[Xmca-l] Re: (no subject)

[Ana Marjanovic-Shane]

Dear Mike,

I believe that Bakhtin did not use the concept of ventriloquism (but someone could correct me if I am wrong) but that it was ascribed to him by others. In fact in the Poetics of Dostoyevsky, Bakhtin explicitly states that that the author does not infuse a hero with his voice!!! (which could be interpreted as ventriloquism), on the contrary:

"Self-consciousness, as the artistic dominant in the construction of the hero's image, is by itself sufficient to break down the monologic unity of an artistic world—but only on condition that the hero, as self-consciousness, is really represented and not merely expressed, that is, does not fuse with the author, does not become the mouthpiece for his voice; only on condition, consequently, that accents of the hero's self-consciousness are really objectified and that the work itself observes a distance between the hero and the author. If the umbilical cord uniting the hero to his creator is not cut, then what we have is not a work of art but a personal document." (Bakhtin, Poetics of Dostoyevsky, p. 57)

Also -- when Bakhtin talks about double-voicedness  -- where the voice of another penetrates one's own voice  (which maybe had given an idea to some interpreters that it is like another voice speaking through as if one was a dummy), this is not in the sense of being possessed by a daemon, which is Plato's/Socrate's understanding - but in the sense of two voices living in an inner dialogue.

"And in the words of the story not only the pure intonations of the author would be heard, but also the intonations of the noblewoman and the coachman; that is, words would be double-voiced, in each word an argument (a microdialogue) would ring out, and there could be heard echoes of the great dialogue." (Bakhtin, Poetics of Dostoyevsky, p. 73).

My comment was more about the difference in the understanding of a dialogue between Socrates/Plato and Bakhtin. My knowledge is certainly limited, but this is my understanding of this difference. 

What do you think?

Ana





On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:28 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ana-- Why would Bakhtin use the term ventriloquation if it contradicted his dialogic principles? 
> mike
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mike and all,
> 
> The term "ventriloquation" is of Latin origin, translated from Greek meaning  "to talk in the belly"
> 
> " 1580s, from Late Latin ventriloquus, from Latin venter (genitive ventris) "belly" (see ventral) + loqui "speak" (see locution).
> 
> Patterned on Greek engastrimythos, literally "speaking in the belly," which was not originally an entertainer's trick but rather a rumbling sort of internal speech, regarded as a sign of spiritual inspiration or (more usually) demonic possession. Reference to the modern activity so called seems to have begun early 18c., and by 1797 it was being noted that this was a curiously inappropriate word to describe throwing the voice." From the online etymological dictionary.
> 
> I think that for Bakhtin, dialogue would be quite the opposite from ventriloquism.. Dialogue is about addressing the other ⎌and/or replying to the other, rather than "throwing a voice into a dummy" or "talking in the belly".
> 
> Although I am not a Russian contributor, I think that Plato's and Socrates ideas about dialogue were very different than Bakhtin's.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Ana
> 
> 
> mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Neat, Doug.
> >
> >The idea that ventriloquation is where thought begins is really interesting
> >and the dialogue a lot of fun.
> >
> >I am almost positive that an examination of the etymology of the term
> >ventriloquation in Bakhtin would repay investigation.
> >
> >Perhaps one of the Russian contributors could help us out here. I have this
> >hunch that the gods are somehow involved, or maybe there is just a one God.
> >But I could well be mistaken.
> >mike
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi--
> >>
> >> One thing I think you'll have to deal with is Plato's hostility to
> >> narrative, which for him was cast in the form of poetry. Eric Havelock's
> >> Preface to Plato would be a good place to start.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have to admit that I think accessing this particular line of thought
> >> through Plato is difficult, because he is so deeply suspicious of people
> >> becoming possessed, literally, by the attractiveness of imaginary worlds. I
> >> think he views imaginary narrative as suspect always, because even though
> >> it may be play for the narrator, narratives are dangerous for the audience:
> >> By subjecting themselves to the imagination of another, the audience
> >> becomes trapped in a world of shadows of shadows, until, ultimate horror of
> >> horrors, otherwise proto-sentient beings sit around in Harry Potter clubs
> >> ventriloquizing J.K. Rowling.
> >>
> >>
> >> On the other hand, from a cultural-historical psychology point of view,
> >> access to reality begins with internalizing what Bakhtin might call genres
> >> of sociocultural activity--the moral and intellectual tools available in
> >> the external world that arm the proto-sentient being with the means to
> >> comprehend society, culture, genres of thought and activity, and all the
> >> other things that internalizing the patterns of language and activity
> >> around us make available to our own use. Ventriloquizing is where thought
> >> begins. As Socrates might say, in dialogue with Plato, if he were to emerge
> >> out of the shadows of a cave somewhere for a time, to ponder the world as
> >> it has turned these many years:
> >>
> >> Soc. I have often heard you warn about the dangers of poetry, which can
> >> trap the minds of those who become bewitched by the muse. But suppose you
> >> have studiously avoided narrative, does it truly free someone to think more
> >> creatively?
> >>
> >>
> >> Plato. Well, surely this is self-evident, is it not? For when is it
> >> possible to think for oneself about the world in the dead thoughts of
> >> another, such as we often see in those who become lost in plays and
> >> stories? These narratives are like a labyrinth, which, once entered, few
> >> have the power to leave. It is surely a matter of great good fortune that
> >> this modern age has so many who are free from the evils created by the
> >> poets.
> >>
> >>
> >> Soc. Would you agree that this new Internet technology has nothing to do
> >> with stories of long ago?
> >>
> >> Plato. Yes, of course it does not. That is a very clear example of the
> >> foolishness of wasting time reading stories, rather than thinking for
> >> oneself. This wondrous techne clearly shows the advantage to be derived by
> >> devoting one's thought to the world as it is, rather than to imaginary
> >> worlds created by poets and writers, which are always derivative."
> >>
> >>
> >> Soc. Yet there are several features of this Internet that reflect a sense
> >> of stories. What do you suppose "World Wide Web" means?
> >>
> >> Plato. Why, I should think that it refers to the strands of a spider's
> >> web. But that is not a story; that is simple observation of the real world.
> >>
> >>
> >> Soc. Do you suppose that these strands of metal function like a spider's
> >> web, then? Do they trap those who wander into them?
> >>
> >> Plato. But Socrates, of course I do not.
> >>
> >> Soc. Or do you suppose that only daughters of Arachne are capable of
> >> weaving such webs?
> >>
> >>
> >> Plato: No--though surely you do not mean to say that one must know of
> >> Arachne, or indeed of spiders and webs, to be able to create such things?
> >>
> >>
> >> Soc. No. But consider the matter this way: How would you describe the
> >> relation of a word like "web" to the design?
> >>
> >>
> >> Plato: I think I might describe it as a kind of tool of thought. But there
> >> is no narrative there.
> >>
> >> Soc. Very good. We are agreed that words are tools then. But suppose I
> >> find another word that makes no sense outside of a narrative context? Would
> >> you agree that narratives might be tools, too?
> >>
> >> Plato: Surely there can be no such word, Socrates.
> >> Soc. There is a story told by certain barbarians of the North, which
> >> certain poets wrote down, much as Homer did, to communicate to the latest
> >> posterity the thoughts and deeds of ancestors--though most disreputably,
> >> they selected not history, but arrant lies.
> >>
> >> Plato: Indeed, that is very reprehensible, Socrates. I should describe
> >> such people as wolves in human form, who prey not just on the minds of the
> >> living, but of the future. Most terrible!
> >>
> >> Soc. And yet one of their stories has a meaning in this techne of
> >> Internet, if I understand rightly.
> >>
> >> Plato. Surely not!
> >>
> >> Soc. They say that a certain term describing one of the tools of craft to
> >> navigate on this web is called a "breadcrumb." I find this a very strange
> >> term.
> >>
> >> Plato: So do I, Socrates. It shows that there is no narrative about "web"
> >> that traps these wise craftsmen of this modern era. But what does it mean?
> >>
> >> Soc. I am told that this term refers to a story of these northern
> >> barbarians, called "Hansel and Gretel," about two children. These children
> >> scattered crumbs from a loaf of bread as they walked through a forest, so
> >> that they could find their way home again by returning along the path of
> >> crumbs they had left behind them.
> >>
> >> Plato. I see. So you are telling me that the word "breadcrumb" is used to
> >> describe a way of returning on a web site to the place from which one
> >> started, and moreover, that it is the very meaning of the word in the
> >> context of this story that gives the word "breadcrumb" its particular
> >> meaning?
> >>
> >> Soc. So I am given to understand. In fact, unless I am very much mistaken,
> >> it appears that the knowledge of this story was specifically the
> >> inspiration for crafting this particular kind of technology. What do you
> >> think "breadcrumb" means in the context of this usage?
> >>
> >> Plato: Why, I must concede, Socrates, that it appears to be a signifier
> >> representing a pattern of thought that is embodied in this narrative of the
> >> barbarians.
> >>
> >> Soc. Do you think that this is a form of creative thought? Or is it a case
> >> of modern craftspeople becoming imprisoned by narratives, and unable to
> >> think outside of them? Is it creative to use an idea from a story about
> >> children who never existed to craft a way of doing things? Or is this
> >> modern era filled with victims of their foolish ancestors, who filled their
> >> minds with lies and delusions?
> >>
> >> Plato. I suppose I must regard the use of this story as a creative form of
> >> thought, because surely the people who use such tools must be able to free
> >> themselves from the limits of the story from which the word "breadcrumb" is
> >> drawn.
> >>
> >> Soc. Do you suppose that it is possible someone who does not know such
> >> stories is at a disadvantage, such as a carpenter might be if he had one
> >> kind of adze?
> >>
> >> Plato. I do not like to think that someone requires a narrative to think
> >> with, but I suppose it could be true, Socrates.
> >>
> >> Soc. Is it possible, then, my dear Plato, that the poet is not always a
> >> danger to society?
> >>
> >> Plato. I am unwilling to go so far, Socrates. Yet I must concede that in
> >> some ways, and in some cases, poets may have some value to society.
> >>
> >> Soc. Perhaps I hear a muse murmuring in my ears, like the sound of the
> >> flute in the ears of the mystic; that voice, I say, is humming in my ears,
> >> and prevents me from hearing any other. This muse tells me that poetry is,
> >> after all, a gift of the gods, just as is any other gift. And I know that
> >> anything more which you will say against the value of narratives will be in
> >> vain. Yet speak, if you have anything to say.
> >>
> >> Plato. I have nothing to say, Socrates.
> >>
> >> Soc. Then let me follow the intimations of the will of the god.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 10:06 AM, CAITLIN WUBBENA <
> >> cwubbena@gse.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi! I am a graduate student at Penn working on my Master's paper in
> >> foundations/philosophy of education. I am taking a course with Andrew
> >> Babson and he recommended I post here for some feedback/advice.
> >>
> >> Loosely, my topic is centered on Plato's notion of play/seriousness. I want
> >> to explore why intellectual play is vital for success in higher ed and
> >> envision this particular project (it's a relatively short lit review) as an
> >> analysis of the historical context that has allowed this conversation to
> >> happen in academia. At this point, I plan to cite Plato, Kierkegaard
> >> (Socratic irony), and Dewey. I've also been introduced to Vygotsky and
> >> Kendall Walton. The main challenge is bridging the conversation to higher
> >> ed.
> >>
> >> Any advice on where to go, books/articles to look into, etc would be
> >> greatly appreciated!
> >>
> >> -Caitlin
> >>
>