|Date 21-04-2015 faculty of arts kunsten, cultuur en media 1 Interpreting & Evaluating – engagé, controversial, autobio… - Literature: authorial ethos,

|Date 21-04-2015

faculty of arts kunsten, cultuur en media

1

Interpreting & Evaluating – engagé, controversial, autobio… - Literature: authorial ethos, posture, and other

framing acts

Liesbeth Korthals Altes University of Groningen

Hermes seminar Prague, June 2015

|Date 21-04-2015


if I may be shamelessly self-promoting, before we start…

http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Ethos-and-Narrative-Interpretation,675905.aspx

2




|Date 21-04-2015


Table of content of the ethos book, which discusses the issues of today in much more detailPreface vii Why Ethos? 1 part 1. ethos, narrative, and the social construction of meanings and values 1 Literary Interpretation, Ethos Attributions, and the Negotiation of Values in Culture 21 2 Ethos as a Social Construction: Authorial Posturing, Conceptions of Literature, and Value Regimes 51 part 2. ethos in narratology: the return of the repressed 3 Narratology between Hermeneutics and Cognitive Science 91 4 Key Concepts Revised: Narrative and Communication, Embeddedness, Intentionality, Fictionality, and Reading Strategies 100 5 Whose Ethos? Characters, Narrators, Authors, and Unadopted Discourse 123 part 3. further Explorations: contracts and ethos expectations 6 Generic Framing and Authorial Ethos 175 7 Sincerity and Other Ironies 205 On Narrative, Ethos, and Ethics 249 Notes 257 Works Cited 285 Index 313

3

|Date 21-04-2015


At last: Content of today’s lecture

1. A Case: Michel Houellebecq, Soumission (2014)2. Wide angle: culture, narrative, interpretation as metacognition and negotiation of values3. Framing, interpretation and evaluation - frameworks:- Generic framing- Framing and Value regimes- Posture & Ethos, but whose?- Interpretive attitudes; conceptions of literature; capacity

for dissonance; real readers/academics4. Status of these analytic frameworks? (Meta)hermeneutics and further issues

4

|Date 21-04-2015


5

1. Michel Houellebecq, Soumission; 2014

|Date 21-04-2015


Houellebecq: anxieties of classification› What kind of work, author, point of reading

experience?› Controversies in interpretation/evaluation› Often ad hominem › A.o. triggered by author’s appearance

(disappearance!) in the media, and› his bestselling status: good earning = bad

writing! Free after Bourdieu’s law of reversed economy

6

|Date 21-04-2015


2. Wide angle: culture, narrative (art), as/and metacognition

› culture = ‘ distributed cognition’ (Merlin Donald) / ’social construction of reality’ (Berger & Luckman)

› negotiation of world views; on-going process of reinforcement, calibration & struggle

› among others through narratives & narr. fiction, art: instructions for world-making + representation of action; so: evaluating evaluations, perspectives on perspectives

= meta-cognition (on meta-cognition)

› Interpretation = verbalization, conceptualization; increases levels and complexity of metacognition, and occasions debates about metacognition/values/world views

-> Relevance of (1) diversity of interpretations; (2) of analyzing this interpretive diversity

|Date 21-04-2015


Citations: Culture, narrative, art, interpretation, and/as metacognition › culture is ‘essentially a distributed cognitive system within which

worldviews and mental models are constructed and shared by the members of a society’ (Merlin Donald,‘Art and cognitive evolution’, in Mark Turner, The Literary Mind. 2006)

› Narrative: ‘basic human strategy for sense-making’; ‘Stories support the (social) process by which the meaning of events is determined, enable the distribution of knowledge of events via storytelling acts(…), and assist with the regulation of communicative behaviors (…)’ (David Herman, Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences, 2003: 8).

› art is aimed at ‘large-scale neural integration of many sources of experience’ through ‘conscious processing, allowing humans to achieve more abstract kinds of cognitive integration’

› ‘most art is meta-cognitive in nature (…) that is: self-reflective’, and a vehicle for cultural self-reflection (Donald, ibid.)

› Interpreting art/fiction = metacognition on metacognition; articulation and negotiation of perspectives on experience

8

|Date 21-04-2015


Elaboration: Narrative fiction and multiplication of metacognition -› Narrative fiction represents multiple perspectives, from a certain –

or multiple – angle(s): perspectives on perspectives

› In “display texts”, “a speaker is not only report[ing] but also verbally display[ing] a state of affairs, (…) invites his addressee(s) to join him in contemplating it, evaluating it, and responding to it. His point is to produce in his hearers not only belief but also an imaginative and affective involvement in the state of affairs he is representing and an evaluative stance toward it. (...) Ultimately what he is after, is an interpretation of the problematic event, an assignment of meaning and value supported by the consensus of himself and his hearers” (Marie-Louise Pratt, 1977)

› literary narratives make ‘available for circulation, debate and reflection the descriptions and discussions of [cultural] hierarchies of relevance and the clash between plans at different levels’ (Jorgen Dines Johanson, 2002: 299).

9

|Date 21-04-2015


3. Framing acts and meaning-making

› Any meaning making rests on framing acts (Goffman 1974; Bateson; Dilthey; also cogn.sciences: schema theory): memory allows us to classify new experiences and determine the situation we believe to have at hand

› We need to frame properly in order to act in relevant & adequate manner (Sperber/Wilson, 1995)

10

|Date 21-04-2015


Framing – some thesesWhen assigning meaning & value to literary works readers frame a work a.o.according to › Genre(s)› Value regime(s)› Author’s posture› Ethos of perceived source/warrant of the

work’s world view & value positions› Communication level deemed most relevant› Reading strategy & a.o. conception of

literature they (readers) hold

11

|Date 21-04-2015


Genres as framingCreate expectations reg. kind of- Plot- Relevance- (relevance of) authorial adhesion &

responsibility- (relevance of) rapport to reality/history/one’s

own lifevia paratextual & textual conventional cluesWhat about hybrids and ambiguously coded works?

12

|Date 21-04-2015


Generic framing and value regimes› Generic framing elicits expectations of the kind

of ‘world’ (Boltanski/Thévenot 1991) in which a work is to be perceived as relevant:

› 6 worlds or ‘cités’, with corresponding value regimes (next slide; cf Bourdieu, field theory)

› Rises/decreases in generality; Value transfers

Quite ad-hoc, but useful for discussing cases of multiple generic encoding or posturing

13

|Date 21-04-2015


‘Worlds’ in Boltanski & Thévenot› the Inspired World (f.i. arts, creativity and

originality as leading values)› the Domestic World (f.i.family life;mutual love)› the World of Opinion (f.i.the media; fame)› the Civic World (f.i.politics; responsibility,

justice, or the common good) › the Industrial World (spheres of work;

efficiency, zeal, and technical skills)› the World of Commerce (rentability) Boltanski and Thévenot 1991: 201-260

14

|Date 21-04-2015


Authorial postures as framing

› Classification, interpretation and evaluation of literature are social processes: Authors position themselves in the literary field and are positioned by critics, publishers etc. (Bourdieu)

› They connect/are connected to recognized models for being an author: posture: a ‘personal way of investing or endorsing a conventional role’ (Meizoz 2007; cf. Viala, Bourdieu)

› discursive (paratext, works, interviews…) and non-discursive cues for author classification + interpreta-ting/evaluating works along conventional pathways

› However: (1) Authors do not adopt/get attributed just one posture (2) this is not a descriptive method, but hermeneutic reconstruction, and a heuristics

15

|Date 21-04-2015


Why bother abt. authors in reflection on, or theory of literary interpretation?Communication involves attribution of intention & ethos:› not just semantic content, also adhesion of speaker to said› speaker&audience: reciprocal calculus of intentions, ethos

(a.o.authority and reliability)› calculus extended to all subject positions involved &

perceived as relevant, when evoked/embedded/cited assertions may be at stake (especially, but not exclusively, in literary fiction)

=> Intensive cognitive activity: mind reading, status reading, calculating perspectives…

16

|Date 21-04-2015


Why/when include authors in theorizing about interpretation?› Cf Foucault, author-functionsIn the analysis of circulation of meaning and values:Author relevant when adhesion to expressed world views & values and/or relation to factual/historical truth are critical, as in:- Genres such as engagé, autobiographic, autofictional, utopic/dystopic, documentary literature etc. - Works where tone is (perceived as) foregrounded: ironic, satirical, polemic [etc.]

17

|Date 21-04-2015


Framing an author’s ethos, ethos as framing

Ethos in ancient rhetoric (Aristotle, Cicero…) 3 ‘pisteis’ or means of persuasion:- Ethos: “three things making the orator himself

trustworthy (…): good sense, goodness and goodwill [tow. audience]” (Aristotle. Rhetoric 2,1,5-7: 78a6-20)

- Pathos: appeal to emotions in the audience, a.o. by display of sincere emotions

- Logos: appeal to (pseudo)rational arguments

Discursive vs prior ethos as framing

18

|Date 21-04-2015


Whose/which ethos?

Ethos attributions crucially affect up-take of discourse in all communication situations, in literary narrative as well. But- Whose discourse and whose ethos? Characters, narrator, ‘implied author, real author…(only latter discussed today)- How to detect ethos? no method, only(1)heuristics: learning the clues/codes (2)interpretive acts: attribution of ethos, intentions etc.; (3)metahermeneutic reconstructions/analyic frameworks

hermeneutic circle involved: it is on the basis of my initial idea about a speaker/voice’s ethos and about a discourse’s genre and type that I construct hypotheses about a local ethos, which in turn feeds/corrects my overall idea about the speaker’s ethos… Ex. Houellebecq

19

|Date 21-04-2015


Ethos in French Discourse Analysis

• discursive ethos: stylistic clues (?) for speaker’s character & adhesion to & modality of assertion: authority, sincerity, authenticity, irony…

• non-discursive ethos: codified ‘natural’ body language & ethos semiotics (Maingueneau 2004, Meizoz 2007)

• Prior ethos: for literature, in author image, posture

-> topoi, stereotypes, ‘semiotics of ethos’Amossy 1999/2001; Maingueneau 2004 (> Perelman/Tyteca, Viala, Bourdieu e.a.); Korthals Altes 2014

20

|Date 21-04-2015


NB. Author and ethosDifferent roles, different expectations and norms, f.i.:› A. as person: ‘biographic subject’ (domestic and civic

worlds)

› A. as the writer: agent in the literary sphere; enactor of literary postures (inspired, civic, commercial.. worlds)

› A. as ‘inscriptor’: (implied or inferred) subject of writing, cf. narratology: synthesizes and authorizes world view, value perspectives ‘conveyed’ by a work

Cf Maingueneau 2004; Korthals Altes 2014

Þ Often conflated!Þ Check source of ethos clues, their ethos grounds, and the

‘world(s)’ in which they seem to operate

21

|Date 21-04-2015


Ethos components- Clues for moral authority (Axis of axiology): consistency; reliability

sincerity; authenticity (or opposites!), depending on moralnorms

- Clues for epistemic authority (Axis of knowledge): experience, expertise

- Clues for institutional authority (Axis of status): official position/profession; discursive situation

- Clues for physical authority (Axis of affect??): sexiness, physical power, or their opposites; mixture of very embodied/biological and social codes

22

|Date 21-04-2015


Author and ethos - citation‘the prior idea which one forms of the speaker and the image of self which the speaker constructs in discourse cannot be totally singular. To be recognized by the audience, both have to be bound up with a doxa, or linked to shared representations. These images must be referred back to cogent, albeit controversial, cultural models’ (Amossy 2001)

23

|Date 21-04-2015


Author and ethos - citations› ‘In a cognitive perspective, the stereotype allows for

generalization and categorization (…) helping the individual to make sense of the environment (…&) to make previsions concerning the future.

› ‘ In argumentation perspective, the stereotype allows the speaker to make hypotheses about the modes of reasoning and the sets of values and beliefs characteristic of a group’.

› ‘The same applies to the construction of the image of self which confers on the discourse a considerable part of its authority. The orator adapts his or her self-presentation to collective schemas which he or she believes are ratified and valued by the target public. (…) It is then incumbent upon the receiver to form an impression of the orator by connecting him or her with a known category’ (all: Amossy, 2001)

24

|Date 21-04-2015


Pro: relevance ethos analysisAnalyses› how readers’ adhesion to the various subjective

perspectives in/through discourse may take place› role played by ethos topoi and conventional pathways for

reliability/authority attribution-> Rich research in cultural models for authority, reliability…-> in moral categories and reasoning procedures -> in cognitive perspective: how literature represents and exercises our capacity to detect reciprocal assessments of ethos expectations (loop: ‘I know that you know that I know …’; cf Lisa Zunshine)

› Analysis of ascription process = hermeneutic & metahermeneutic reconstruction

25

|Date 21-04-2015


Contra: ethos analysis› Risk of reductive expressivist/descriptivist

assumption that ‘A way of speaking (…) refers to a way of being’ :

- where are the duplicities, ironies, ambiguities? the complex polyphony, multi-perspectivation effects of literature/art?

- any ethos attribution is always the result of an inference.

› Fuzzy umbrella term

26

|Date 21-04-2015


To conclude› This metahermeneutic framework aims to contribute to

better understanding of ways in which literature circulates in culture and contributes to negotiation of values and worldviews

› through historical/cultural analysis of changing ethos grounds, codes, and modes, through which (characters, narrators, and) authors establish their authority; and through which authors legitimize literary writing

› Helps understand clashes in interpretation and evaluation of literature/art, relating these to different framing acts, and corresponding value regimes

› Reconsiders/refines notion of the autonomy of the literary field

27

|Date 21-04-2015


But… › replace descriptive attitude, by:› (meta)hermeneutic reconstruction of

pathways for meaning-making: part is individual, much is shared!

› more research needed on how these framings interlock & interact; on frame-switches; on value regimes

› Combines well with empirical research (mining reception-data, reader-response…)

28

|Date 21-04-2015


List of references› Amossy, Ruth. “Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric,

Pragmatics, Sociology.” Poetics Today 22.1 (2001): 1-23. › Amossy, Ruth, and Jean-Michel Adam. Images de soi dans le discours: La

Construction de l’ethos. Lausanne [etc.]: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1999.› Amossy, Ruth, and Anne Herschberg-Pierrot. Stéréotypes et clichés:

langue, discours, société. Paris: Nathan, 1997. › Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A

Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1991 [1966].

› Dilthey, Wilhelm. "The Understanding of Other Persons and their Life-Expressions." The Hermeneutics Reader. Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present. Ed. Kurt Müller-Vollmer. New York: The Continuum, 1985b. 152-164.

› Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

› Johansen, Jørgen Dines. Literary Discourse: A Semiotic-Pragmatic Approach to Literature. Toronto: U. of Toronto Press, 2002.

› Korthals Altes, L., Ethos and Narrative Interpretation – The Negotiation of Values in Fiction. 2014.

29

|Date 21-04-2015


references› --- ‘Voice, irony and ethos: The paradoxical elusiveness of Michel

Houellebecq’s polemic writing in Les Particules élémentaires’, in: A. Blödorn, D. Langer and M. Scheffel (eds.), Stimme(n) im Text : Narratologische Positionsbestimmungen, (Berlin, etc., 2006), pp. 165-193.

› Maingueneau, Dominique. “Ethos, scénographie, incorporation”, In: Amossy e.a. 1999.

› --- Le Discours littéraire: Paratopie et scène d'énonciation. Paris: Armand Colin, 2004.

› Meizoz, J., L’oeil sociologique et la littérature (Genève, 2004). › --- Postures littéraires: Mises en scène modernes de l'auteur: essai.

Genève: Slatkine, 2007. › Pratt, Marie-Louise. Towards a speech act theory of literature, 1977)› Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and

Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995 [1986].› Viala, A., Naissance de l’écrivain (Paris, 1985).› Wisse, J., Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam, 1989).

30

Documents

|Date 21-04-2015 faculty of arts kunsten, cultuur en media 1 Interpreting & Evaluating – engagé, controversial, autobio… - Literature: authorial ethos,