Am just responding to recent remarks about the difference between the written and spoken word. Plato's dialogue Phaedrus is suggestive about the key distinction we make: the written word seems to have lost its connection to the body and soul of the person who originated it; another way to put this is to say that the moment a writer sets something down in "hard" form, he or she loses interpretive control of whatever statements have been made. Rightly or wrongly--and Plato's speaker is usually taken to be asserting rightly--we privilege the spoken word, the "utterance," because we believe it to be more closely connected with some kind of inner truth, or truth-to-consciousness, and because we believe we can effectively control our meaning in the presence of other people. It has been cogently argued that everything we say about writing is also true about speaking (Jacques Derrida's critiques begin from that insight), but our motivation to privilege speaking is so strong that it's almost impossible to break.
From a reader/listener's perspective, I think it's fair to say that we would usually respond differently to the same words (especially contentious ones) in writing and in the presence of a live speaker. Part of the difference may be accounted for by basic civility -- not wanting to seem rude or to hurt other people's feelings, etc. But as Plato and his modern critics suggest, the impulse to treat speech and writing differently is ultimately more philosophical than that.
The blogosphere complicates all this -- you have a huge potential audience, many of whom may be genuinely interested in what you write and whose various interpretations might well prove enlightening; but of course, there are also a fair number of sociopaths who seem more interested in giving their demons a workout than in anything resembling communication. Such people obviously revel in the starkness of the written word, and enjoy exploiting the absence of the originator. Best to ignore them altogether, in my view.
Satire is a perfect example of this.
ReplyDeleteDerrida and insight -- in the same sentence? Written or spoken, that's as caustically satirical, I think.
ReplyDeleteIs there really an inherent difference between written and spoken communication, or is the appearance the result of the carelessness we exhibit when we talk; the reliance on tone, syllabic stress and gesture, nudge and wink, to make up for sloppy sentence structure and words chosen without much examination?
I privilege the written word. The hurry of expressing contentious opinion; the many extra-verbal crutches we use all make it possible to slip sophistry and solecism through one's immigration control unchallenged in a way that the written word cannot. The hell with what the car salesman says, I want to see it in writing.
There is a difference between the written word - as in novel, poem, news article, etc - than the "written" word of people communicating through comment threads. The former is formal - the latter informal. The former presumes crafting, proof-reading etc. The latter presumes non of this.
ReplyDeleteOn line communicating between people is NOT the same thing as crafting an article for publication. On line communicating is people trying to talk with words on a screen. This is a new gray area that Plato, Derrida & co could never have dreamed about. As a result, it opens up a whole host of new parameters in the field of human communication. And - it fairly screams for new ethical consideration.
Another point - the written word of old - novel, article etc - did not presume to be conversing in any form with one person in particular. In other words - it was impersonal communicating. Blog commenting DOES presume a specific listener or small group of listeners - NOT readers - and therefore is personal. And any form of personal communicating ought to require more of a sense of ownership of what is said whether in written form or not.
Welcome back, Bloggingdino! During your absence, I am sad to report, your humbled 8pus has committed egregious transgressions against the written word and rampaged Cyberspace with poison pen-tacles. Hereinafter, your contrite 8pus promises to join Bloggers Anonymous and make amends by taking a shower before logging on and posting only socially correct comments that are low stress, environmentally safe, and gender neutral without regard to race, creed, choice of camouflage, age, physical disability, religiosity, species, or sea drift. These dino-shores haven’t been the same without you.
ReplyDeleteBy reading this comment, please note the following terms and conditions: This comment is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable to another blog entry with no alterations to original content. It implies no promise to actually implement this comment and is void where coleslaw is served and revocable at the sole discretion of the commenter. This comment is warranted to perform as expected only for the duration of the comment thread, or until the issuance of a new comment, whichever comes first. This warranty is limited to replacement with another comment or the issuance of a subsequent comment at the sole discretion of the commenter.
Apart from that, please accept my best wishes for a happy, healthy, and preposterous New Year (subject, of course, to the aforementioned terms and conditions).
Editor -- satire is always interesting to behold or hear. What's funny, too, is how often people take it for straight-up commentary, as in Swift's "A Modest Proposal." The best recent example I can recall of this curious inability to perceive and decode satire or parodic speech was a column by Andy Borowitz claiming that Bill Clinton had been observed keying Barack Obama's car during the primaries because he was upset about Obama competing against Hillary. Anyhow, a fair number of readers processed it as serious news rather than as a joke. Of course, it's fun to think of a major politician doing something so mischievous and petty, but.... I've noticed that the author in question no longer allows comments on his HuffPo blog posts.
ReplyDeleteFogg, I myself tend to favor the written word because it seems more honest -- it encourages us to confront something about language and interpretation that we find easy to ignore when we speak. But the distinction made by the Platonic speaker has governed most philosophical writing about writing for centuries, and it also seems to be the one that governs everyday notions about speech and writing. I don't know why you write that about Derrida and insight -- some of the work that follows his ideas is ridiculous and even incomprehensible, but his own stuff was always worthwhile and connected to philosophical tradition, rather in the manner of Nietzsche, who was a point of departure for him.
Squid, Derrida was by no means unaware of the Intertubes, though I recall that he had an aversion to computers for a while. And Plato invented the Internet -- don't believe what Allosaurus Gore tells you.
I understand what you're saying about the distinction between craft and expression, but the claim that blog writing is like speech strikes me as unsustainable. I think it's true of any form of writing whatsoever that -- just as Plato's Thoth says (if I recall the flow of the dialog correctly) -- the meaning slips away from us at the moment of inscription (or keyboarding?). Nobody owns an utterance in any medium or format, though of course one might introduce the notion of "taking responsibility" for an utterance -- that is, for how one might be expected to suppose others will interpret it.
Octo, thanks and Happy New Year to you all as well.
Bloggingdino, being one reincarnation removed (advancing from human to cephalopod is a recommended upgrade), I am rusty on matters of human philosophy. Does critical methodology always require us to think in dialectics of “either/or” or is there wiggle room for an 8pus perspective? Perhaps the Internet has properties of privileged and non- privileged discourse, if I understand your distinction?
ReplyDeleteAs you defined the term, “privileged,” a comment thread has the interactive properties of speech – there is an opportunity for exchange that confers an ability to control meaning in the presence of participants. One can argue, clarify, modify, or add nuance to insulate meaning from misinterpretation. Instead of voice, the medium is a keyboard, but the constant is interactivity.
What happens when speech is turned into a transcript? Since it is no longer interactive, I assume speech exists in stasis and is no longer privileged. One participates in conversation, but reads a transcript, which reveals more than the sum of the participants.
Perhaps a comment thread is speech and transcript, privileged and non-privileged, combined. A comment thread never becomes a full-fledged transcript because one can always delete, revise, re-enter a conversation, or link to another conversation until said subject is exhausted or abandoned … even still … a comment thread is always latent conversation.
Or as the Governator would say: “I’ll be back.”
Perhaps if I could read French, Derrida might seem to have a purpose beyond the creation of gratuitous sesqipedalia like "verisimilitude." (not to be confused with octo or decapedalia, of course, which things are badges of honor here.)
ReplyDeleteAs to his emerging from Nietzsche's philosophy, I question Fred as a real philosopher, pace Danto. He's always had a place in my heart as a gifted curmudgeon rather than a man tangled up in the defense of a comprehensive world view.
As to not getting the joke, that's something I've come to associate with the American Right - the people who rant about decadent "Modern Art" that's a hundred years old and make a virtue out of not "getting" much of anything.
Some hack at the WSJ made a joke, shortly after Palin was selected to run with McCain, that two planeloads of lawyers were on the way to Alaska to dig up dirt. It never happened, but by now it's graven in stone as true history.
Captain, Derrida is certainly a challenge, and anyone who can confuse even Chomsky is deserving of respect. Besides, some of my closest and most beloved friends have been graced by his presence. Thus spoke Octo who now shuts up.
ReplyDeleteAlso sprach Krake mitt blauer
ReplyDeleteSchelt'
Und hoeret zu die ganze Welt.
Derrida under water? Sure it wasn't Cousteau? Perhaps it's hard to tell one unending stream of bubbles from another, but OK, I'll turn off the sarcasmatron now.
Was bedeutet "Shelt' ?" Ist das ein deutsches Wort?
ReplyDeleteDie Schelte -- eine Perücke, nicht wahr?
ReplyDeleteDas ist kein Perücke ..
ReplyDeleteDas ist mein Yarmulke.
Übrigens … mazal tov!
ReplyDeleteMazel tov? Aber warum? was unterscheidet diese Nacht von allen anderen Nächten?
ReplyDeleteWarum ist heute Abend anders als andere Adende?
ReplyDeleteHeute Abend muss ich Reste essen.
In allen andern Nächten essen wir Gesäuert und Ungesäuert — diese Nacht nur Ungesäuertes?
ReplyDelete