(con)TEXT(ualism)

The reading these weeks were quite difficult and dense, but I don’t know if it is because I am in a fairly good academic mental state the last couple days, or what... but I kinda *secretly* enjoyed them (? I know...?). Maybe it is because the topic is really interesting and more relevant to my own work. I think I may actually go over the readings again when I have more time to focus on them, which, unfortunately, is not now. November will always be known to me in my heart as “hell month”.

I think it is largely my biased nostalgic love for Derrida, which as I have mentioned at an earlier time stems from my first year as an undergrad, that made me enjoy his argument against contextualism. “Contexts, Derrida argues, can never be absolutely determined or “saturated”; the “arbitrariness of the sign” disrupts this certainty.” (142)

I beleive determening the context of an ancient text will always be influenced by the context during the time it is being determined. If you search hard enough you will most likely find what you are looking for. Do I want to prove that ancient Indians were environmentalists? I probably could if I tried hard enough (and many have suceeded). This is cool and all, but I am always warry of such a modern reading of something. Indians living in pre-modern times did not protect their environment because they were thinking of global warming and reducing their carbon emissions. They protected their environment to protect themselves right here right now. They needed unpolluted water, forrest cover around the water source provided them with this. They needed protection against flooding, tree roots kept the ground stable and the forest floor soaked up a lot of excess water.

Yet Derrida saying the there is “no outside-the-text” might be going a little too far for me. Context does exist, the author existed in a world outside of his text. Similarily, Spiegle “insists that context be kept separate from text, that the social not be absorbed into “textuality” that politics and social practices not be treated as “cultural scripts” (164)

Even though I do not think context is everything, nor is is easily isolatable, I think it is important to keep the context in mind when reading a text. It determines the language and ideas used. But an author’s own personal ideas are not TOTALLY reflexive of their time.

Clark’s point that “Christian writings from late antiquity should be read first and foremost as literary productions before they are read as sources of social data.” (159). This is a good point and can be applied to more than just Christian writings. This is how I look at texts. Yes, one must attempt to reconstruct the past by any means possible. But such heavy weight and importance should not be placed on literature. Sometimes they are just stories, entertainment. Hidden moral meanings can be found in most stories, but hidden meanings are not tucked away behind everything.

“As Foucauldian theory might suggest, there is here no natural object “history”. Ancient historians, unlike our contemporaries, wrote for nonprofessional audiences for whom epic poetry was the only other narrative genre” (166)

Historians were story tellers. Some of the funniest “history” is supplied to us by Herodotus. Giant gold digging ants? Hairy giant men as the inhabitants of India? Man this stuff is good! This is supposed to be a historical factual account. I believe this provides us with a perfect example of how even histories are not 100% trustworthy sources (after all history is written by the winners). Therefore stories should be looked at with even more scepticism... but of course some people believe in gold digging ants, or at least marmots...

Even though satellite images tell me that there is/once was a land bridge from India to Sri Lanka, I do not believe Rama made it with the help of squirrels, monkeys, and bears. Yet we can take this idea, that whoever, whatever, composed the Ramayana with the knowledge that this structure existed without Satellites. Therefore maybe at the time/over the years that it was composed this bridge was possibly above water. That is the kind of context I would impose.

Or you know maybe they had satellite images back then.... how else would Kalidasa be able to describe what Indian looked like from the view point of a cloud so well?? I say aliens...definitely aliens!

As I brought up in last class I find it very difficult to believe in an accurate dating of the epics, such as the Ramayana. This is usually attempted through investigating the possible context of the time. Ok MAYBE Valmiki, the legendary bandit turned composer of the first metered verse (sloka) ACTUALLY sat down beside his anthill and wrote the entire epic after seeing a lovebird be killed by a hunter while in the throes of passion with his partner love bird. MAYBE Vyasa dictated the Mahabharata to Ganesha, who tore off his own elephant trunk to continue to write when his writing quill broke.

I find it much more believable that these traditions originated out of old bardic traditions, and changed over time to incorporate the issues of the time. Some of these contexts remained, some disappeared. Then maybe at one time they were written down (maybe by Valmiki or dictated to Ganesha by Vyasa). But they did not remain static after being written for the first time on palm leafs. Other authors came along and added chapters containing their own hierarchies, philosophies, and yes, context of the time. What has been passed down to us is the work of many authors and many times. Therefore the context is not straight forward, it is not of one time.

P.S. I love how Clark refers to the “warm embrace of theory” (164)... possibly the best quote and explains the rest of her many pages!

P.P.S I always intend to write a short blog post so you guys don’t have to go through all my randomness... I failed again this week, sorry guys!

I made this one myself after doing the readings!!

(Derrida's is taken from the lolprofs facebook group)