ROSEMARY PHILLIPS'S PRESENTATION

V. N. VOLOSINOV FREUDIANISM: A CRITICAL SKETCH: "CONSTRUCTING A SOCIOLOGICAL POETICS"
(SYNOPSIS BY ROSEMARY PHILLIPS)

In his Freudianism: A Critical Sketch (“Constructing a Sociological Poetics”), Voloshinov / Bakhtin focuses on dynamics of aesthetic communication and begins with an analysis of a simple everyday verbal event or ‘scenario’. Volosinov disagrees with the approaches used on the intrinsic aesthetic quality of art such as : The formal method, which perceives the verbal object as an “artefact” or an “abstract linguistic construction”(161). He also disagrees with the subjective method which relates everything in the work “to the individual psyche of the creator or contemplator”(161).

Volosinov thinks it is important to look at a simple everyday verbal event or ‘social scenario’(162) before beginning to examine the dynamics of aesthetic communication. Volosinov uses the example of utterances such as: “that’s a lie”, “that’s the truth”, ‘that’s daring to say,’ as going beyond verbal (linguistic) factors, instead “they also take in the extraverbal situation of the utterance”(162). To Volsinov, “ The verbal discourse itself considered in isolation as a purely linguistic phenomenon, cannot of course, be true or false, daring or indifferent” ( 162) .

Volosinov gives us a another example of how the verbal discourse in life relates to the extraverbal situation that has engendered it: Two people are sitting in a room: they are both silent then one says “Well!” the other does not respond. For us as outsiders the entire ‘conversation’ is utterly incomprehensible and if taken in isolation the utterance ‘Well!’ is empty and unintelligible. Using this example Volosinov defines certain terms:

THE EXTRAVERBAL CONTEXT which is made up of three factors:

1- the common spatial purview of the interlocutors ( the unity of the visible: in

this case the room ,the window, and so on )

2- the interlocuters’ common knowledge and understanding of the situation

3- their common evaluation of that situation

(Example 1 )

In this example Volosinov recognises the importance of the ‘jointly known’ or “assumed” ( 163) attached to the utterance “Well” . He defines the “assumed” as being the SHARED SPATIAL AND IDEATIONAL PURVIEW. Volosinov notes that: “ Every utterance in the business of life is an objective social enthymeme” / syllogism

( in which one premise is assumed rather than expressed– ex. Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal with the assumed premise ‘All men are mortal’ is omitted). Volosinov also compares this shared special or ideational purview to a “password”(164), known only to those who belong to the same social purview” (164). Volosinov defines a wide purview and a narrow purview. The latter as in the example of the two persons in the room. The ‘assumed’ may extend to that of a family, clan, nation, class and may encompass days or even epochs. Volosinov makes the point that

When the assumed real purview of the two people sitting in the room is narrow, even the most momentary change within the purview can become the assumed. On the other hand where the purview is wider the utterance can operate only on the basis of constant, stable factors in life and substantive, fundamental social evaluations. (164-165)

Volosinov looks at ASSUMED EVALUATIONS and notes that “the basic social evaluations that stem directly from the distinctive characteristics of a given social group’s economic being are not usually articulated”(165). Since they have entered “the flesh and blood of all representatives of that group”(165), “they are in no need of special verbal formulation”(165).

Volosinov states that all the phenomena that surround us are merged with value judgements and explains that if a value judgement it is “conditioned” by the being of a given community, it becomes “a matter of dogmatic belief, something taken for granted and not subject to discussion”( 165).

Volosinov examines the utterance ‘Well’ more closely and turns his attention to INTONATION which he defines as - a link to the extraverbal context. He states that in our example the intonation in ‘Well’ is indignant-reproachful but moderated by humour. He stresses that intonation can be “thoroughly understood only when one is in touch with the assumed value judgements of the given social group, whatever the scope of the group might be” (165). In this way the intonation is “social par excellence”(166), and is “especially sensitive to all the vibrations in the social atmosphere surrounding the speaker” ( 166). The intonation in the example comes form the shared yearning for spring and the shared annoyance at the extended winter by the interlocutors.

Volosinov notes that a person “intones his words differently”( 166) when a person anticipates the disagreement or even doubt on the part of his interlocutor. “Choral support”( 166) is in effect “sympathy”( 166) (Example 2).

Volosinov points out that one side of intonation is turned toward the listener and another side of intonation is that it is an active attitude toward a referent “object of the utterance” a “hero” or THIRD PARTICIPANT. The intonation of the word ‘well’ expressed not only passive dissatisfaction ,but also active indignation and reproach. Volosinov asks the question : “ To whom is this reproach addressed?”(166) Who is the recipient of the reproach …the snow? Nature? Fate perhaps?” (166). Volosinov calls this the INTONATIONAL METAPHOR. It is “where the intonation of the utterance ‘Well’ makes the word sound as if it were reproaching a living culprit of the late snowfall- winter”( 167).

Volosinov goes on to define a SEMANTIC METAPHOR which is latent within the intonational metaphor. Were it possible to be realized the utterance “Well” would also imply or expand into some such metaphorical expression as: “What stubborn winter! It just won’t give up”( 167) . This possibility inherent in intonation according to Volosinov , “remained unrealised” ( 167). There is also a GESTICULATORY METHAPHOR . Here Volosinov notes that “ words themselves were originally lingual gestures” ( 167). Volosinov defines gestures in a broad sense including miming as facial gesticulation. Gesture, like intonation for Volosinov, requires a certain sympathy or “choral support” of the listeners or surrounding persons- “only in an atmosphere of sympathy, is free and assured gesture possible”( 167). Gesture, Volosinov believes, “makes an opening in the situation and introduces a third participant- the hero”( 167). The Third participant is considered to be “merely some inanimate thing, some occurrence or circumstance in life” ( 167) (Give Example 3).

According to Volosinov, every intonation is oriented in two directions: 1 -with respect to the listener as ally or witness. 2- with respect to the object of the utterance, as the third living participant whom the intonation scolds or caresses, denigrates or magnifies. This double social intonation, Volosinov states, “is what determines all aspects of intonation and makes it intelligible”( 168).

Volosinov constantly emphasises that verbal discourse is a social event and challenges the view that it is “some abstract linguistic quantity”( 168). Volosinov turns his attention to provide a brief preliminary sketch of “the essential factors in the interrelationships of the participants in an artistic event- Those factors that determine the broad and basic lines of poetic style as a social phenomenon”( 169) .

Volosinov asserts that the basic stylistic tone of an utterance is determined primarily by who is talked about and what is his relation is to the speaker ( author) – “whether he is higher, lower than or equal to him on the scale of the social hierarchy”(170),whether master-slave, ruler-subject, or comrad-comrad. This first form defining factor of content described is THE EVALUATIVE RANK.

Another style– determining factor is the degree of proximity between the hero and creator– weather the author uses first, second or third person I, you or he. Here,

“ the very structure of the language reflects the event of the speakers’

interrelationship” ( 170). Volosinov notes that Certain languages have purely grammatical forms capable of conveying with even greater flexibility the nuances of the speakers’ social interrelationship and the various degrees of their proximity.( 171)

( Example 4 )

According to Volosinov, the form of a poetic work is also determined by how the author perceives his hero – the hero who serves as the organising centre of an utterance. He goes on to say that the form of objective narration, the form of address or apostrophe ( prayer, hymn, ) and the form of self – expression, autobiography etc. are determined by the degree of proximity between author and hero.

Volosinov talks about a third participant– ‘the listener’ whose presence affects the interrelationship of the other two( creator and hero). The listener to Volosinov “has his own independent place in the event of artistic creation”( 171). The listener normally stands side by side with the author as his ally but Volosinov asserts that “this classical positioning of the listener is by no means always the case” ( 172). He goes on to give examples of different standpoints taken by the listener: “ Sometimes the listener leans toward the hero or the utterance…”(172). For Volosinov satire can also involve the listener to be close to the “hero ridiculed”(172) and not to the “ridiculing author” ( 172) . This is called a sort of “ inclusive form of ridicule”( 172). Other times the listener is in solidarity with the “jeering author”( 172) –Volosinov calls this “exclusive”( 172) form of ridicule. In Romanticism, the author concludes an alliance with his hero against the listener. Volosinov states that a form especially sensitive to the position of the listener is the lyric. According to Volosinov, the underlying condition for lyric intonation is the absolute certainty of the listener’s sympathy.

Volosinov is clear to point out a distinction between the listener – on par with the author and the hero and the actual reading public. This reading public, according to Volosinov, when consciously taken into account, affects the work and can come to occupy a position of importance in a poet’s creativity making a work loose its artistic purity and degrade it to a lower social level. This is an example of the poet’s “loss of his immanent listener”(173) or his “divorce” (173) from the “social whole”(173). Volosinov emphasises that the social whole has the capacity of determining the poet’s value judgements. Hence, Volosinov writes: “ The more a poet is cut off from the social unity of his group, the more likely he is to take into account the external demands of a particular reading public”( 173).

Volosinov notes that the poet “acquires” his words and “learns to intone them”

throughout his life, while being in contact on every side with his environment. The poet develops both an inner and outer speech which are not apart but both influenced by the social. He defines the “inner speech” as being “one’s whole inner verbal manner of being aware of oneself and the world”( 173). Volosinov emphasises that words and intonations are “part of the inner speech with the help of which the poet thinks and becomes conscious of himself even when he does not produce utterances”( 173).

Volosinov goes on to say that a poet’s style engendered from inner speech, and continues by saying that this inner speech is a product of the poets entire social life. Volosinov corrects the statement “ Style is the man” by saying that we might say: “ Style is at least two persons or, more accurately, one person plus his social group in the form of its authoritative representative, the listener- the constant participant in a person’s inner and outward speech.”(173)

His entire essay attempts to emphasise the importance of “the social” or the extraverbal on an utterance and a work of art I will conclude with this quote :

…any locution actually said aloud or written down for intelligible communication ( i.e. anything but words merely reposing in a dictionary) is the expression and product of the social interaction of three participants : the speaker( author), the listener( reader) and the topic( the who or what) of speech (the hero). ( 168)