Is there a politics of literature? If so, how can it be defined? If not, why not? Illustrate your essay with specific examples.

Literature has evolved as a popular and influential form of communication through the ages in all societies and cultures. Many theorists believe that literature; particularly the media often portray stereotypical images of society, which could lead to loss of individual identities. Some theorists argue that meaning is often ambiguous and cannot be clearly defined as carrying the same message to all readers. The context within which both written and spoken language are used has been argued to determine how an individual will interpret a written or spoken message. It has also been claimed; that it is impossible to define how each individual infers meanings on a personal basis with the emphasis of meaning inherent within individual imagination. Here, I shall draw examples from several theorists in order to show the possible limitations of determining meaning from literature and the consequences associated with the presumption of interpretation.
It has been suggested that all forms of language use, whether written or spoken, are fundamentally ideological interactions. Ideological in the sense that interpreting a text involves an individual to initially and often unknowingly, incorporate common sense assumptions and automatically adopt an appropriate or expected social relation. The linguist Norman Fairclough has conducted extensive research in this area and concludes that “the way we communicate both influences and is influenced by the structures and forces of contemporary social institutions.” (Fairclough 2001) The common sense assumptions Fairclough is referring to involves individuals unwittingly referring back to previous texts they have experienced and incorporating this prior knowledge into their current interpretation. Fairclough argues, that without this prior knowledge, in most cases a text would otherwise appear incoherent to an individual. Fairclough suggests in order for an individual to make sense of a text he has to initially decide how the pieces of text fit together, before deciding how the text fits in with the individual’s previous experience of the world. Fairclough terms this process “Members Resource”.
This can be demonstrated using an example taken from a magazine article; “Presents with Presence” This was the heading for an article in “Family Circle” magazine issued on 12 December 2000. From this background information, we can infer that the initial “present” is referring to Christmas presents due to the date that the article has been published. Secondly, we can then assume that the initial presents are in some way more appealing than normal. Assuming that readers of this type of article will also be aware of the type of article likely to be published we could also conclude that this is the opening of a piece of writing which will suggest ideas for different or unusual Christmas presents.
In connection with these ideas, Fairclough also suggests that readers approach texts with preconceived notions of social issues and relationships. Fairclough terms this ability “inferencing”. This involves readers making assumptions about people or situations involved in the text, automatically attaching stereotypical tags based on what is thought to be socially acceptable.
An example of this would be newspaper article concerning a lost child. Words might often be used such as “distraught”, “shocked”, “devastated” to describe how the child’s parents are dealing with the situation. As readers, we would expect words such as these to be used in an article of this nature. Fairclough describes this process as readers placing social expectancies on individuals whom they are reading about. It would be thought of unusual and possibly socially unacceptable if the parents were described as being “calm” or “happy” for example.
The media with the inclusion of photographs often extends this. Although not conventional written discourse, added photographic footage may add to the categorisation of those written about. The assumptions regarding expected social relations are however based on further assumptions of an “ideal reader.” Fairclough claims that readers ideally presuppose information in relation to texts, based on what is thought to be morally acceptable behaviour. In relation to the example above, it is assumed that parents will be “distraught” or “shocked” if their child is abducted.
Fairclough claims that the media often uses the assumption theory and may be seen to manipulate readers by using discourse that could be seen to persuade a reader’s viewpoint in a particular direction. The media is a global phenomenon, which is generally accessible and often unavoidable in our daily lives. It is possible that readers could be positioned in order to adopt a particular viewpoint of that intended by the media. The scale of media output alone allows extensive coverage of homogeneous topical issues to be accessed by large global audiences. Critical discourse analysis allows texts to be analysed in detail to uncover uses of language, which may be seen as manipulative.
It has been found that the mass media often use language as a tool to sensationalize news stories. This involves careful consideration to wording and how these are linked together. This is often referred to as “positioning” of the media; readers are led to believe one side of a story due to how it has been reported. Newspapers also hold the monopoly concerning which sources will be represented, which may not always express the opinion of all social groups or parties involved. An example can be shown with the newspaper heading “Quarry Load Shedding Problem.” This was the title of an article about lorries without cover sheets shedding stones whilst driving through a village. The headline uses “nominalization” to present the process as a noun leaving the reader confused as to who is responsible for this situation. The reader is unclear as to who or what is causing the problem. Is someone or something i.e. a company responsible for the loads that are shed? or are the lorries shedding loads? Nominalization of verbs can often mean crucial parts of the process are left unspecified as the verb is represented as an entity. (Fairclough 2001) The language of the media in this context may be seen as a powerful tool to subvert events in order to sensationalize stories, leading to higher newspaper sales.
The context in which language is used has been argued to determine meaning. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida developed the theory “Signature Event Context” based on this. Derrida has argued that a word is classified as a word because it can be repeated and understood in the absence of what it is referring to and in the absence of a determined meaning. For example an individual can utter the word “bread” without any bread being present; the recipient of the word would understand the given meaning. However, the meaning to each individual may be slightly ambiguous. To some it may mean bread that is eaten, to others it could mean the slang word for money. Derrida claims that this word could be understood equally without an individual uttering the word, i.e. if written down. The written word “bread” would also have a meaning to each individual reading it although; there is not any actual bread (either money or food) in the room. However, it cannot be guaranteed each would infer the same meaning. Derrida argues that this ambiguity of meaning prevents a word from being categorically given a unique meaning, as we cannot be sure the word will transmit the same meaning to each individual. The context of usage cannot be pinned down as this will constantly be changing according to who is using language with whom and how.
Derrida states, “We have seen, the nonpresent remaining of a differential mark cut off from it’s alleged “production” or origin.” (Derrida 1972) Here, Derrida is claiming that the person who has written or spoken it or the person who hears or reads it does not determine the meaning of a word, spoken or written. The meaning of a word is what is left over after the departure of the person who used it in each context. The meaning will always be unique to each context in which used and cannot be categorically labelled. Derrida continues that meaning is linked with individual experience, which will always leave a gap between language and meaning. Each person has their own fears, fantasies and desires associated with each communication, which contributes to how each experience becomes meaningful. Individual experience will always prevail above shared experience regardless of how intimate the communication is.
Further to this, Derrida claims, “Every sign can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nosaturable fashion” (Derrida 1972) Here, Derrida is arguing that a spoken word can be repeated to another individual by the hearer in a different context with or without referring to the original speaker. This means that the original spoken word has been cited. By contrast an individual could point to an object i.e. a slice of bread, the hearer would still understand the meaning of the communication regardless that no words have been spoken. In this case, the word cannot be cited, as it was not uttered in the first place. This would indicate a sign was used to convey meaning instead of a spoken or written word; therefore, the word or the sign can be used in infinite contexts.
This does not mean that a word transcends the settings in which it is uttered. A word does not have a real meaning that is independent from how it used in one setting or another. However, this does mean that we need to interpret the meaning of each utterance from the context within which it used. There is not a single unified meaning of a word that ties together all of the ways in which a word is used. This applies to all words and signs equally. Derrida terms this “citationality.” All words are repeated and repeatable. The criteria, which makes a word a word, is that it has been spoken or written before and can be spoken or written again, each time in a different context by a different individual. Understanding of words and signs is possible only if we have had previous experience of the word or sign. Derrida argues that if a word could not be reused in any future context, it would not qualify as a word. This would also apply to a word that depended on the knowledge of whom spoke or wrote it originally to infer meaning. We do not need to know who originally used the word “bread” and for what purposes to use and understand the word in everyday language.
Derrida goes on to explain that language use is made up of three components. A “locution” is an utterance i.e. “bread” An “Illocution” is the meaning of the utterance i.e. “would you like some bread?” or “there is the bread.” This indicates to another individual that some form of action has to be taken. Lastly, a “per locution” is the effect of the utterance i.e. someone taking a slice of bread that has been offered to them. Derrida has contested work in regards to this by another theorist John L Austin. Austin claims that an individual would understand an utterance by referring to what a speaker meant (would you like some bread?) and what a hearer did in response (taking a slice of bread.) Derrida argues that Austin fails to recognize that an utterance, no matter how “pure” is always similar to writing and will always be ambiguous. The action of taking bread when offered with a single utterance “bread” is understood in that particular context because of the context. This like all other uses of language is unique and cannot be categorized as typical.
The question of meaning of utterances has often become the object of feminist criticism. The significance of defining a word and categorizing meaning can often mislead individuals as to issues of identity. This can include gender identity. Judith Butler is one of many who have conducted extensive research in this area. In her book “Gender Trouble – Feminism and the Subversion of Identity” (1990) Butler claims the word “woman” can lead to assumptions of common identity rather than individualism. Butler states that the gendered term “woman” fails to encapsulate an individuals various identities such as ethnicity, culture, sexual, class and regional modalities. (Butler 1990)
Butler argues this renders woman universally as the same with the failure of identity recognition politically assuming that a woman is a hegemonic unified label. Butler argues that this labelling used as a basis for feminism and incorporates a “universal structure of patriarchy or masculine domination.” (Butler 1990) Butler argues that feminism has failed to distinguish individual identities by asserting a “binary” view of pre cut gender categorizations. The assertion that women are a group with common interests, Butler argues has performed “an unwitting regulation and reification of gender relations” (Butler 1990). The feminist view has divided gender notions into two categories – male and female, rather than opening up possibilities for a person to individualize their identity. This Butler states has led to feminism closing down the options for women to do this. Butler claims that feminists have limited choice of identity after rejecting the notion that biology is destiny. She argues that instead feminists have developed an account of patriarchal culture, with the assumption that masculine and feminine genders would be built upon this. This concept therefore, allows little room for differentiation or resistance and remains static. Destiny consequently would remain gendered, as would individualism. Butlers argues that ideologically, gender should be seen as a fluid variable which shifts and changes according to context and time rather than remaining stagnant. Butler qualifies her argument by referring to gendered comparisons that individuals accept naturally i.e. that they “feel” either like a woman or like a man. This she argues shows that the experience of a gendered cultural identity is considered an achievement. (Butler 1990) Butlers approach is based on sexual desire between males and females. She states that natural desire for the opposite sex categorises individuals as either male or female limiting free forming multiple identity shifts. Butler calls for a “free floating”, flexible gender with variable desirable patterns, which are not “caused” by other stable factors.
Butler likens gender to a performance; “it’s what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are.” (Butler 1990) This could be compared with Derridas theory regarding individuality of language use according to context. Meaning and identity could be seen as a flexible variable according to the situation in which an individual is interacting and with whom.
Butler also argues that fixed identities have become natural to individuals within society. People are unaware of the static identities with which they have fallen into. Gendered identities have become the acceptable form of expression within our culture today. Mass media could possibly be classified as the ultimate culprit for portraying the categorization of gender. Global images frequently show gendered identities, which could be seen as influential iconography. The “semiotic war” of the images shown by influential media could be seen as a step towards reducing gendered identities. Butler calls for subversive action in the present to help condense the classification. She states if gendered identities are lessened and become less rigid, and then the proliferation of gender will become more accessible and natural.
Butler’s views regarding gendered performance she says should be adapted from sexual according to our biological gender to a unique performance discerned by the context an individual is involved in. This she says should help to reduce male/female categorisations and change gender “norms” and the binary understanding of masculinity and femininity. This could be seen as supporting the notion that identity is a “performance” and not an “essence” which would allow our identities to express the “dramatic effect” of our performances rather than the cause. (Butler 1990) The ideas put forward by Butler re-emphasise the theory that identity need not be confined to one category but is open to the possibility of multiple variables according to context.
Julia Kristeva has also written extensively in regards to limitations of linguistic theory. Her writings have proved to be important reference to feminist arguments although she herself does not consider her work to be prolifically feminist. In particular “Women’s Time” explores feminist theory, providing arguments and counterarguments in connection with individual identity prevalent in language use. Kristeva argues that female subjectivity seems to be linked with cyclical time and with motherhood, reproduction and the genetic chain. However, Kristeva also claims that the period of history an individual and language use remain linear. Kristeva argues that emphasis should be placed on the “multiplicity” of female expressions to avoid homogenous use of the term “woman” with the insistence placed upon the recognition of sexual differences.
Kristeva criticizes classical semiotics claiming that it does not have the ability to deal with desire, play or transgression from the social code. “The science of linguistics has no way of apprehending anything in language which belongs not with the social contract but with play, pleasure and desire.” (Kristeva 1979) Kristeva uses this argument to claim that language, as we know it, does not contain words, which can be used to describe some personal experiences and emotions. Kristeva states that social constraints such as family, limit the possibilities of communication of experience. Kristeva proposes a new form of semiotics to resolve the problem. Kristeva terms this “semiology”. This process would involve a signifying process of language rather than a sign system. Semiology would be based upon the concepts genotext and phenotext. The former would include the body of the bio-physiological process constrained by the social code, which would not be reducible within language. The latter would exist within the phenotext, which would be the perceivable signifying system.
Kristeva’s theory would allow individuals to break from the constraint of traditional roles inherent in language. Kristeva argues for women to defy the norm categorized by society and to “find specific discourse closer to the body and emotions, to the unnameable repressed by the social contract.” (Kristeva 1979) An individual is capable of multiple identities, which are traditionally suppressed as a result of social conventions, which needs to be changed. Kristeva argues that communication traditionally is seen as a “universal and unifying tool” which constrains language users possible multiple identities. Kristeva’s work has been important material for Anglo-American feminist theorists. However, she has rejected several views adopted by feminists. Kristeva does not reject the notion of motherhood as has been suggested by some feminist theorists. Kristeva alternatively claims that a new discourse should be found for the purpose of maternity. Kristeva also rejects the feminist notion of a uniquely “feminine” language. Kristeva does not agree with feminists who maintain that language and culture are essentially patriarchal and must somehow be abandoned. Kristeva’s argument here is that culture and language are instead, the domain of speaking individuals and women fall into the category of speaking individuals. Kristeva endorses the feminist notion, which refuses to choose identity over difference, alternatively exploring multiple identities. Kristeva’s work presents ideas that individual language users lack the ability to represent thought, action and emotion and as a result, “has no recourse but to make meaning through representations in the body.” (Kristeva 1979)
The stigma of masculine/feminine categorisation has been an area of concern for many literary critics. Virginia Woolf considered “androgyny of writers to be a desirable quality. Her own work has been the centre of literary analysis concerning gender classification of the writer. The male/female style of writing debate was particularly poignant for female writers of the early nineteenth century. This was so as it was not considered a suitable profession for women. As a result, many female writers of this period wrote under a male pseudonym. It has been argued that the learned characteristics of masculinity and femininity always co-exist to some extent in any individual. (Monteith 1986)
Intertextuality has become a prevalent notion for female writers since originally coined by Kristeva in 1966. The concept of “borrowing” and transforming from other texts when writing or a readers reference of previously read texts when reading another has become an established method of writing particularly for female writers. Kristeva claims, “The notion of intertextuality replaces the notion of intersubjectivity.” (Kristeva 1979) This notion is based on a theory that meaning is not transferred directly from writer to reader but instead mediated through “codes” imparted to the reader by other texts. The theory of intertextuality therefore supports the concept that the meaning of a piece of literature is not found in that piece of work but in the prior knowledge of readers.
Intertextuality is used frequently in popular culture, particularly the media. Television, novels and films frequently adopt this method to add depth to the fictional reality portrayed in the medium. Characters from television soap operas may often refer to popular fictional characters ie “superman” or well-known literary novels. Comedy sketch shows often rely on intertextuality to represent comical versions of other television shows or characters as a source of humour.
The meaning derived from a text cannot be categorised as a unified meaning for all readers or listeners. Meaning is a personal experience unique to the individual and dependant on time and context. Critical analysis’s has attempted to represent both sides of the argument and has presented some interesting ideas regarding personal interpretation. Power can be exercised through language use with careful consideration towards grammatical placement of words. The mass media continue to maintain a global dominance over representation of popular culture, world events and breaking news. This representation is often the fundamental method of access to information for the majority of individuals today. Many are unaware of the possible manipulative methods that may be used to represent this information to the general public.
Context of situation has been argued to be a major contributor towards the meaning of language. Personal depiction of texts or utterances remains ambiguous to external parties. We cannot assume that language, whether spoken or written conveys the exact same meaning to all who receive it. Individuality plays a key role in interpretation, which cannot be categorised in a stationary definition.
The notion of gendered identities made prevalent largely by the media and feminist critics has restricted the fluidity and flexibility of multiple, context adaptable identities. The constraints found prevailing in gendered interactions disallows the dramatic effect of individual identities and to be expressed limiting individuals ability to interact according to the context of situation. The factor of “who someone is” becomes the predominant factor of the interaction regardless of the here and now. The current language system has been argued to lack sufficient signs needed to express desirable emotions. This limits an individual’s ability to share these experiences with others. It has been argued as a result of this lack of language resources, gender characteristics are invariably used due to lack of ability to express in any other manner.
If politics were to exist in literature it could be argued that this would require a fixed, stable code of understanding. A close examination of meaning derived from texts, both spoken and written has shown that it is impossible to categorize meaning in all possible situations. Factors that influence meaning could include: gender, ethnicity, culture, class amongst many others. To define a politics of literature, a rigid classification of unified meaning would need to be fixed. The evidence presented here from several theorists has shown that we cannot fix meaning in this way. Literature is continually evolving and is often influenced according to the era in which created. As we move through the times, more and more literature is created which may influence texts created in future times. Personal experience and prior knowledge will always be an influential factor in our interpretation of interactions, whether consciously or more often unconsciously. Our own personal experience is unique to ourselves and different for every individual. With this in mind, I would conclude that every person enters every interaction with different background contextual information which influences interpretation.