From: Kharin (kharin@kharin.com)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 05:12:01 MDT
Hmmm, and indeed, hmmmm.
I think a certain degree of scepticism may be required here (more due to the evident bias of the reviewer than the reviewed). The general problem with much literary theory is that for something concerned with cultural studies it runs the risk of being overwhelmingly concerned cultural production rather than how a culture actually manifests itself. In other words, concerning oneself with whether the theme of the interconnection of organisms in Victorian literature is to be primarily understood in Marxist or Darwinian terms is perhaps simply not very interesting in either case. Similarly, whether sexual dynamics within a novel are understood in feminist, Freudian or Darwinian terms is also not especially interesting (largely because the answer to these can essentially be summarised as 'choose your favourite prejudice' since it is by definition impossible to falsify any thesis here). In any of these cases, the theoretical perspective brough to bear changes the terms in which literature was produced but says ra
ther less about the nature of the text itself (with the possible example of Easterlin who sounds potentially interesting).
One example of how Darwinian theory is likely to be interchangeable with other forms of theory is the role of the author. Both post-structuralist and Freudian schools accept that meanings may be manifested in a work of art irrespective of authorial intention. Such a view is fairly sensible within the context of either of those schools, but I'd be interested to know how it applies in a Darwinian context (if we are to speak of Darwinian interpretations of novels whose authors, like Pushkin, were not familiar with the theory of natural selection).
Regarding Caroll's critique of post-structuralism, I would be interested to know what this actually consists of. The difficulty is likely to be that post-structuralism and evolutionary psychology are not especially likely to actually 'speak' with regard to each other. The former is concerned with how the characteristics of language manifest themselves, the latter is concerned with how the origins of language manifest themselves. I'm not sure that those two really have much in common and are as likely to be compatible as incompatible, regardless of how much the possibility of compatibility might horrify the prejudices of either group.
---- This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29575> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 05:12:36 MDT