“The
subject is constructed in language and in discourse and, since the symbolic
order in its discursive use is closely related to ideology, in ideology. It is
in this sense that ideology has the effect… of constituting individuals as
subjects, and it is also in this sense that their subjectivity appears
‘obvious’.” In other words, ideology is the defining factor for subjectivity of
the individual. Language and discourse are the tools with which we define our
ideologies to others. This passage is important to laying the groundwork of
Belsey’s claim that ideology is the determinate of subjectivity.
“But
there is no practice without theory, however much that theory is suppressed,
unformulated or perceived as ‘obvious’. What we do when we read, however
‘natural’ it seems, presupposes a whole theoretical discourse, even if
unspoken, about language and about meaning, about the relationships between
meaning and the world, meaning and people, and finally about people themselves
and their place in the world.” In other words, it is our own ideologies that determine
how we read and interpret text. This is important because it breaks down the
assumption of “common sense” and calls to light the realization that “common
sense” is constructed and embedded by the individual through ideology.
“It
is only by adopting the position of the subject within language that the
individual is able to produce meaning.” In other words, the reader creates
meaning of the text, through the knowledge and ideology they conceive prior to
reading, and by placing themselves within the text.
[Concerning
the narrative of Bleak House (79-81)]
In this passage Belsey presents the reader with the narrative of Bleak House, which is told from two perspectives:
one of the innocent and unfortunate Esther Sumerson, one of an unidentified
narrator. Both are in the third person, neither is omniscient. The structural
difference between them is that Esther’s narrative is past tense and the other
is present tense. What emerges is
a third narrative, an “unwritten discourse” created by the reader, as they
begin to understand and judge the history of the characters. This passage is
important because it illustrates how we as readers extrapolate meaning where
none is given. The very different narratives of Charles Dickens converge in the
readers mind in such a way that we understand far more than either character.
We become the omniscient narrative in much the same way that we define meaning
through ideology in our reading of other texts.
I
am not sure that Belsey’s section on ideology helps me to understand any more
of Charles Augustus Milverton than I
did before. Meaning in CAM is
generated in the morality/immorality of Sherlock Holmes. The story posits that
wanton criminals get what they deserve and it is a needless expense for law to
delve into the who and why concerning such acts of revenge. Whether or not this
was the intent of the story is questionable because in the end Holmes is in
fact interested in the who. Any further interpretation would be created by the
ideologies brought into the text by the reader.
CAM is an example of classic realism, so
we can assume that some of the text is an accurate portrayal or at least based
on Doyle’s experiences. Therefore it is possible that plot and characters could
be based on stories Doyle read about in the news, heard in gossip, or
acquaintances. However, without bringing historical knowledge or scientific
discourse into the reading it is not possible to draw any more meaning from the
text than the obvious concepts of morality. But then my assumption of the
obviousness of the immorality is based solely on my ideologies, which I would
not have been self aware of prior to reading Belsey.
No comments:
Post a Comment