My week three brio

Roland Barthes said, “If I agree to judge a text according to pleasure, I cannot go on to say: this one is good, this one is bad” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 109).  This resonated with me on a deep level while reading all three of our theorists for today: Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes and Pierre Macherey. This reading was like being operated on. I am totally and completely unfamiliar with these kind of texts – so much so that I would pick up the textbook and put it down after reading about two pages. If I were to judge these texts on the basis of pleasure during those first two pages – with a long journey ahead – the innate pleasure would have been limited.

De Saussure, the first theorist I read, was likely also the most difficult to understand and relate to of the three. Although, two statements he made would prove helpful in my analysis of the remaining texts:

“Thought, chaotic by nature, has to become ordered in the process of its decomposition” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 6).

This statement helped me understand what De Saussure was trying to communicate: that our communication is a result of our inherently chaotic thoughts, put into order. So that’s what I’m trying to do in this blog – launching an investigation into the wide, wide spectrum of unclear thoughts I had after starting my theoretical journey.

The other statement:

“Everything that has been said up to this point boils down to this: in language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only difference without positive terms” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 10).

Ok, first: what does he mean by “positive terms”????

Am I missing something obvious, and right in front of me (which happens often) or are you wondering too? It could be a slew of things.

Aside from that, I think this statement prefaces the rest of the texts well, and actually analyzes them! Generally, my struggle (and the reason this is comparable to starting an operation) is that I (painfully) don’t understand a lot of what these theorists are saying – about language – because of the language they are using!

Moving forward, the next reading was by Pierre Macherey, whom I understood slightly better than de Saussure. My favorite quote from Macherey, which he says early in the chapter, possibly to reassure conflicted aspiring theorists like myself is, “To know the work, we must move outside it” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 20).

I am outside of the work (understanding these theorists) at the moment – that’s for sure. But I think this applies across the board. I can think of lots of stories and situations in life where removing yourself from the situation proves to be helpful in long-term decision making and understanding. But is this possible in the long run? Can the theorists we’re reading remove themselves from their own field and texts?

Macherey talks a lot about questions like these, of which I have many! One of the most beautifully understandable statements he makes is, “Questions lead to more questions” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 19).

Macherey also puts an emphasis on questions in the context of theory. His “Second question” at the end of the chapter is: "The work is realized within the revelation of its secret. The simultaneity of the two questions defines a minute rupture, minutely distinct from a continuity. Is it the rupture which must be discussed” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 20).

I think I’m beginning to have a revelation of the secret of this work. Am I beginning to realize that the secret is really that the text applies to itself???? So far, this entire analysis has used the text to analyze itself. I have a feeling this is what theory is all about.

Concluding with Roland Barthes, I began to understand that theory telling us about more theory (and ourselves) is really what’s happening here (at least I think). One word Barthes brings up a few times is “Brio” – continuing with the emphasis he places on pleasure as I discussed at the beginning of this blog. I think the brio of these texts is realizing that “boldly skipping” while reading, not reading everything with the same intensity and imposing surface abrasions against the text (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 108) are OK!!

My favorite quote of all the readings so far is from Barthes:

“The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 111).

Whaaaaaaat?!???!!!! Yes!

Therefore, my brio really is that my body pursues its own (critical) ideas about these issues. When I first started reading, I was nervous about being confused and not knowing how to correctly interpret, but then realized the pleasure is in interpreting it in my own special way – as cheezy as that sounds – for my pleasure comes from “when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do” (Easthope and McGowan 1992, 111).

Peace,

-UA191