Autonomy in Literature PDF

Preview

Summary

What does the term "autonomy" mean in literary contexts? Literary works aren't always directly linked to the economic or political climate of the time in which they were written. There can exist at the same time both a severe economic crisis and a work of fiction that is entirely fantasy-based, fair...

Description

In Literature and Autonomy. What does the term "autonomy" mean in literary contexts? Literary works aren't always directly linked to the economic or political climate of the time in which they were written. There can exist at the same time both a severe economic crisis and a work of fiction that is entirely fantasy-based, fairy tale-like. In the midst of prosperity, it is possible that literature depicts a sense of helplessness or insecurity among human beings. Writing imaginatively has its own unique history and tradition, along with its own unique waveforms for dealing with these things. As a result, the demands of a particular time period have little effect on or influence on writing. At the linguistic level, we would have noticed that the phrases, idioms, and expressions that writers of the previous era pioneered make up a large portion of a literary work as well. It's also worth noting that, away from the general public's gaze, writers of a particular era engage in friendly competition in their own private literary world (magazines, books, discussions, and seminars). All of this occurs while the writer is actually writing. Most readers are unaware of these "behind the scenes" activities of writers who are divided into various groups and actively

support or undermine one another. In literature, the term 'autonomy' refers to the fact that the imaginative phenomenon exists in a world of its own, free from the obvious

rules

and

pressures

of

the

surrounding

environment. Alternatively, the term "autonomy" can refer to the creative process used by a writer to create a poem, novel, or play without reference to philosophers or politicians. Creative thinking sets the writer apart from other artists in the fine arts - such as artists in other mediums such as painting, sculpture, and music. A writer's imagination can soar to new heights during the course of the writing process. In their critical writing, the English Romantics discussed this extensively. Writing opens up a different kind of arena for creativity by allowing the writer's imagination to become a new kind of arena. Balzac, a 19th-century French novelist, served as an example of how a novelist's depiction of society differs from his own observations of it. In novels like The Peasants, Old Goriot, and Lost Illusions, a more realistic Balzac took the place of the traditionalist Balzac, a real-life supporter of the historically dormant feudal class. Balzac allowed the new social forces around him to assume a distinct progressive

character in the act of writing, ignoring the obvious pressures of social belief. In this way, Balzac's novels were free from the constraints of the author's own worldview, allowing him to create works of immense literary significance. Marx credited Balzac's honesty as a writer for his success. His use of the phrase "triumph of realism" to describe Balzac's ability to accurately portray the world around him and his courage to do so were emphasised by him. Rather than taking a life-based or biographical approach, Mam established the foundations of what we now call a work-based or writing-centered critical analysis.

The term "autonomy" refers to a person's ability to live and work on their own terms. An object or phenomenon has its own distinct set of rules that govern how it functions.

Is

literature

subject

to

the

concept

of

autonomy? Here, I'll look at a few different viewpoints on this question. In addition, I'll take a look at some contemporary literary examples of autonomy. What we'll do is look at some of the problems that have been brought up in this discussion.

Parameters that are relevant to the materialists. One who is familiar with Marxism should be able to see that literature is a product of its time, expressing the pain and joys, as well as the sorrows, of the era in which it was written. However, this view has not been widely accepted by critics in our era. A common belief is that art transcends the boundaries of time and place, and that it is not influenced by its immediate social context. According to these critics, a reader is drawn to a literary work by its sharp and appealing, and in many cases dazzling, aspects, no matter what time period it was written in or what culture it belongs to.

By deliberately ignoring mundane references, critics in our time define literature as having a higher meaning. According to some, literary depictions of a situation detract from the essence of human behaviour, which has a

different

quality

and

nature.

In

this

view,

a

representation becomes literature because it captures the most intense aspect of the subject's life. In order to be

universal, it must have this feature. It seems to me that the problem with this approach is that it separates the work's time-related nature from its autonomous nature. Marxism, on the other hand, provided in clear terms the materialist, rather than idealist, parameters for literature by establishing a link between the writing, the writer, and the larger social life surrounding both. If this connection were broken, our perception of literature would be thrown for a loop. Distinctiveness of the totality of one's personality: There is no doubt that literature's "total personality" is formed by its time-linked and independent aspects. In reality, a work's topicality is never fully or exclusively current, because even a narrowly defined situation has both a past and a future. When making categories like "topical" and "general," we should not take them as absolutes. We, on the other hand, believe that in literature, time-linked and independent elements coexist and are inseparable. We tend to overlook the unique totality they create in a work by combining them in a unique way. Thus, the incorrect positioning. A work's

'distinct totality,' another word for uniqueness, is the focus here.

As we all know, a literary work appears to be one-of-akind and unrepeatable. The only problem with this is that it implies a mysterious interplay between factors within a work. Is it, in fact, a mystery at all? In order to understand a piece of literature, we must be able to relate to it and identify areas of interest that we share. We can't untie a work of art because of its totality or individuality, according to critical theory jargon. Let's get some help from a contemporary critic to understand these. When it comes to Lionel Trilling, "the artist must often use these formulations to achieve completeness of his response to the environment" when it comes to a work's "totality or total personality" (Speaking of Literature and Society, p.88). Highlight "iron limits of laws and necessities" in this quotation." Aren't they referring to the social mode of production we've discussed in the previous pages? According to Trilling, society's laws and other norms cannot simply be wished away; they must instead, be accepted as an unavoidable fact. The world we live and

breathe in is the reality we face. Our very existence is predicated on this. "Iron limits" is a term used by Trilling to describe the strictures imposed on literature by a social structure at the level of laws. "Iron limits," on the other hand, are only imposed by law and necessity. Consider

the

dialectic.

Our

understanding

of

the

disciplined world, for example, becomes clearer when we recognise it as an entity that operates according to a set of

rules

and

regulations.

We

can

gain

a

better

understanding of the world around us by studying the laws that govern it. As a result of this information, the iron limits are less restrictive. After this, the world stops being what we call 'Fate,' something whose operation we cannot understand. This is Trilling's second point. That's what he points out, citing the fact that history has its own dynamics. The various phenomena should be viewed as understandable and open to change if they are based on human labour. The world of necessities and compulsions is within our grasp because historical phenomena are understandable. In Trilling's view, the writer's response to the real pressures of the environment increases in totality and completeness. Attempts are made by the author to comprehend the world around him/her.

According to Trilling, the writer's formulations about the world assist himher in a big way to make connections between various segments of society and reality. The writer gains an understanding of his/her world as a whole as a result of this effort. In Trilling's argument, words like "totality," "completeness," and "wholeness" emphasise the artistic effort's primary goal of eliciting a meaningful response. MATERIALITY IN LITERATURE What is the best way to visualise a piece of literature? As a solidified and materialised form of language, should it be interpreted as a 7-d response to that period in history, or is it something else? When we encounter a piece of literature, it is in a "solid" and "materialised" state, and this is why I used the words "solid" and "materialised." Accepting this description of a literary work has obvious advantages. That's why critics say over and over again that a work has a uniqueness all its own, that it's nothing other than what it is, without reference to societal norms, cultural trends, or ideologies, accepted or rejected. I'm thinking of the New Criticism school of thought. A

different interpretation of the New Criticism's tenet of self-determination

can

be

made

by

asserting

that

literature has some degree of autonomy. What if this contradicts Trilling's claim? This new perspective may suggest that the majority of criticism that discusses a book's central meaning or message actually serves to harm and injure the text's inviolable character. To put it another way, according to this perspective, we should look at the work as it was originally intended by its author. According to New Criticism, a work should be disassociated from its author and the time period in which it was written. Pierre Macherey, a French Marxist critic, explains the term'specificity' thusly:

Why is the specificity of a literary work so important? The fact that it cannot be reduced to what it is not is the first proof of its irreducibility. It is the result of a specific effort, and thus cannot be achieved through a different process. As a result of a break, it is the beginning of something new. As a result, we won't confuse the work with its surroundings, and we'll want to distinguish it emphatically from the rest of it.

Autonomy is also a feature of the work, insofar as it is self-created and recognises only an intrinsic standard, which it regards as a law in itself. As a result, literary works must be studied as a distinct field of study, or else they will never be fully comprehended. It is necessary to include other disciplines such as linguistics, the theory of art, the theory of history, and the theory of ideologies in this endeavour because without them it would be incomplete or even impossible, but they cannot in any sense replace

this specific science of

the literary

work.emphasis.) "(Author's " Literary Production (pp. 5 152). This argument is well-structured, so pay attention to that. "irreducible," "cannot be assimilated," and "what it is not" are all negative statements. An alternative process occurring at a different location or time does not allow me to achieve the specific labour of a product, according to the third assertion. When "something new" (not old), "what

is

extrinsic,"

and

"what

surrounds

it"

are

introduced, the idea of "what it is not" is repeated yet again. Indeed, Macherey's full-scale attack on current

critical modes that rely on essence, meaning, assimilation into general culture, and the surrounding environment is clear. In Macherey's view, the latter deprive a literary work of its essence and appeal. These people use it as an example of how life has already been formed in order to prove their point.

However, there are a few positive ideas that can be gleaned from this. Macherey, for instance, refers to the work as a product. If this is true, what are the theoretical ramifications? Product should be understood in terms of a deliberate effort to meet a specific need, in my opinion. When Macherey makes this statement, it's as if he's criticising earlier definitions of literature like reflection, expression, and representation. If you combine "product" and "novelty," the idea becomes even more problematic. His point is that in its act of making something new, a phenomenon that signifies the active involvement of human creative labour, the writer in this case, is what he is talking about. According to Macherey, a writer's creative work is not simply a synthesis of the materials at hand, but rather something entirely new and distinct.

STRUCTURALIST MODE OF MACHEREY'S VIEW. After

Macherey

has

outlined

the

case's

negative

parameters, he proceeds to lay out a specific scientific theory. 'Specific' here refers to something that is unique to literature and is useful in a specific context. In this context, what does the term "science" mean? It's an important question, given that we've previously held the belief that science, which encompasses the exact world of experimentation and analysis, should be kept out. Literary criticism is a part of Macherey, on the other hand, is opposed to the reader's subjective preferences interfering with a work's internal structure. The critic or reader should see the work for what it is: a reflection of the writer's response to his or her environment through the working of words. When it comes to criticism, a person needs to be aware of their own biases and presumptions. Macherey's argument has a'self-conscious' element that should be kept in mind. However, Macherey makes a different kind of reference to the various theories (linguistics, history, etc.) that he finds useful for the comprehension of a literary work in this part of the statement. These theories, according to Macherey, should be applied to the work in order to reveal the unique

meaning that it contains. As a final rebuke, Macherey states that theories "can in no way replace this specific science of the literary work," their job being to only assist the critic in gauging constructed meaning.

Macherey's final statement contains the most important words, "self-elaborating," "law unto itself," and "intrinsic standard," among others. I don't know what Macherey is referring to. The author seems to be saying that while you can use any theory to understand a piece of work, you should not break any of the rules that the work has developed over time to become what it is. It is correct to use the term "violate." Do not even detract from a work's intrinsic value. In fact, this is exactly what Macherey suggests and identifies as the authenticity and validity of critical endeavour. This does not in any way detract from the literary merit of the piece for him. This could happen, but critics are worried because they can expect the work under consideration to express or assert a specific meaning a priori. As a result, it is clear that Macherey's argument runs counter to the critic's own subjective perspective on art. Yet a work has an inherent standard

according to Macherery that assigns proportion and value to the elements that compose it as a whole. To summarise, Macherey argues that the truth of a work is inseparable from its completeness and specificity and can only be discovered through the application of multiple theories

(not

just

one's

own

subjective,

irrational

preferences). It makes sense from a literary perspective, as

literary

works

deserve

the

same

respect

and

independence as critical works.

Is Macherey's argument about the autonomy of a literary work properly understood? Is this a general literary theory argument that can be applied at all times? What do you think? Literary theory and criticism have been seen to perform different functions at different points in history. As an example, in the eighteenth century, critics in England asked writers to produce works of social benefit. Others have been ruthlessly attacked for not adhering to artistic and aesthetic standards. Early Marxist criticism was prescriptive, urging writers to focus on what it considered to be the most important topics. Because of this, Macherey's work should be viewed in the context of

post-World War II Europe. Macherey, in my opinion, sees a significant threat to the intrinsic value of art posed by the contemporary capitalist world. Ideological weapons like the newspaper, film, and television have the potential to turn any object, no matter how distinct, human, or unique, into a commodity in today's world. Who knows what might happen if the project succeeds. Second, capitalism kills the vitality and spirit of productive labour by reducing art to the status of a thing. Are you aware that, up until now, I've implied that literature is a creative-productive activity? This is the inescapable inconsistency. In its irreducible, actual aspect, the result of productive labour can be grasped. You'd fail in your attempt to

transform

a new

cultural

product into

something it isn't if you tried to impose the a priori logic of the already existing world on it. Macherey expects literary criticism to do this in order to protect and preserve art's dignity and materiality. Obviously, this is a major blow to the bourgeoisie's production process in the modern world. Committed literary thought is of high aesthetic and political importance because Macherey places so much importance on criticism.

On top of that, what kind of response should we give to Macherey's assertion that art is inviolable based on the theory of art? Macherey's view of the literary work is too deeply rooted in the structuralist mode, which sees literature as a finished product with final shape and form, in my opinion. If you write in this mode, your literary work has rigid structures that are difficult to change, so you're forced to fight against them while you write. Isn't this what'specificity' is all about?

Macherey would never have seen a work in action where different parts were loosely connected to each other and could have an impact on a given society's needs. There can be no such thing as personalization when it comes to a piece of work according to Macherey's view A work's solidity implies that it is political in and of itself, refusing to be subsumed by its environment. But it stands on its own as a response to the subject matter and as a comment. Macherey is aware of the resolute nature of art. In addition, great art serves as a cultural tool for the masses, who see it as a crystallisation of their own indomitable spirit and construct their own liberationist

dreams with the help of such art in the wider arena of social discourse, such as in theatre. To Macherey, "solidity" is a concept that denies literature the ability to adapt and move with the times. An artist's work is reworked to meet the specific needs of a different time period. That's impossible under Macherey's plan. Does this criticism of Mache...