"Words, phrases, utterances in general, place themselves and interact in a momentary spark of meaning" (47). I think this is an interesting idea because it is so true, and this is the reason why we study language. We would not have much to discuss, analyze, and re-read if language was stagnant or permanent. We talk about the "definitions" of words, but such a discussion is never as short or as simple as it first seems it should be. There are primary definitions, then secondary definitions, and then we need to think about all the different connotations. These connotations themselves change based on people, situation, context, setting, time, pitch, and certainly many, possibly an infinite number of, other elements.
I also thought it was interesting what Vice recorded of Bakhtin's ideas on Dostoevsky's contradictions within a character. Bakhtin wrote, "One could say, in fact, that out of every contradiction within a single person Dostoevsky tries to create two persons, in order to dramatize the contradiction and develop it extensively" (57). I think this contradiction within individuals will be interesting to keep in mind in the examination of counterfeiters. Certainly counterfeiters will exhibit some contradictions. The confidence-man is full of contradictions as he portrays trustworthiness and good faith in the same instance that he steals and deceives. Are they essentially creating two-people? If you can counterfeit money, can you also counterfeit yourself? This possibility would suggest that there is dialogism outside of the written, or even spoken, word. Dialogism could possibly also exist within the very essence of the man. As he contradicts himself he creates another voice. These voices bounce off one another as individually as two people. If Bakhtin believed that language was part of the very essence of humanity and what it means to be human, then it would make sense that other elements and intricacies of language, like dialogism, are also present in man.
I very much enjoyed reading Stephen Burroughs' narrative. I found him interesting and a generally sympathetic character until the end of what I read for this week. Although he certainly faced cruel and unusual punishment in prison that I do not agree with, he did not seem to believe that he had any reason for being there. He emphasizes again and again how prejudiced they all were against him and how he never had a chance in his trial. Burroughs seems to be one of those people who is born thinking that the world is a bit against them. These people then use the unfair prejudice of the world as an excuse for any bad behavior. Burroughs was convinced while at Dartmouth that there was even a triumvirate against him, although the footnote seems to disagree (28). What would give Burroughs this victim mentality? Perhaps many other counterfeiters and confidence-men also see themselves as victims. If they could convince themselves that the big, bad, world has been out to get them, then they could more easily justify victimizing others.
I thought Burroughs' narrative also raised an interesting moral question concerning identity and expectations. Burroughs "pretends" to be a preacher in Pelham, and the townspeople are furious when they discover that he is not really a preacher. Their outrage raises a number of questions, the first of which may be, what is a preacher? Must he have some formal training? Must he have been ordained by a church? Or is it enough if he can deliver a good sermon? Perhaps the real significance comes from the earnestness of his heart. Before they knew he was not a preacher, the townspeople were satisfied with his job performance. He even passed a truly daunting test by creating a sermon about old shoes. If someone said they were a burger flipper and they flipped our burgers well and grilled them to perfection, we probably wouldn't really care if he had originally been making it up. Some lies are different. Some identities cannot be built solely on words; some must have been earnestly created to be authentic.
Hello Molly: I enjoyed reading your post and agree with you that dialogism can exist outside of "traditional" language--especially if we see everything as a type of language--art, facial gestures, decoration (My house "says" "me" -- that outfit "screams" "you!"), etc. In regard to "identity" in Burroughs' narrative--I too see the many ways in which the identity question is not yet settled. He appears to be the constant victim of "mistaken identity"--and yet when he is guilty, he uses the same arguments again makes the town the victim of erroneous mistaken identity. Furthermore, as you note about counterfeiting and dialogism, counterfeiting in and of itself incorporates the whole essence of "mistaken identity."
ReplyDeleteHi Molly, I too enjoyed reading your post. Vice's chapter on "dialogism" is still a bit abstract, but you seem to have gotten the basic idea that meaning is socially constructed, and always shifting as contexts shift. Great response to Burroughs. He does tend to protest too much, refusing to accept his most obvious culpability. Perhaps this is in part intended as a humorous element of the mock heroic. Certainly the historical figure must have realized that he strained credulity. Thanks for your thoughts. dw
ReplyDeleteHi Molly! I too thought that your post was insightful. I particularly like your questions concerning the inner contradiction of the confidence man and how this may extend to everyone—we may all be counterfeiters to some degree! If we are never free from the dialogism of discourse and self-presentation, then how can we justify our declarations of honesty or good-will? Burroughs has, as you rightly pointed out, the victim mindset, and he seems to continually negate his claims that he is a just, law-abiding citizen in unfortunate circumstances by describing how he arrived in such “mix-ups.” Overall, your post helped me realize that dialogism extends far beyond the text, and Burroughs, as a person wishing to present himself as a victim, participates in this discourse in many different ways.
ReplyDeleteSo many great ideas here, especially about Burroughs portraying himself as a victim. I can't help but thinking he "doth protest too much" and hopes to distract us with feelings of pity when we really should be condemning him. He is very skilled rhetorically, which makes this such a fascinating read!
ReplyDelete