While attempting to trace Kenneth Burke's "Equipment for Living" I found his sociological critique of literature to be very helpful and intuitive. When describing his aim for active sociological categories for literature Burke writes "What I want is categories that suggest their active nature. Here there is no 'realism for it's own sake'"(296). He is trying to propose a system of categorization of literature based on the "strategies" that literature uses. These strategies can be anything from purification to vengeance. I think this style of categorizing is very useful because it does not try and sort literature according to era or form, but according to it's aim and how this aim is useful to a given audience.
Additionally, Burke writes "Sociological classification, as herein suggested, would derive it's relevance from the fact that it should apply to both works of art and to social situations outside of art"(303). While I am not entirely sure what Burke means by this, I think he is aiming for a system of classification that treats literature as something beyond just a lofty exercise of the intellect. He wants us to perceive literature as something useful for our lives; an art that speaks to us and can be categorized according to its attitudes about certain subjects.
Although I find Burke's method useful I have a few questions that extend beyond the text. How would Burke go about deciding whether a certain work within a certain category is a good or bad? How do we differentiate between good and bad strategies? Also, how are we to gauge the usefulness of these strategies and determine how well they accomplish their goals?
3 comments:
I found Burke's piece very interesting so I'm glad someone wrote about it! While I do not have a correct answer for your question, I think I'm willing to tackle one. You asked "how do we differentiate between good and bad strategies?" I argue that we cannot, as such categories do not exist. Sociological criticism is all dependent on social circumstances. I would argue that Burke is saying language is titled or viewed through one's vantage point. So in order to classify strategies, we would have to consider the situations in which they're used...but through all possible vantage points. One strategy is not "right" or "wrong", but merely dependent on the situation. Language is a social art whose strategy is modified based on the enemy (or in language's case, the society at large's attack on it). By classifying something as "bad", I think you're only giving it a new strategy under which it can operate. By being operational, it remains a "good" strategy.
Also, for your last question, I think we again find ourselves without a clear answer. Since there is no clear-cut category these strategies can fall under, but instead an infinite amount depending on how you classify them, I think that there is no good way to gauge their usefulness. Again, I go back to my previous argument that strategies are dependent on social circumstances, so I would say that the usefulness of strategies would be determined by how effectively they relate or relay the literature to the society that reads it (both past and present).
I wrote a comment, but I didn't realize I was still on the OneStart page, so it got erased when I pushed preview. OK, I'm going to try this again.
The question you asked and Marianna addressed reminded me of Burke's conclusion: "Their comparative values would be considered, with the intention of formulating a 'strategy of strategies,' the 'over-all' strategy obtained by inspection of the lot."
I wonder if the formula that Burke suggests could create categories of "good" and "bad" strategies. For instance, let's say we have two books that address the situation of being late on a first date. We compare the books' strategies and find that Book A has a better strategy than Book B. What happens to Book B? Book B isn't completely useless, but it does have a weaker strategy than Book A. I think we can say that Book A is the "strongest", "best", or "supreme good" (most useful), but Book B is also good (or useful). Then again, why would anyone want to use Book B if it has an inferior strategy to Book A? If Book A is the best option to deal with that specific situation, then why would any other strategy be considered?
My biggest concern with Burke's formula is that it places competing values on literary pieces.
For instance, Peter Man deals with pirates, and Treasure Island deals with pirates. Treasure Island deals with pirates slightly better than Peter Man, so it has a higher value. I can't imagine comparing books in this way.
If any of that makes sense, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we used Burke's formula, I'd be worried that valid literary pieces would be pushed to the side because their "comparative values" aren't high enough. How would Burke's formula change what we consider to be "tasteful" literature? Would "tasteful" become synonymous with "useful"?
What if someone needed a strategy for an atypical situation and that strategy existed in a literary piece, but that piece had been deemed to have a low value of usefulness. Would it be available to buy?
Burke says that literary pieces change depending on how society change. Have literary pieces' popularity always depended on their usefulness? Therefore, if we employed his formula, would the same books be popular anyway?
OlivaM and all -- I couldn't resist jumping in to the conversation. Olivia's response reminds me of a subtlety in Burke's essay that might be useful here.
By "strategy of strategies," is it possible that Burke actually refers to a philosophy of attitudes? Or some overarching awareness? Or some underlying principle?
I suggest that because by the end of his piece, I see that attitude acts as an antidote to the "recipes" that Burke is concerned might dictate our responses to texts (298-299). In other words, he seems not to be a huge fan of those proverbs or texts that provide "strateg[ies] for easy consolation" since they may become too utilitarian, too easy to follow, to reductive, too formalistic, especially in in era of confusion such as post-Communism (I am adding in this detail, but it seems important that Burke emphatically asks us to become aware of what we read).
Burke makes this point in the context of proposing that strategies be realistic as they form: "the wise strategist will not be content with strategies of merely a self-gratifying sort" (298), but it did make me pay more attention to his use of the term "strategy."
So by the end of the essay, my understanding of the term is that it (a strategy) would do more than simply assemble and codify; thus, sociological criticism is not just an amalgamation of strategies, but a more active process of strategizing (303).
In fact, the works of art themselves would be seen as the strategies. This seems a slight shift away from the idea that we would use strategies to determine works of art.
-Prof. Graban
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.