The Pierre Macherey reading from "A Theory of Literary Production" was incredibly dense and I can only hope that I somewhat understand his full message. I was however struck by his idea that “silence reveals speech – unless it is speech that reveals silence” (Easthope and McGowan 17). Would we know of silence without speech? Do the two not go hand in hand? If we did not have speech, no one would recognize the constant silence as anything significant because it would be all that we had ever experienced.
Also in his piece, Macherey tells of silence as a “source of expression” (Easthope and McGowan 17). I truly believe that silence is one of the most powerful sources of expression that we as human beings possess. When one is silent, they can reflect many different emotions and relay multiple feelings to those around them. It is very uncommon for a person to come right out and say, I am really sad or really depressed; but rather a person in one of these situations is normally silent.
One can also relay this idea of silence to the print advertisements we are constantly bombarded with. They are not verbally telling us anything, and some do not even have written language on them, but the majority of people who view them can understand the message they are trying to send.
What does it say about our culture if this silence has become such a big part of our lives that we can derive meaning from it? If there a culture that does not use silence in this way?
3 comments:
aro0823, Macherey
I too had remarkable difficult understanding the Macherey piece. Though, similarly, the one line that very much struck me was "silence shapes all speech." The insinuation is remarkably paradoxical considering how much language has evolved. How is it that the unsaid carries more weight than the spoken? If you have so many words from which to choose from—such an expansive langue—why leave silent the message you wish to speak?
Growing up in the "Me" generation, it is understood that everyone has a story to tell. Everyone feels the need to communicate all the time. Frankly, silence is uncomfortable and can mean too many different things. Sorting all of those things out takes time and, even worse, effort. Devices of classical literature and theatre that emphasize silence are thereby ruled ineffective. We refuse to a.) sit through long and drawn out silences and b.) attempt to put effort into comprehending the unspoken. For the general public to understand anything, we need an omnipresent narrator to move things along like life itself is a reality show. It is easy to sit back and be a passive consumer of only what is said because the unsaid will be revealed later in the “secret camera confessional.” Hence, we are simply losing the ability to understand what is unsaid if a silence is intentional. Furthermore, the notion of “investigation [of silence]” is not a venture undertaken by normal humans, rather only those primetime forensics experts with nifty labs and sweet gadgets.
With this hypothesis I venture to state that Macherey's notions of silence shaping speech are going by the wayside. The days of the long pauses for dramatic emphasis are gone. TiVo has eliminated them. We love to talk and hate to wait. Say what you mean to say and move along. Silence is inefficient.
Good Post Dot. I especially liked how you applied Macherey's idea of silence to visual advertisements. I also find your closing question about our culture and silence intriguing. Just remember that when you do a pre class post to put the name of the theorist in your title.
-Starfish
You have posted some very interesting thoughts Aro08323. I thought your theory on how silence has become less prominent in today's society was very smart and thought provoking. It made me think of the many people in today's world who are afraid of silence. I think that the idea of being frightened of silence is something you might find interesting to think about and apply to your thoughts.
-Starfish
Post a Comment