asthey are converted from fact to poetry by the feelings and operations ofthe poet s mind.(Abrams, 1971:22)One might, through a change of a few words in this summary, generalize andelucidate its relevance for other texts than the poetic; viz.(and I italicize the changesmade):A work of social science is essentially the internal made external, resultingfrom a creative process operating under the impulse of thoughts, and embodyingthe combined product of the writer s perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.Theprimary source and subject matter of a text, therefore, are the attributesand actions of the writer s own mind; or if aspects of the external world,then these only as they are converted from fact to text by the thoughts andoperations of the writer s mind.Now, this possible drift between  creation and  production is also an indicationof why, in certain theories, such importance is laid upon the distinction betweenproduction and creation.Production is associated with a demand for raw materials, intheir turn determining the possibilities and impossibilities of the product, whilecreation, as in the quotations from Burke and Abrams, is ex nihilo no stringsattached [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]