LITERATURE exists as a highly dynamic element: subversive and insurrectionary, yet at times equally obedient and conformist to social conventions. French critic Jacques Ranciere (2006) describes the great extent to which literature is intimately attached to politics as comparable to a strongly resilient relationship where “literature does politics by simply being literature,” (Politics of Literature, p. 3-4). We can hardly deny the presence of fundamental political element core to works of literature – whether we choose to acknowledge its capacity is really another matter altogether.
Perhaps an intuitive beginning would be to establish some key definitions as a basis for discussion: that this specific concept of “politics” in question exists beyond artificial constructions of society which readers generally associate to characters of “government” and “public sector”: bureaucracy, systems, rulership and the like. Rather, it considers the intricate connections of power and authority between various social groups and attitudes. An area of concern, thus, is the predicament of what we refer to as “minority” – not necessarily a purely numerical minority, but in general collectives that suffer from misrepresentation (or none at all) and have little to no political influences as opposed to the “majority”. This is exceedingly different from the principles of liberal humanism, which concern attempts to elicit literary value grounded in objectivity and an isolationist position detached from all worldly influences. For instance, New Critics W.K. Wimsatt and M.C. Beardsley (1954) highlight that the essence of literature exists in a sovereign sphere of language, independent of exoteric pressures:
…[The text] is not the critic’s own and not the author’s… it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. Critical inquiries are not settled by consulting the oracle. (The Intentional Fallacy, p. 3-6)
In all interests of a publication whose subject-matter is indeed political literature, we reject this.
THERE are several foundational assumptions to be made. Here, the first axiomatic premise is therefore that literary value is largely grounded in the political significance it encapsulates. This is an understanding that literature and politics cannot be perceived as an exclusive, separable duality – it is mutually complementary, and this is the lens we ought to apply – well, at least insofar as we talk about political literature.
Admittedly, given the prevalence and widespread application of liberal humanist approaches to literature, particularly in modern systems of education, the utterly foreign notion of evaluating literary expression by a political metric is very understandably alien to us. Yet, there are significantly viable reasons for such a position. Let’s start from the basic premise that literature in general fulfills a rather functional purpose of conveying the complex nuances of the human condition: as a unique manifestation of behavior, thought, emotion, our interactions with self and other. In fact, this characterization of literature and its utility as an exhibition of sociological tendencies and feelings (which, a liberal humanist would assert, are universal properties of humanity and transcendental to practical implications) is one we’ve been exposed to somewhat frequently, especially when put in comparison to my current attempts to steer literature towards some form of heterotelic, political conclusion.
The construction of our human identity and associations in society, however, is to a considerably large extent defined by the very society and social circumstances in which this process of meaning-making occurs within, since the facilitative institutions and structures that serve to assist in that precise development inevitably nudge us towards certain inclinations as well (For example, schools and teaching, media, the legislative and judicial framework – and so on; all of which shape our existence and beliefs). Therefore, any attempt to discuss literature and literary importance in can effectively be an extrapolation to a very political angle
Secondly, if literature determines what is natural, and politics are primarily interactions within a network of power, then logically the powerful dictate the narrative of society through control of literary expression, because they maintain a monopoly of coercive power over the mechanisms of state, including the authority to censorship and other such regulatory measures. These are in essence political instruments whose jurisdiction extends far beyond the boundaries of literature, and in order to judge the value of something literary, it is equally, if not more, critical and practical to consider their resultant political products as well. Similarly, feminist critic Dale Splender (1981) views the prominence of patriarchy as a direct consequence of literature:
…The monopoly over language is one of the means by which males have ensured their own primacy, and consequently have ensured the invisibility or ‘other’ nature of females… For females, the only semantic space in English is negative. (Man Made Language, p. 12, p. 161)
UNSURPRISINGLY, a lot, if not all, of the aforementioned are extremely debatable, but necessary nonetheless to inaugurate some launchpad of sorts for further propositions.
Sources
Ranciere, J. (2006). Politics of literature. (pp. 3-4). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Splender, D. (1981). Man made language. (p. 12, 161). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sg/books/about/Man_made_language.html?id=4Vc9AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (1954). The intentional fallacy. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Retrieved from http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/Fallacy.htm
Through the Coloured Glass 