UNITY vs. DIVISIVENESS

 Is a text inclusive or divisive? Does it serve to unify ideas through common forms and archetypes, or does it use standard literary devices (such as the Other and the Feminine Myth) as a means of identifying the differences among people? Critics have positioned themselves on both sides of this issue, to persuasive effect regardless of where on the continuum the critic chooses to position hum or herself. This paper will first address the critical position of  inclusiveness, then the polar opposite of divisiveness. Then it will address whether a synthesis of these two extremes can be achieved. 

In what ways does a text function as a comprehensive mechanism? On the most basic level, in order to communicate clearly with another, common agreement on meanings and terms is required: A common unitary language is a system of linguistic norms" (Bakhtin,1198). But in order for literature to function on a higher level it must be Intergrated in such a way that all the parts serve the whole.

    But to this you will surely agree: every discourse (logon) like a living creature... Should be so        put together (sunestanai) that has its own body and lacks neither head nor foot ,, middle nor        extremities, all composed in such a way that they suit each other and the whole (Plato, The       Collected Dialogs of Plato, as cited by Derrida, 1843)

However, this principle goes beyond mere foreshadowing or dramatic economy. To properly function the text must follow the rule that it subscribes to its own logic.  The movie The Day After Tomorrow fails in this regard. It establishes the scenario where it is so cold if you go outside you will die. Without explanation, (no special gear, no special powers) Dennis Quaid's character is able to travel a long distance, inexplicably, this harsh climate. It is a failed text because it does not follow its own rules and thus lacks unity. 

But what of If On A Winter's Night a Traveller? Italo Calvino's famous interlaced work that upsets the expectations of the reader by introducing entirely new texts that displace the previous texts? The form of the book is an interplay between the textual space and the grounded space of the novel. It switches back and forth from the stories the readers are pursuing and the story of the quest. If the book had been published without the anchor story of the reader s looking for the text, it would merely be a collection of unfinished short stories. By writing about the Reader and Ludmilla, Calvino conforms to the logic he establishes within his text and creates a unified whole of parts the "suit each other and the whole".

Texts must have an internal coherence, but they must also have an external coherence. T.S. Eliot understood how intertextuality causes the text to be perceived as a portion of something larger.

    No poet, no artist of any sort, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his                appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot            value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead (Eliot,            1093).

When we read a text we do not in a vacuum; we read with the knowledge of the texts we have encountered before. All of this prior information colors the text at hand, and the individual text is more properly seen not as an individual but a new layer of stain upon the canon that colors our perception of not just the current work but past works as well.

    The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the        introduction of the new (the really new) work of art. The existing order is complete before        the before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the        whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions,        values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; this is conformity between     the old and the new (Eliot 1093).

From this perspective, the canon itself acts as one text, and each text acts as a part. Through such relations, a unified whole is created. The case can be made that literature is, or should be when it is functioning properly, a coherent and comprehensive form of communication. If this were truly the case, texts would not be controversial.  There would be no call for critics, English majors, or term papers. There are some aspects of literature that serve to split apart rather than bring together the elements of the text. 

Clear divisions along gender, race, and socioeconomic lines are often drawn within any given text. Such distinctions serve as catalysts for conflict, the essence of drama. Hoevet, in a text where the characters behave according to their pre-defined roles, some critics do not see historical unity (the stepmother is always mean, the handsome young man always gets the girl), but rather discord within the text.  masculine counterparts. Given the antonymic quality she identifies: if men are strong, women are weak; if men are bold, women are ambivalent. The clearest signifier of a female is that she is female and will behave according to pre-determined roles that have been assigned to her.

    As group symbols and social types are generally defined by means of antonyms in pairs,        ambivalence will seem to be an intrinsic quality of the Eternal Feminine (de Beauvoir, 1408).

De Beauvoir takes issue with feminine characters being defined in opposition to their masculine counterparts. Given the antonymic quality she identifies: if men are strong, women are weak; if men are bold, women are ambivalent. The clearest signifier of a female is that she is female and will behave according to pre-determined roles that have been assigned to her. She can't be a teacher who happens to be a woman, she must be a female teacher.  In German such roles are codified in the language with is strict gender structures. A teacher is a "Lehrer", but a female teacher is a "Lehrerin". Let there be no doubt that the most important thing to know is the gender of the person! Since women are defined in opposition to men, women will always suffer in comparison (so long as men retain control over the power structure). De Beauvoir's fracturing along gender lines is one argument against internal unity in a text, du Bois' is along race lines. 

Gener and race are obvious targets (to the modern reader) for perceiving conflict interna to texts There are additional means for dividing a cultural group into sub-groups, and Bakhtin lists many. 

    I stand in utter shamelessness and say that whatever art I have for writing has always been     used for propaganda for gaining the right of black folk to love and enjoy. I do not care a            damn for any art that is not used for propaganda (du Bois, 986).

Gender and race are obvious targets (to the modern reader) for perceiving conflict internal to texts There are additional means for dividing a cultural group into sub-groups, and Bakhtin lists many of the ways we divide ourselves (and our consequent perceptions through representations in writing):

    The internal stratification of any single national language into social dialects characteristic         group behavior, professional jargons, generic languages, languages of generations and          age groups, tendentious languages, languages of the authorities, of various circles and            passing fashions, languages that serve the specific sociopolitical purposes of the day even      of the hour (each day has its own slogan, its own vocabulary, its own emphases)-this                internal stratification present in every language at any given moment of its historical                  existence is the indispensable prerequisite for the novel as a genre (Bahktin,1192).

What is particularly noteworthy about Bahktin's understanding of language as a dividing force is how he includes the element of time. My own use of language has changed through the year and will continue to evolve, and not just because of mobility in socioeconomic status and the variety of social groups I interact with, but also because of the internal changes each group undergoes. This can be demonstrated in the extreme by studying the evolution of teen slang over a short period of time Someone who was 14 in 2005 will not use the same slang at 17 in 2008. This can be partially attributed to the growth of the child into aq new subgroup of the culture, but it is largely a function of popular culture moving very quickly. Bahktin illustrates how the novel acts as flypaper to catch the linguistic elements of the specific time period involved. This is true regardless of the era in which the novel is set. The writer of a novel about 16th century France who writes today will have their text influenced by the historical moment of living now. A similar novel written in the 19th century would have the historical biases of its time. Bahktin makes a case against "linguistic norms" even though he posited the idea of such norms. How can a text have linguistic unity when there is no when there is strong evidence that an investment banker who lives across the river from me does not even speak the same language that I do? When we read any given text there will be elements that are foreign to me, or foreign to her. Can we even be said to be reading the same book? 

I believe there is hope for synthesis between the polar positions of textual unity and textual discord. Awork that has unity of form and conflict of meaning inhabits both of these positions simultaneously. In order to do so the text must adhere to Plato's description of text that has all the elements serving the whole, as well as Bahktin's concept of linguistic unity. Once these requirements are met the author is free to pursue conflict among the coherent internal elements.  This would not satisfy critics such as de Beauvoir or du Bois, as no representational requirement would be brought to bear. Perhaps these critics would do well to learn from Bahktin:

    Every utterance participates in the 'unitary language' (in its centripedal forces and                      tendencies) and at the same time partakes of social and historical heteroglossia (the               centrifugal, stratifying forces (Bahktin, 1199).

Every (coherent) text contains elements of both unity and divisiveness in the same moment. The best way tom reconcile these two elements is to embrace their coexistence and move forward from the historical position that we have no choice but to occupy. "We must begin wherever we are... Wherever we are: in a text where we already believe ourselves to be," (Derrida 1829.)

WORKS CITED

Letch, Vincent, ed The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001