TCI METHODOLOGY: TEXT + CONTEXT = INTERPRETATION
UNIT 1: Spheres of Influence Theory: The Liberal Arts
What today we call "the liberal arts" emerges within the "the Western tradition" as an attempt to systematically and rationally apprehend knowledge. That is, to achieve meaning and a more complete understanding of ourselves and our world. The liberal arts are seeped in a 2,500-year-old tradition that first originated in ancient Athens and its fundamental goal, from antiquity to our present, remains surprisingly steadfast: "to liberate citizens from vices through the arts." (Yup, you read right, "vices"!: "immoral" or "wicked" behaviors!) The word “liberal” itself comes from the Latin, liberare, meaning “to free” oneself and, along with the more obvious "arts," it seeks liberation from dogma and falsehoods through the discernment made possible through the arts; that is, human creative skill and imagination as the precondition for personal and collective "freedom."
Now, a word about "the Western Tradition." (If we begin with ancient Athens we have no choice but to go there!) The whole of the so-called Western tradition encompasses our historical, cultural, religious, philosophical, and scientific legacy. Though the West do does not constitute the world, nor should it, this tradition nonetheless frames our world-view and education, as it is understood and practiced within the liberal arts, is a significant component of that world view. In order to reify, exalt, dismiss, or even cogently critique this world view, we must first understand its basic tenets. For the purposes of this course, we will focus on three framing principles that are constitutive of the core of the literary, cultural, and interpretive humanities analysis that characterize how we frame knowledge within our inherited liberal arts tradition:
1. Spheres of Influence Theory
2. Periodicity
3. Canonicity
Let's begin with our first framing principle, "Spheres of Influence Theory" (SIT). SIT refers to the interplay of three of the West's most significant pillars: religion, art, and politics. Spheres of Influence Theory holds that every period within the Western tradition (or what we call epochal "periodicity") determines what is important (that is, what we consider "canonical") in relation to the interplay of religion, art, and politics (regardless of whether we like it or not!). Sometimes, all spheres of influence function independently but, more often than not, one sphere of influence dominates (and sometimes even controls) the function of the other spheres at any historical juncture. So far so good?
The simplest way to understand the second framing concept known as "periodicity" is to consider the generative importance of historical periods in the organization of knowledge. For example, think about how most introductory courses in historical or literary studies (like our own) are generally divided into chronological periods with a beginning, a middle, and an ever evolving "end." In literary studies these periods look something like this: Antiquity (think Greco-Roman), the Medieval period (think St. Augustine or feudalism), the Renaissance (think Cervantes or Shakespeare), the Baroque (think Velázquez or Sor Juan Inés de la Cruz), the Enlightenment (think Immanuel Kant or John Locke), the Romantic period (think Delacroix or Lord Byron), Modernity (think Freud or Picasso), and, yup, you guessed it, the Postmodern period (think Beyoncé and most every cultural icon or object from your parents' first birthdate onward!).
The second framing principle, "canonicity," refers to what each historical, literary or cultural period considers, wittingly or not, to be an exemplary representative of its time. All the parenthetical examples I gave above from, say, St. Augustine to Beyoncé, are representative (I'll repeat myself again, for better or for worse!) of the period that gives rise to their importance in relation to the particular interplay of religion, art and politics. For example, do you really think it would have been possible for someone like Beyoncé to emerge as a cultural icon prior to the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in United States? Not at all. Without the relative autonomy of art (music is, after all, an art form), and the political climate of relative inclusion occasioned by the signing of the Civil Rights Act, Beyoncé would simply not be the Beyoncé that we know and love! See what I mean? Spheres of Influence Theory, along with a cursory understanding of periodicity and canonicity, can help us both frame and understand why we value what we value, who gets to decide how value is determined, and the conditions under which concepts such as "truth," "beauty," and "justice" are either meaningful or not.
During the course of the the semester we will study how and why these framing principles serve as the foundation for understanding the systematic analysis of sign systems. Literary, cultural, historical, visual, and media analysis all operate in relation to and, often, in perpetual tension with these framing principles. Ultimately, periodicity, canonicity and all three principle spheres of influence work in unison or frisson to produce, regulate, and sometimes even evade meaning (signification). (Does the Inquisition's "Auto de fé" ring a bell?) Our class exercises and assignments will help us identify, analyze, and understand these basic units of analysis in relation to the primary texts we will be studying, deciphering, and discussing as a class.
UNIT 2: TCI Method for Literary, Cultural and Historical Analysis
Since this is a course that requires a grounding in the methods of literary and cultural analysis and interpretation, let's begin with literary studies as our primary field of focus. Literary studies, like many other established fields of inquiry, provides a series of strategies for interpreting its objects of study: "texts" (e.g., novels, films, art, etc.), the world and, gulp, your life! Novels, films, videos, graffiti, songs, performances, yes, even your life, and more, can all be considered "texts" because they can be analyzed and interpreted by virtue of the formal qualities that structure their meaning and relation to the world (e.g., tone, texture, mood, style, language, attitude, etc.). Now, that doesn't mean that everything that can be interpreted needs to be interpreted, but it does mean than anything worth understanding most often requires a method: a set of tools for understanding your object of study.
The basic tools at your disposal for framing, analyzing and interpreting texts involves researching a set of cursory questions/propositions that will help you to frame your analysis in a way that allows you to defend your opinions and beliefs about texts (and the world) with evidence; that is, with more clarity, precision, and less prejudice (indefensible opinions). Paraphrasing the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. In order to defend your position (interpretation), or assess the worth of anyone else's ability to, say, parse truth from falsehood, you must employ tools (methods) that allow you achieve your objectives (to establish a factual basis for an interpretation).
I'm calling our basic unit for analyzing and interpreting texts "the TCI method." TCI method holds that interpreting a text (T) requires understanding it in relation to the conditions that enable its production and reception in context (C). Without the tension between the two, an interpretation (I) based on facts and evidence — even if tenuous or fragmentary — would be nearly impossible. In other words, understanding the "T" requires understating it in relation to the text's "C," before you can arrive at an interpretation based on evidence and not opinions or, sorry, "feelings." Indeed, any text worthy of reasoned analysis and sustained interpretation should necessarily move us. But feelings, like opinions, aren't facts, and therefore constitute an imprecise tool for analysis. Put another way, your feelings about something might, in fact, be right on mark, but unless you can explain why you believe your gut feelings to be precise, you are simply sharing an opinion.
In summary, any interpretation worthy of consideration follows this basic formula: T + C = I. Anything else is an opinion, and opinions, regardless of how strongly they are felt, must always be subjected to logic: reasoning conducted according to strict principles of validity. You may opine that chocolate ice-cream is best but your opinion lacks authority (value) unless it meets logical scrutiny. A dictator can force you to say that chocolate ice-cream is the best ice-cream imaginable but dictatorial coercion is not logical or reasonable within a democratic system. Indeed, coercion, the brute application of force through sheer strength or the fear of reprisals, is antithetical to "reason" which requires evidence, above and beyond coercion, for assessing qualities such as "truth," "beauty," and "justice." And evidence, reason, and informed judgement are at the heart of the liberal arts tradition. Is that what the colleges and universities brochure mean when they talk about "critical thinking"? Yes.
So what are these cursory questions or propositions that you must answer and think through in order to move beyond opinion and into the realm of worthy consideration and informed understanding? Here are some of the most basic for literary and interpretive humanities analysis:
TCI (Text/Context/Interpretation)
1. Text
Writer/director/artist/creator:
Pertinent biographical information about the writer/director/artist/creator (e.g., birthplace, education, political affiliation/s, identity markers such as “feminist,” “conservative,” etc.):
Name of text:
Publication date of the text (careful with this one: ask yourself, "Is the publication date different from date/s it was written, performed, staged, etc.? Was the text in question censored? Is it still censored? If so, why and why might this be important?):
Where was text published/exhibited?:
Why (explicit purpose)?:
Genre (e.g., poetry, prose, drama/performance, exhibition, etc.?):
Subgenre (e.g., if prose, is it a novel, a short story, a memoir, etc.?):
Formal characteristics/qualities of text (e.g., metaphors, symbols, tone, themes, etc.):
2. Context
Cultural/historical period (e.g., Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, Modernity, Postmodern, etc.)?:
What are the characteristics of the major spheres of influence during this cultural/historical period?:
What movement or style does it adhere to, or reflect, or does it break away from pre-established norms (e.g., “cubist” painting within emergent aesthetic Modernity, etc.)?:
What “conversation” does text establish with national or transnational literary or cultural history and tradition (e.g., canonicity and periodicity)?:
Does it break established tradition and/or does it innovate those traditions?:
Understood in relation to context, is there an implicit purpose beyond the text’s stated explicit purpose? (so this song is really old and dated, I know, but the video linked above makes evident the extent to which the explicit purpose, the claim, "I'm not in love," cannot be taken at face value; the lyrics and instrumental composition belie the explicit purpose. "Irony" is a literary technique that is often associated with this contradiction between what is said versus what is meant:
How are the text’s formal qualities (e.g., themes, topics, metaphors, symbols, tone, etc.) conditioned by its context?:
3. Interpretation
Based on T + C, how does the text = I? That is, what does the work “mean” in relation to the text’s formal and situational qualities when its context is considered (i.e., What is your interpretation and how did you arrive at such an interpretation?):
What evidence do we have that can account for this interpretation?:
What is the value of the text and what is the basis for your assessment?:
There are many more questions, and possibilities for understanding texts and the world, of course, but these are the basic questions/propositions that you should answer after analyzing each assigned text/reading in our course.
Once you get more familiar with TCI analysis, and can process it quickly, you can alter the sequence and organization of your analysis/interpretation. In fact, most sophisticated work in the interpretive humanities begins with the "I" and weaves in and through the "T" and the "C"! But, again, our mission for now is to become proficient in TCI methodology so that we may later employ its generative insights into our own original interpretations!
UNIT 3: Story vs. Discourse
Every narrative interpretation is "discursive" in nature. That is, all narratives arrange "facts" (evidence) in a way that reinforce its claim to authority (S + V + O = meaning premised on "cause/effect relations"). A "story," the events as they happened in logical temporal sequence from, say, A-Z, should be arranged according to reality (truth). However, truth is elusive because memory (or "representation" as we say in literary studies and philosophy) is elusive. (Do you, or can you, even really remember everything that was covered in class when we last met? Probably not!). So we create a "discourse" around what we remember (we represent), a version that we hope is correct (at least if we are virtuous, yes, free of vice!).
What were the causes of the U.S. Civil War? You can likely bet that a slave-holder and a slave, in either pre- or post-U.S. Civil War America, would have very different and compelling versions of the answer to that question. Since we cannot know the whole story, we must rely on discursive constructions that we hope are based on something as close to factual reality (the truth) as possible. Unfortunately, there are many powerful (and not very virtuous) interests (these can be political, artistic and/or religious) that turn stories (truth) into purely discursive constructs devoid of evidence and, not surprisingly, are too often seeped in self-serving dogma. "Spin" doctors we call them today or, in the words of Stephen Colbert, harbingers of "truthiness"! Colbert's truthiness, satire notwithstanding, is actually a reiteration of Plato's distrust of artists. Whoa, wha'?! Let me give you two brief examples of the history of "truthiness"! Stay with me, please! Ready?
In Plato's Republic, the great philosopher warns (in Books II, III and X) that the State (the "polis") should distrust artists for they can "spin" reality in such a way as to make falsehood appear truthful through mimesis (imitation). For Plato and onward to, gulp, Colbert, the Western tradition has worried that mimesis "when practiced from youth become[s] part of nature and settle[s] into habits of gesture, voice, and thought" (395d). If it is in the character of "citizens" to be inculcated from youth in the imitation of truth, then when they grow up to be leaders of the State, they would make a mockery of the State by appearing to be virtuous when, in fact, appearances and those practiced in the arts of appearance (representation), are nothing more than habituated liars.
The Roman satirist Juvenal, for example, later imaginatively took on and rewrote Plato's distrust of the artist (the Romans were extraordinary copyists!), and claimed that all Statesmen are habituated liars (it was satire, after all!):
"… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have
abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out
military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself
and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." (Satire X)
What's more, Juvenal adds to that distrust by chastising the masses for foregoing their civic duty and allowing themselves to be played by Statesmen; "bread and circuses" becomes Juvenal's shorthand for this. Crooks in Congress assembled, anyone? Yup, in our postmodern moment the spinmeisters of Washington, D.C., are all about truthiness, and most citizens seem to buy into the particular versions of "truth" that fit their class positioning at the expense of truth proper — not to mention Democracy proper! "Story" versus "Discourse," get it? So what are we to do?
It is our role as virtuous young intellectuals (alright, well, we're not ALL young but, like, whatever!) to discern "story" from "discourse," that is, to distinguish as clearly as we can, truth from fiction. Literary studies, surprisingly, provides some of the most sophisticated and necessary tools for understanding how "truthiness" is constructed and we will make a virtue of practicing the arts of discernment in the age of truthiness! What a shame that "literature," and literary studies in general (and, frankly, "religious" studies which was the starting point for secular literary analysis), is so often understood as ancillary to the good life rather than constitutive of its core principles! When, like today, public education is gutted by state budgets and only the most affluent can make it to the best centers of learning, often with way too much debt (think of the Medieval serf in perpetual debt to his or her "master"!), who wins, citizens or spinmeisters? Remember: literary studies emerges from biblical exegesis. Again, think "Spheres of Influence Theory" and, yes, you guessed it, whether we like it, or not, it is our "tradition"!
Our historical epoch, "the Postmodern period," is seeped in such information overflow that we find it so difficult to parse truth from fiction that, those of us who can, create gated environments (I'm speaking literally and metaphorically), to protect ourselves and what remains of our sensibilities from the onslaught of information, and information uncertainty. (Think of it as our contemporary version of Juvenal's "bread and circuses": constant distractions to keep the focus away from the burning house!) Some even believe, beyond the evidence to the contrary, that our headphones, our alarm systems, and our medication ("Side effects include high blood sugar which can lead to death... Abilify is not for everyone...") can insulate us from the broken world around us (I'm being mostly ironic here). So much so in fact that we too often simply despair (if we're actually paying attention) and carry on as if all that matters is only related to our little corner of the world. Numb to our own humanity, and what links us to best attributes of our tradition, we become clogs who repeat soundbites we believe to be our own and not implanted via apathy, boredom, and the constant fear of uncertainty: "We will never be royals, royals...," says Lorde laconically and with seemingly deadpan self-awareness, as if her lyric persona were, in fact, not privileged or even self-aware. (These are relative propositions, of course, information uncertainty is not exactly food insecurity!)
José Martí (1853-1895), whose brillant essay "Nuestra América" ("Our America") we will read this semester, still has something to teach us about this. Though he is a modernista writer in tone, style and poetics (don't confuse a literary movement, "modernismo," with an epochal frame such as "Modernity"!), he presaged quite a bit about our postmodern moment: disaffection, insularity, capital as the new religion ("Gott ist tot!"), the pull toward individual freedom vs. the impulse to help others be freer and achieve the dream of Enlightenment: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" said the slogan of the French Republic in anticipation of democratic experiments the world over! We call Martí's relation and devotion to the interest of humanity, "cosmopolitanism": a claim to the dignity and equality of all human beings outside the confines (and legal protections) of the nation-state. (Yes, Martí was way ahead of his time.) How tragic that even France today has forgotten those principles!
But, again, I'm getting ahead of myself! Alright, so... Ready for a quick review?
UNIT 4: Review
Now that you are familiar with TCI methodology, Spheres of Influence Theory, periodicity, canonicity, and its relation to story versus discourse, you can plot and evaluate authorial claims to truth with greater clarity. In narrative prose genres that claim facticity (the study and analysis of "evidence") such as historical writing, the essay, even biography and memoir, most convincing arguments often begin with the "I." That is, the interpretation itself is often stated early on and a narrative is created that builds evidence in support of it. Um, but, this sounds like a "discursive practice"? Yup, you got it. We cannot know the story (the truth) about everything (or perhaps even anything at all if one is a "relativist," which, by the way, I, your professor, am not), but we must nonetheless have a system in place that allows us to get closer to "truth." Why? "Because we run the risk of losing our humanity if we don't" is the short answer. Or, responding as a modernista writer like Martí or Darió, because "truth," "love," "beauty," and anything that helps us distinguish the difference between vulgar "cost" from enduring "value" requires safeguarding: sustained analysis and continuos scrutiny. ("We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," says the Constitution, but how ironic that the original meaning of the Constitution held that black bodies were considered only "three-fiths" of a person! That we have "originalists" and "texualists" on the Supreme Court of the United States today should trouble us, deeply! But we go about our business, in our little corners of the world... Sigh. )
In fact, the only sphere of influence that has been able to upend tyrants, terror, and survive the most horrific abuses of State power and managed to save us from ourselves (so far!) has been what we are calling the artistic sphere of influence. Not religion, not politics, but art, you say? Right, art is the only sphere that can reinvent itself and its rules of engagement within the confines of what we call "the social contract" (thank you, Rousseau!). For example, during the transition between the Medieval period and the Renaissance occasioned by the fantastic "discovery" of the "New World," while Jews, Muslims, and so-called "heretics" were being expelled from what is today modern-day Spain, or burned at the stake for their "beliefs," scholar-scribes ("keepers of the word" they were called) kept the great legacy of Al-Andalus' Muslim history of cultural, literary, and scientific discoveries alive by hiding it "in plain sight" (the theme is reiterated in Poe's "The Purloined Letter" in purely secular and legal terms; Poe was no fool!). A few brilliant scholars (there are no more than a handful today) like Luce López-Baralt keep the memory of this history alive by virtue of their tireless work.
Today, literary scholars in the making, like you, also keep alive a basic principle that is lost to despots, tyrants, and the ignorant (that is, ignorant by choice, lot, or stupid self-indulgence): that every book (story) worthy of consideration is continually reanimated (made alive) when it is subjected to critical analysis and, in the process, we become both makers and keepers of the word. It is in this way (and though we may not be royals!) that we come closest to being "immortal"; not like Bram Stoker's Dracula (the novel itself is a metaphor for the humanity we lose when we attempt to achieve knowledge without ethical purpose), but in the sense that we "love" ourselves and our humanity more deeply than despots would have us believe that we are worthy of "being" loved and existing in the world (Foucault called this "the ethic of the care of the self").
"I praise you for I am fearfully and beautifully made," says Psalm 139, verse 14, within the Christian biblical tradition. Since I am an agnostic, though one who is deeply indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I offer a secular reinterpretation of this most beautiful biblical passage (the bible as literature — notice my use of simile — is a gorgeous, even rapturous read). The reinterpretation of this biblical Psalm comes from one of my favorite DJs, Fatboy Slim, and it's called "Praise You." "I want to praise you," says Fatboy Slim's cover singer, in a generous, secular postmodern lyric homage to our tradition and our futures: that elusive, nearly impossible, affirmation about our worth in the absence of religious absolutes. As you view the video, witness the banality of the film theater's entrance (a space for viewing the representation of other, more interesting lives) and how the music helps participants rise above this banality. Notice, too, how they begin their performance in a reverential stance reminiscent of Christian genuflection as if in front of the Blessed Sacrament; the alter now, however, is the Postmodern church par excellence, the film cineplex! (I must say, I miss going to the movies but remember: writers and artist will reinvent beauty despite our pandemic moment.) They might as well be saying, "we are fearfully and beautifully made, despite the quotidian ordinariness around us": communion and community are reinterpreted in this performance, all outside the strictures of the religious sphere of influence (and all its prescriptive connotations though it cannot escape its intertextual dialogue with the Christian tradition!).
So what is the sum of you? You are a "text," after all! Are you "fearfully and beautifully made"? I happen to believe so, because that is my ethical imperative as a human being who believes in the dignity of all life (perhaps even more so in the belief in your dignity to determine life's purpose for yourself and your ethical core) but, regardless, I can't help you answer that question unless you have the tools to apprehend your world, and your loves, the sum of you, with far more nuance than you can imagine. Corny? Yes, but absolutely necessary.
Next stop: genre theory! Alright, but what's a "genre"? Funny you asked, because that's our next unit!
UNITS 5-6: Lima's Literary Studies Student Toolkit
What today we call "the liberal arts" emerges within the "the Western tradition" as an attempt to systematically and rationally apprehend knowledge. That is, to achieve meaning and a more complete understanding of ourselves and our world. The liberal arts are seeped in a 2,500-year-old tradition that first originated in ancient Athens and its fundamental goal, from antiquity to our present, remains surprisingly steadfast: "to liberate citizens from vices through the arts." (Yup, you read right, "vices"!: "immoral" or "wicked" behaviors!) The word “liberal” itself comes from the Latin, liberare, meaning “to free” oneself and, along with the more obvious "arts," it seeks liberation from dogma and falsehoods through the discernment made possible through the arts; that is, human creative skill and imagination as the precondition for personal and collective "freedom."
Now, a word about "the Western Tradition." (If we begin with ancient Athens we have no choice but to go there!) The whole of the so-called Western tradition encompasses our historical, cultural, religious, philosophical, and scientific legacy. Though the West do does not constitute the world, nor should it, this tradition nonetheless frames our world-view and education, as it is understood and practiced within the liberal arts, is a significant component of that world view. In order to reify, exalt, dismiss, or even cogently critique this world view, we must first understand its basic tenets. For the purposes of this course, we will focus on three framing principles that are constitutive of the core of the literary, cultural, and interpretive humanities analysis that characterize how we frame knowledge within our inherited liberal arts tradition:
1. Spheres of Influence Theory
2. Periodicity
3. Canonicity
Let's begin with our first framing principle, "Spheres of Influence Theory" (SIT). SIT refers to the interplay of three of the West's most significant pillars: religion, art, and politics. Spheres of Influence Theory holds that every period within the Western tradition (or what we call epochal "periodicity") determines what is important (that is, what we consider "canonical") in relation to the interplay of religion, art, and politics (regardless of whether we like it or not!). Sometimes, all spheres of influence function independently but, more often than not, one sphere of influence dominates (and sometimes even controls) the function of the other spheres at any historical juncture. So far so good?
The simplest way to understand the second framing concept known as "periodicity" is to consider the generative importance of historical periods in the organization of knowledge. For example, think about how most introductory courses in historical or literary studies (like our own) are generally divided into chronological periods with a beginning, a middle, and an ever evolving "end." In literary studies these periods look something like this: Antiquity (think Greco-Roman), the Medieval period (think St. Augustine or feudalism), the Renaissance (think Cervantes or Shakespeare), the Baroque (think Velázquez or Sor Juan Inés de la Cruz), the Enlightenment (think Immanuel Kant or John Locke), the Romantic period (think Delacroix or Lord Byron), Modernity (think Freud or Picasso), and, yup, you guessed it, the Postmodern period (think Beyoncé and most every cultural icon or object from your parents' first birthdate onward!).
The second framing principle, "canonicity," refers to what each historical, literary or cultural period considers, wittingly or not, to be an exemplary representative of its time. All the parenthetical examples I gave above from, say, St. Augustine to Beyoncé, are representative (I'll repeat myself again, for better or for worse!) of the period that gives rise to their importance in relation to the particular interplay of religion, art and politics. For example, do you really think it would have been possible for someone like Beyoncé to emerge as a cultural icon prior to the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in United States? Not at all. Without the relative autonomy of art (music is, after all, an art form), and the political climate of relative inclusion occasioned by the signing of the Civil Rights Act, Beyoncé would simply not be the Beyoncé that we know and love! See what I mean? Spheres of Influence Theory, along with a cursory understanding of periodicity and canonicity, can help us both frame and understand why we value what we value, who gets to decide how value is determined, and the conditions under which concepts such as "truth," "beauty," and "justice" are either meaningful or not.
During the course of the the semester we will study how and why these framing principles serve as the foundation for understanding the systematic analysis of sign systems. Literary, cultural, historical, visual, and media analysis all operate in relation to and, often, in perpetual tension with these framing principles. Ultimately, periodicity, canonicity and all three principle spheres of influence work in unison or frisson to produce, regulate, and sometimes even evade meaning (signification). (Does the Inquisition's "Auto de fé" ring a bell?) Our class exercises and assignments will help us identify, analyze, and understand these basic units of analysis in relation to the primary texts we will be studying, deciphering, and discussing as a class.
UNIT 2: TCI Method for Literary, Cultural and Historical Analysis
Since this is a course that requires a grounding in the methods of literary and cultural analysis and interpretation, let's begin with literary studies as our primary field of focus. Literary studies, like many other established fields of inquiry, provides a series of strategies for interpreting its objects of study: "texts" (e.g., novels, films, art, etc.), the world and, gulp, your life! Novels, films, videos, graffiti, songs, performances, yes, even your life, and more, can all be considered "texts" because they can be analyzed and interpreted by virtue of the formal qualities that structure their meaning and relation to the world (e.g., tone, texture, mood, style, language, attitude, etc.). Now, that doesn't mean that everything that can be interpreted needs to be interpreted, but it does mean than anything worth understanding most often requires a method: a set of tools for understanding your object of study.
The basic tools at your disposal for framing, analyzing and interpreting texts involves researching a set of cursory questions/propositions that will help you to frame your analysis in a way that allows you to defend your opinions and beliefs about texts (and the world) with evidence; that is, with more clarity, precision, and less prejudice (indefensible opinions). Paraphrasing the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. In order to defend your position (interpretation), or assess the worth of anyone else's ability to, say, parse truth from falsehood, you must employ tools (methods) that allow you achieve your objectives (to establish a factual basis for an interpretation).
I'm calling our basic unit for analyzing and interpreting texts "the TCI method." TCI method holds that interpreting a text (T) requires understanding it in relation to the conditions that enable its production and reception in context (C). Without the tension between the two, an interpretation (I) based on facts and evidence — even if tenuous or fragmentary — would be nearly impossible. In other words, understanding the "T" requires understating it in relation to the text's "C," before you can arrive at an interpretation based on evidence and not opinions or, sorry, "feelings." Indeed, any text worthy of reasoned analysis and sustained interpretation should necessarily move us. But feelings, like opinions, aren't facts, and therefore constitute an imprecise tool for analysis. Put another way, your feelings about something might, in fact, be right on mark, but unless you can explain why you believe your gut feelings to be precise, you are simply sharing an opinion.
In summary, any interpretation worthy of consideration follows this basic formula: T + C = I. Anything else is an opinion, and opinions, regardless of how strongly they are felt, must always be subjected to logic: reasoning conducted according to strict principles of validity. You may opine that chocolate ice-cream is best but your opinion lacks authority (value) unless it meets logical scrutiny. A dictator can force you to say that chocolate ice-cream is the best ice-cream imaginable but dictatorial coercion is not logical or reasonable within a democratic system. Indeed, coercion, the brute application of force through sheer strength or the fear of reprisals, is antithetical to "reason" which requires evidence, above and beyond coercion, for assessing qualities such as "truth," "beauty," and "justice." And evidence, reason, and informed judgement are at the heart of the liberal arts tradition. Is that what the colleges and universities brochure mean when they talk about "critical thinking"? Yes.
So what are these cursory questions or propositions that you must answer and think through in order to move beyond opinion and into the realm of worthy consideration and informed understanding? Here are some of the most basic for literary and interpretive humanities analysis:
TCI (Text/Context/Interpretation)
1. Text
Writer/director/artist/creator:
Pertinent biographical information about the writer/director/artist/creator (e.g., birthplace, education, political affiliation/s, identity markers such as “feminist,” “conservative,” etc.):
Name of text:
Publication date of the text (careful with this one: ask yourself, "Is the publication date different from date/s it was written, performed, staged, etc.? Was the text in question censored? Is it still censored? If so, why and why might this be important?):
Where was text published/exhibited?:
Why (explicit purpose)?:
Genre (e.g., poetry, prose, drama/performance, exhibition, etc.?):
Subgenre (e.g., if prose, is it a novel, a short story, a memoir, etc.?):
Formal characteristics/qualities of text (e.g., metaphors, symbols, tone, themes, etc.):
2. Context
Cultural/historical period (e.g., Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Romanticism, Modernity, Postmodern, etc.)?:
What are the characteristics of the major spheres of influence during this cultural/historical period?:
What movement or style does it adhere to, or reflect, or does it break away from pre-established norms (e.g., “cubist” painting within emergent aesthetic Modernity, etc.)?:
What “conversation” does text establish with national or transnational literary or cultural history and tradition (e.g., canonicity and periodicity)?:
Does it break established tradition and/or does it innovate those traditions?:
Understood in relation to context, is there an implicit purpose beyond the text’s stated explicit purpose? (so this song is really old and dated, I know, but the video linked above makes evident the extent to which the explicit purpose, the claim, "I'm not in love," cannot be taken at face value; the lyrics and instrumental composition belie the explicit purpose. "Irony" is a literary technique that is often associated with this contradiction between what is said versus what is meant:
How are the text’s formal qualities (e.g., themes, topics, metaphors, symbols, tone, etc.) conditioned by its context?:
3. Interpretation
Based on T + C, how does the text = I? That is, what does the work “mean” in relation to the text’s formal and situational qualities when its context is considered (i.e., What is your interpretation and how did you arrive at such an interpretation?):
What evidence do we have that can account for this interpretation?:
What is the value of the text and what is the basis for your assessment?:
There are many more questions, and possibilities for understanding texts and the world, of course, but these are the basic questions/propositions that you should answer after analyzing each assigned text/reading in our course.
Once you get more familiar with TCI analysis, and can process it quickly, you can alter the sequence and organization of your analysis/interpretation. In fact, most sophisticated work in the interpretive humanities begins with the "I" and weaves in and through the "T" and the "C"! But, again, our mission for now is to become proficient in TCI methodology so that we may later employ its generative insights into our own original interpretations!
UNIT 3: Story vs. Discourse
Every narrative interpretation is "discursive" in nature. That is, all narratives arrange "facts" (evidence) in a way that reinforce its claim to authority (S + V + O = meaning premised on "cause/effect relations"). A "story," the events as they happened in logical temporal sequence from, say, A-Z, should be arranged according to reality (truth). However, truth is elusive because memory (or "representation" as we say in literary studies and philosophy) is elusive. (Do you, or can you, even really remember everything that was covered in class when we last met? Probably not!). So we create a "discourse" around what we remember (we represent), a version that we hope is correct (at least if we are virtuous, yes, free of vice!).
What were the causes of the U.S. Civil War? You can likely bet that a slave-holder and a slave, in either pre- or post-U.S. Civil War America, would have very different and compelling versions of the answer to that question. Since we cannot know the whole story, we must rely on discursive constructions that we hope are based on something as close to factual reality (the truth) as possible. Unfortunately, there are many powerful (and not very virtuous) interests (these can be political, artistic and/or religious) that turn stories (truth) into purely discursive constructs devoid of evidence and, not surprisingly, are too often seeped in self-serving dogma. "Spin" doctors we call them today or, in the words of Stephen Colbert, harbingers of "truthiness"! Colbert's truthiness, satire notwithstanding, is actually a reiteration of Plato's distrust of artists. Whoa, wha'?! Let me give you two brief examples of the history of "truthiness"! Stay with me, please! Ready?
In Plato's Republic, the great philosopher warns (in Books II, III and X) that the State (the "polis") should distrust artists for they can "spin" reality in such a way as to make falsehood appear truthful through mimesis (imitation). For Plato and onward to, gulp, Colbert, the Western tradition has worried that mimesis "when practiced from youth become[s] part of nature and settle[s] into habits of gesture, voice, and thought" (395d). If it is in the character of "citizens" to be inculcated from youth in the imitation of truth, then when they grow up to be leaders of the State, they would make a mockery of the State by appearing to be virtuous when, in fact, appearances and those practiced in the arts of appearance (representation), are nothing more than habituated liars.
The Roman satirist Juvenal, for example, later imaginatively took on and rewrote Plato's distrust of the artist (the Romans were extraordinary copyists!), and claimed that all Statesmen are habituated liars (it was satire, after all!):
"… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have
abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out
military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself
and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." (Satire X)
What's more, Juvenal adds to that distrust by chastising the masses for foregoing their civic duty and allowing themselves to be played by Statesmen; "bread and circuses" becomes Juvenal's shorthand for this. Crooks in Congress assembled, anyone? Yup, in our postmodern moment the spinmeisters of Washington, D.C., are all about truthiness, and most citizens seem to buy into the particular versions of "truth" that fit their class positioning at the expense of truth proper — not to mention Democracy proper! "Story" versus "Discourse," get it? So what are we to do?
It is our role as virtuous young intellectuals (alright, well, we're not ALL young but, like, whatever!) to discern "story" from "discourse," that is, to distinguish as clearly as we can, truth from fiction. Literary studies, surprisingly, provides some of the most sophisticated and necessary tools for understanding how "truthiness" is constructed and we will make a virtue of practicing the arts of discernment in the age of truthiness! What a shame that "literature," and literary studies in general (and, frankly, "religious" studies which was the starting point for secular literary analysis), is so often understood as ancillary to the good life rather than constitutive of its core principles! When, like today, public education is gutted by state budgets and only the most affluent can make it to the best centers of learning, often with way too much debt (think of the Medieval serf in perpetual debt to his or her "master"!), who wins, citizens or spinmeisters? Remember: literary studies emerges from biblical exegesis. Again, think "Spheres of Influence Theory" and, yes, you guessed it, whether we like it, or not, it is our "tradition"!
Our historical epoch, "the Postmodern period," is seeped in such information overflow that we find it so difficult to parse truth from fiction that, those of us who can, create gated environments (I'm speaking literally and metaphorically), to protect ourselves and what remains of our sensibilities from the onslaught of information, and information uncertainty. (Think of it as our contemporary version of Juvenal's "bread and circuses": constant distractions to keep the focus away from the burning house!) Some even believe, beyond the evidence to the contrary, that our headphones, our alarm systems, and our medication ("Side effects include high blood sugar which can lead to death... Abilify is not for everyone...") can insulate us from the broken world around us (I'm being mostly ironic here). So much so in fact that we too often simply despair (if we're actually paying attention) and carry on as if all that matters is only related to our little corner of the world. Numb to our own humanity, and what links us to best attributes of our tradition, we become clogs who repeat soundbites we believe to be our own and not implanted via apathy, boredom, and the constant fear of uncertainty: "We will never be royals, royals...," says Lorde laconically and with seemingly deadpan self-awareness, as if her lyric persona were, in fact, not privileged or even self-aware. (These are relative propositions, of course, information uncertainty is not exactly food insecurity!)
José Martí (1853-1895), whose brillant essay "Nuestra América" ("Our America") we will read this semester, still has something to teach us about this. Though he is a modernista writer in tone, style and poetics (don't confuse a literary movement, "modernismo," with an epochal frame such as "Modernity"!), he presaged quite a bit about our postmodern moment: disaffection, insularity, capital as the new religion ("Gott ist tot!"), the pull toward individual freedom vs. the impulse to help others be freer and achieve the dream of Enlightenment: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" said the slogan of the French Republic in anticipation of democratic experiments the world over! We call Martí's relation and devotion to the interest of humanity, "cosmopolitanism": a claim to the dignity and equality of all human beings outside the confines (and legal protections) of the nation-state. (Yes, Martí was way ahead of his time.) How tragic that even France today has forgotten those principles!
But, again, I'm getting ahead of myself! Alright, so... Ready for a quick review?
UNIT 4: Review
Now that you are familiar with TCI methodology, Spheres of Influence Theory, periodicity, canonicity, and its relation to story versus discourse, you can plot and evaluate authorial claims to truth with greater clarity. In narrative prose genres that claim facticity (the study and analysis of "evidence") such as historical writing, the essay, even biography and memoir, most convincing arguments often begin with the "I." That is, the interpretation itself is often stated early on and a narrative is created that builds evidence in support of it. Um, but, this sounds like a "discursive practice"? Yup, you got it. We cannot know the story (the truth) about everything (or perhaps even anything at all if one is a "relativist," which, by the way, I, your professor, am not), but we must nonetheless have a system in place that allows us to get closer to "truth." Why? "Because we run the risk of losing our humanity if we don't" is the short answer. Or, responding as a modernista writer like Martí or Darió, because "truth," "love," "beauty," and anything that helps us distinguish the difference between vulgar "cost" from enduring "value" requires safeguarding: sustained analysis and continuos scrutiny. ("We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," says the Constitution, but how ironic that the original meaning of the Constitution held that black bodies were considered only "three-fiths" of a person! That we have "originalists" and "texualists" on the Supreme Court of the United States today should trouble us, deeply! But we go about our business, in our little corners of the world... Sigh. )
In fact, the only sphere of influence that has been able to upend tyrants, terror, and survive the most horrific abuses of State power and managed to save us from ourselves (so far!) has been what we are calling the artistic sphere of influence. Not religion, not politics, but art, you say? Right, art is the only sphere that can reinvent itself and its rules of engagement within the confines of what we call "the social contract" (thank you, Rousseau!). For example, during the transition between the Medieval period and the Renaissance occasioned by the fantastic "discovery" of the "New World," while Jews, Muslims, and so-called "heretics" were being expelled from what is today modern-day Spain, or burned at the stake for their "beliefs," scholar-scribes ("keepers of the word" they were called) kept the great legacy of Al-Andalus' Muslim history of cultural, literary, and scientific discoveries alive by hiding it "in plain sight" (the theme is reiterated in Poe's "The Purloined Letter" in purely secular and legal terms; Poe was no fool!). A few brilliant scholars (there are no more than a handful today) like Luce López-Baralt keep the memory of this history alive by virtue of their tireless work.
Today, literary scholars in the making, like you, also keep alive a basic principle that is lost to despots, tyrants, and the ignorant (that is, ignorant by choice, lot, or stupid self-indulgence): that every book (story) worthy of consideration is continually reanimated (made alive) when it is subjected to critical analysis and, in the process, we become both makers and keepers of the word. It is in this way (and though we may not be royals!) that we come closest to being "immortal"; not like Bram Stoker's Dracula (the novel itself is a metaphor for the humanity we lose when we attempt to achieve knowledge without ethical purpose), but in the sense that we "love" ourselves and our humanity more deeply than despots would have us believe that we are worthy of "being" loved and existing in the world (Foucault called this "the ethic of the care of the self").
"I praise you for I am fearfully and beautifully made," says Psalm 139, verse 14, within the Christian biblical tradition. Since I am an agnostic, though one who is deeply indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition, I offer a secular reinterpretation of this most beautiful biblical passage (the bible as literature — notice my use of simile — is a gorgeous, even rapturous read). The reinterpretation of this biblical Psalm comes from one of my favorite DJs, Fatboy Slim, and it's called "Praise You." "I want to praise you," says Fatboy Slim's cover singer, in a generous, secular postmodern lyric homage to our tradition and our futures: that elusive, nearly impossible, affirmation about our worth in the absence of religious absolutes. As you view the video, witness the banality of the film theater's entrance (a space for viewing the representation of other, more interesting lives) and how the music helps participants rise above this banality. Notice, too, how they begin their performance in a reverential stance reminiscent of Christian genuflection as if in front of the Blessed Sacrament; the alter now, however, is the Postmodern church par excellence, the film cineplex! (I must say, I miss going to the movies but remember: writers and artist will reinvent beauty despite our pandemic moment.) They might as well be saying, "we are fearfully and beautifully made, despite the quotidian ordinariness around us": communion and community are reinterpreted in this performance, all outside the strictures of the religious sphere of influence (and all its prescriptive connotations though it cannot escape its intertextual dialogue with the Christian tradition!).
So what is the sum of you? You are a "text," after all! Are you "fearfully and beautifully made"? I happen to believe so, because that is my ethical imperative as a human being who believes in the dignity of all life (perhaps even more so in the belief in your dignity to determine life's purpose for yourself and your ethical core) but, regardless, I can't help you answer that question unless you have the tools to apprehend your world, and your loves, the sum of you, with far more nuance than you can imagine. Corny? Yes, but absolutely necessary.
Next stop: genre theory! Alright, but what's a "genre"? Funny you asked, because that's our next unit!
UNITS 5-6: Lima's Literary Studies Student Toolkit