Preferred Citation: Burke, Kenneth. On Human Nature: A Gathering While Everything Flows, 1967 19!

"# Berkeley: University of California Press, c2003 2003. http://ark.cdli .or!/ark:/"3030/kt"#$%p%r$/

&& For my wi$e, %ar&ara, whose meti'ulous an( heroi' la&ors hel)e( ma*e this &oo* a reality

Preferred Citation: Burke, Kenneth. On Human Nature: A Gathering While Everything Flows, 1967 19!"# Berkeley: University of California Press, c2003 2003. http://ark.cdli .or!/ark:/"3030/kt"#$%p%r$/

&& For my wi$e, %ar&ara, whose meti'ulous an( heroi' la&ors hel)e( ma*e this &oo* a reality & vii & Contents Preface (ckno)led!*ents +ntroduction P(,- ./0 1 +reativity .n 2tress, +ts 2eekin!, "%34 .n 5Creativity56( Partial ,etraction, "%4" -o)ards 8elhaven: -hree 2ta!es of a 9ision, "%4" :hy 2atire, :ith a Plan for :ritin! .ne, "%4$ ,ealis*s, .ccidental 2tyle, "%;2 P(,- -:. 1 ,ogology (rchetype and 0ntelechy, "%42 </onsy* olic= >otion/<2y* olic= (ction, "%4; -heolo!y and ?o!olo!y, "%4% 2y* olis* as a ,ealistic >ode: 5@eA PsychoanalyBin!5 ?o!olo!iBed, "%4% P(,- -8,00 1 -heory ( -heory of -er*inolo!y, "%34 -o)ards ?ookin! Back, "%43 9ariations on 5Providence,5 "%;" & viii & i' 'iii " "" 37 7$ 33 %3 "2" "3% "42

". 2. 3. $. 7. 3. 4. ;. %.

2"0 22% 2$4 24"

"0. "". "2.

P(,- C.U, 1 K.B. "3. 0yeACrossin!6Cro* Brooklyn to >anhattan: (n 0yeAPoe* for the 0ar, "%43 "$. CounterADridlock: (n +ntervie) )ith Kenneth Burke, "%;0E;" & i' &

307 333

Preface
-hou!h Burke pu lished only one ne) ook6his +olle'te( .oems <"%3;=6after ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, he continued to )rite and pu lish essays, poe*s, and revie)s up throu!h l%;$ )hen the lon!, ne) after)ords to .ermanen'e an( +hange and Attitu(es towar( History appeared )ith the third editions of those t)o ooks y the University of California Press. -he lon! essay 5+n 8aste5 also appeared that year in the special Burke issue of .re0-e1t. 8ad he een so inclined, he could easily have asse* led a final lar!e collection of his later )orks <essays, poe*s, revie)s, intervie)s, and transcri ed taped talks= for the University of California Press. But, thou!h *any of us ur!ed hi* to do so, and even offered to do it for hi*, he refused and only a!reed that if such a collection )ere ever pu lished, it should e entitled On Human Nature: A Gathering While Everything Flows, a title he had once thou!ht of usin! for .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form. 8e never *ade a final selection of his later )orks for such a collection, so )e do not have a definitive list of )hat he )ould have included, nor any indication of ho) he )ould have arran!ed the *aterial. -he sad fact of the *atter see*s to e that after his )ife ?i ie died in "%3%, Burke lost all interest in *akin! ne) ooks, in part, he said, ecause he )rote his other ooks to keep provin! to her that he )as )orthy of her love. (fter BurkeFs death in "%%3 and after )e had ti*e to co*pile a definitive i lio!raphy of everythin! that he had pu lished after "%33, + )rote to his sons, )ho )ere his literary e'ecutors, and proposed that + &'& collect his later essays and that )e persuade the University of California Press to pu lish the*. -hey a!reed and also a!reed that + should try to put to!ether the ori!inal /ym&oli' o$ 2otives as Burke conceived and )rote it durin! the early and *iddle fifties. + !ot to )ork readin! and rereadin! the *aterial that )ould *ake up On Human Nature and soon realiBed t)o thin!s: ( co*plete collection )ould e too lon! for the Press to even consider, and *y )ork on this pro#ect )ould e *uch facilitated if + had a youn!er helper. + persuaded (n!elo Bonadonna to eco*e the coeditor and )e set to )ork *akin! the selections. +t is easy to e overly opti*istic in these *atters, #ust as it is easy to e fearful that you )ill o*it or *iss so*e essential essay or revie). -he first proposal )e *ade up and sent to the Press )as *uch too lon!, so )e e!an to pur!e our list. -here )as so*e editorial confusion at the Press a out ho) to *ana!e the Burke file no) that he )as deadG BurkeFs sons )ere sortin! throu!h his files and tryin! to learn a out the realities of the pu lishin! )orld and the treasure trove of uncollected and unsorted *aterial Burke had left ehindG there )ere interruptions in our lives as )ell. (ll of these thin!s slo)ed us do)n a lot, and it )as not until the su**er of "%%4 that (n!elo and + finally arrived at )hat )e think is a representative selection of late <post "%33= )orks y Burke. (n!elo Bonadonna scanned the*

all and put the* on a diskG )e then printed, proofread, and arran!ed the* in chronolo!ical order y pu lishin! date. :e a!reed on ho) )e )ould divide up the editorial la ors. :e prepared an +ntroduction and rief headnotes to co*plete the *anuscript so it could !o off to the Press for their decision. .ur !oal in rin!in! these fourteen pieces to!ether in a ook is to *ake availa le BurkeFs final lo!olo!ical position as he laid it out in his various 5su**in!Aup5 essays. >any students of Burke used to stop at ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion as if Burke had not !one on thinkin!, )ritin!, and pu lishin! for *any *ore years6at least until "%;$. Burke re*ained active and vi!orous until that date )hen, at ei!htyAseven, he finally e!an to slo) do)n. 8e had een active and productive for *ore than si'ty years since the pu lication of his first ook, -he +om)lete White O1en: +olle'te( /hort Fi'tion, in "%2$. >ost of us last sa) hi* in >ay "%%0, in /e) 8ar*ony, +ndiana, at the first official conference of the Kenneth Burke 2ociety. 8e )as ninetyAthree and still attentive and holdin! forth at the *any official and unofficial *eetin!s durin! the conference. Burke )as not a le to attend the ne't conference of the Kenneth Burke 2ociety in >ay "%%3, at (irlee, 9ir!inia, and died in /ove* er & 'i & of that year at his ho*e in (ndover, /e) Hersey, )here he had lived since the early t)enties. -his collection is only a selection of BurkeFs later essays. +t does not include any of the revie)s he )rote durin! these last years, and only one of the *any poe*s fro* his postA"%3; years is included6 the lon!, *e*ora le poe* 50yeACrossin!.5 :e have not included any of the hundreds6pro a ly thousands6of letters Burke )rote durin! these years. 8e )as often intervie)ed, taped, and videotaped durin! the si'ties, seventies, and ei!hties. :e have only included the lon! intervie) 5CounterA Dridlock,5 )hich see*s to !et us closer to the essential Burke than *ost of the others. :e )ere interested in the pu lished record ecause it )as there that Burke )as est a le to clearly for*ulate and refor*ulate his on!oin! dialo!ue )ith hi*self, a dialo!ue that e!an *ost o viously in .ermanen'e an( +hange and continued in every ook and *a#or essay that follo)ed ri!ht up to the after)ords in the final editions of .ermanen'e an( +hange and Attitu(es towar( History in "%;$. :e are sorry not to e a le to offer here a co*plete collection of BurkeFs pu lished )ork after "%33G it )ould have een nice to have a co*plete record and in this )ay avoid the su #ectivity that is intrinsic to the selection process editors i*pose on any ody of *aterial. :e could have offered a *ore co*plete record if )e had a!reed et)een us to edit individual essays and offer snippets fro* this piece or that piece that revealed Burke at his )itty, incisive est. But this )ould have een contrary to the very spirit of BurkeFs o)n )ork and critical tenets and it )ould only have allo)ed us to further intrude into his )ork and lay our ideas of )hat Burke )as a out on top of his or, )orse, su stitute ours for his. 2o )e a!reed that every selection )ould e a )hole selection, for etter or )orse. Burke )as so*eti*es e'cruciatin!ly tedious and orin! as he did thin!s that he thou!ht )ere necessary to the kind of ar!u*ent or analysis he )as conductin!, or )hen he )as pursuin! one of his pet topics, such as the thinkin! of the ody or the scatolo!ical and/or sy* olic i*plications of one of his o)n drea*s, poe*s, or fictions. But after a !ood deal of discussion ack and forth et)een us, )e decided )e )ould not edit any te't to suit us and )ould !o the )hole )ay )ith )hole te'ts. ,eaders can do their o)n cuttin! and editin!. :illia* 8. ,ueckert & 'iii &

Acknowledgments
(n!elo Bonadonna and + *ade all of our decisions #ointly on )hich essays should e included. 2o*e of the choices )ere easy, so*e less so, involvin! *any acceptances and re#ections. -he ideal solution )ould have een a t)oAvolu*e set so that *ore of the late essays could have een included. :e had no )ay of kno)in! )hich of these essays Burke )ould have preferred. + )ant to stress here that the choices )ere ours, ased on )hat )e thou!ht )ere the est and *ost i*portant of the late essays. (n!elo did all of the initial scannin! and for*attin!. >y )ife, Bar ara, did all of the later refor*attin! and proofreadin! and correctin!. + )rote all of the notes as )ell as the Preface and +ntroduction. + a* also responsi le for the arran!e*ent of the *aterial into its present fourApart !roupin!s. (ll of the *aterial in this collection )as ori!inally pu lished else)here, as indicated in the headnote for each ite*, and all selections are reproduced here in their ori!inal for*, ut )ith *inor editorial chan!es here and there. 9arious *e* ers of the University of California Press staff )ere *ost helpful in !ettin! this *anuscript ready for pu lication. ,andy 8ey*an, assistant acIuisitions editor, )as *ostly responsi le for !ettin! the ook started on final productionG >att 2tevens, the copyeditor, )as thorou!h and very sy*pathetic to the so*eti*es idiosyncratic )ays Burke did thin!sG Kate :arne, the senior editor in char!e of this *anuscript !uided it safely throu!h all the final sta!es of preparation for & 'iv & pu lication. (nthony Burke took care of all the early ne!otiations )ith the Press and )as responsi le for !ettin! all of the per*issions necessary to use previously pu lished *aterial. >y thanks to all of the*. :illia* 8. ,ueckert &"&

Introduction
(fter "%33, Kenneth Burke certainly chan!ed )hat he )as doin!. -here )ere no *ore te'tAcentered analyses. 8e tended to )rite to a reIuest or a conference or se*inar topic of so*e kind. 8e relentlessly e'plains and applies lo!olo!yG and #ust as relentlessly 5attacks5 hyperAtechnolo!is* for the )ays in )hich it is pollutin! the !lo e and threatenin! us in other )ays. >ost everythin! )as )ritten as a talk and then revised <enlar!ed= for pu lication. 8e reuses his *ain *aterial over and over. ?ookin! ack on it no) <"%%;=, + )ould have to say that so*e of it is Iuite repetitious and so*eti*es tedious ecause of this. -here is no place to !o eyond lo!olo!y, and all he really has left to do is apply it and/or pit it a!ainst so*e other Aolo!y or Ais*. -hat and recapitulate hi*self. 8ence all the selfAreferential co**ents and the selfAIuotin!. ?o!olo!y is his final position so far as the pu lished )ork is concerned. 5Bodies that learn lan!ua!e5 is a final, ulti*ate definition of hu*ans. -he *otion/action dualis* so central to lo!olo!y is an ulti*ate, final one. -he pursuit of kno)led!e y )ay of the study of printed te't and lan!ua!e in !eneral <sy* olic action e* odied= is one of the *ain concerns of all the late essays. -he attack on technolo!is*, )hich e!an )ay ack in A Grammar o$ 2otives <"%$7=, is intensified in the late essays ecause of BurkeFs insistence on the direct connection et)een lan!ua!e and the perfection <entelechy= of technolo!y. Burke phrases this point in a nu* er of )ays, ut the *ost

devastatin! one is that technolo!y is the perfection of reason &2& and that reason is oth constructive and destructive, even suicidal, as )e see fro* )hat technolo!y is doin! to the natural )orld and to those )ho developed it. >odern )eaponry is a develop*ent of hypertechnolo!is*G nuclear )eapons are so po)erful and destructive no one even dares to use the* for fear of retaliation. But, then, *odern advances in *edical practices are also a develop*ent of hyperA technolo!y, especially electronic technolo!y, as is the co*puter, )hich is rapidly revolutioniBin! the )ays in )hich )e co**unicate and live in the )orld. :ithout *odern technolo!y, there )ould have een no space travel and e'ploration6or e'o iolo!ic travel, a ne) *anifestation of the relentless hu*an push to e'plore, to discover and coloniBe ne) )orlds. (s he says in one of these essays, Burke )as o sessed )ith technolo!y and )hat he took to e the certain future of hu*ankind. 8ad he lived lon! enou!h to e'perience and study the current co*puter revolution, includin! the :orld :ide :e and +nternet, he *i!ht )ell have een even *ore pessi*istic <tra!ic= than he )as a out our future in the seventies and early ei!hties. Burke only )rote *ar!inally a out co*puters and certainly *issed the e'ponential !ro)th of the* and their 5invasion5 of every phase of (*erican and !lo al life. 8e )ould certainly have hated the )ay in )hich so *uch pro le* solvin! has een shifted to co*puters. 8e )ould have attacked it as a for* of 5unearned5 <so*ethin! for nothin!= re)ards. -he last dividin! point in BurkeFs career is the pu lication of ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion in "%33. (ll of the essays pu lished after that date elon! to his 5late5 period, even thou!h it *ay e a residue fro* an earlier period, as )ith his lon! essay, 5@ra*atis*.5 Burke )rote and pu lished until "%;7, )hen he )as ei!htyAei!ht years old. 8ere are so*e statistics. Bet)een "%34 and "%;7, accordin! to -ha*esFs updated i lio!raphy, Burke pu lished at least forty essays, ten revie)s, t)o ooks <+olle'te( .oems, 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment=, lon! after)ords to .ermanen'e an( +hange and Attitu(es towar( History, and the lon! 5+n 8aste,5 and nu*erous poe*s. :hat he actually )rote durin! this period is not yet kno)n, thou!h )e do kno) that he )rote a lot of poe*s that he never pu lished. @urin! *uch of this period, Burke )as on the road. 8e slo)ed do)n so*e )hen his )ife, ?i ie, eca*e ter*inally ill. 2he died in "%3%, after )hich Burke )ent ack on the road, !oin! all over the United 2tates and even to 0urope <Crance= for the first and only ti*e in his life. 8e re*ained Iuite active throu!h the "%;0s and finally only slo)ed do)n in his nineties. Burke produced a very su stantial ody of )ork durin! this 5late5 period. &3& Unfortunately for us, he chose not to select and collect his essays and arran!e the*, as he did for ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, in a )ay that suited hi*. 8e pro a ly had at least t)o ooks )orth of finished )ork to choose fro*. :e have een throu!h all of this *aterial, *ade our difficult fourteen choices, and arran!ed the *aterial into four !roups. ( second volu*e could easily e co*piled to !o )ith this one. -he t)o volu*es )ould *ake availa le to students of Burke all of his *a#or essays fro* this late period as )ell as a su stantial !roup of poe*s. >ay e that )ill happen in the future, ut *ean)hile, ack to )hat )e have asse* led here. -he *ain concerns of al*ost all of BurkeFs late essays are lo!olo!y, technolo!y, and ecolo!y. ?o!olo!y !oes ack to -he 4hetori' o$ 4eligion <"%3"=, especially to the key essay, 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis.5 But late lo!olo!y is not e'actly the sa*e as early lo!olo!y, *ost of )hich )as )orked out and )ritten up in the late fifties. By the ti*e Burke returned to it after )rappin! up 5@ra*atis*5 in ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, his focus had shifted. ?o!olo!y is BurkeFs final !o at a universal

lan!ua!e theory and *ethodolo!yG technolo!y <hyperAtechnolo!is*= )as his final ene*yG ecolo!ical sanity eca*e his final idealistic !oal. :ith the e'ception of BurkeFs essay on his novel, -owar(s a %etter ,i$e, 5.n 2tress,5 and his 50yeACrossin!5 poe*, every other essay in this collection is a out so*e part of lo!olo!y. >ost also *ake the lo!olo!yAtechnolo!y connection and *any of the* deal directly )ith )hat Burke takes to e one of the *a#or ecolo!ical pro le*s caused y technolo!y, )ith its !lo al pollution. BurkeFs ter* for the 5pro le*5 )as the 5technolo!ical psychosis.5 -his ter* <conditionG pheno*enon= replaced the old 5hierarchic psychosis5 <fro* A 4hetori' o$ 2otives= as his central concern. BurkeFs late essays, like *uch of his earlier )ork, are al*ost al)ays ad*onitory, so*eti*es distur in!ly so. 8e used to )arn us a out the sado*asochistic threats in victi*iBation6that is, the victi*iBation of others, as )ith the He)s in 0urope y the /aBisG and selfAvicti*iBation as in the *any acts of *ortification )e do a!ainst ourselves. 8e )arned us a out the cold )ar and the threat of a nuclear holocaustG he )arned us a out the hierarchic psychosis that he ar!ued )as intrinsic to life in any social hierarchy <)hich )ould *ake it u iIuitous in hu*an and, one *i!ht ar!ue, in *any for*s of hi!hly structured ani*al life6if ani*als in fact can suffer fro* a psychosis or even a neurosis.5 8e )arned us a out ter*inolo!ical inadeIuacies and not havin! a lar!e enou!h ran!e of ter*s to analyBe a !iven te't or pro le*. +f lan!ua!e thinks for you, &$& as Burke, y )ay of Colerid!e, insisted, then the Iuestion of an adeIuate ran!e of ter*s eco*es central. (nd he has certainly )arned us, at len!th, a out the dan!ers inherent in *odern, hyperA technolo!y. 2cience discovered y *odern technolo!y uilt the ato*ic and hydro!en o* s, #ust as science desi!ned and *odern electronic technolo!y uilt the co*puters )e use today. BurkeFs *ost distur in! )arnin! a out the dan!ers of hi!h technolo!y is partly contained in his 8elhaven satire, )hich deals )ith !lo al pollutionG and is partly contained in such essays as 5-o)ards ?ookin! Back,5 his centennial lecture, in 59ariations on JProvidence,K 5 another look into the future essay, and in 5.n JCreativityK6( Partial ,etraction.5 BurkeFs )arnin! in these essays <and others in the collection= is *ore su tle than his )arnin! a out pollution and is ased on takin! the develop*ent of science and technolo!y to the end of the line. +n so doin!, he takes the a*aBin! creativity at )ork in the physical sciences and in technolo!y itself and follo)s it to a point )here it turns fro* creative to destructive. :hat you have at the 5end of the line5 is a vast hu*an tra!edy )hich *i!ht have een averted if hu*ans had paid heed to their o)n kno)led!e of )hat *ore and *ore technolo!y *i!ht rin!. :e are not talkin! a out pollution here, ut a out forekno)led!e and the a ility or failure to act on it. -he other factor is the failure to foresee the conseIuences of an action or a develop*ent. BurkeFs favorite e'a*ple is *odern )eaponry, )hich is the epito*e of the devotion of the creative !enius of science and technolo!y to destructive ends. But Burke also pursues another line of thou!ht, )hich starts )ith lan!ua!e that the nature of the hu*an rain *akes possi le, and then *oves on to )hat lan!ua!e *akes possi le esides itself. 2cience and technolo!y, like literary )orks and the la), are hu*an inventions. -he flo)erin! of our creative !enius in science, the physical sciences, and technolo!y has resulted in so*e truly *iraculous products. Burke ar!ues that these products represent the 5perfection of reason5 and that they are one of hu*ankindFs !reatest achieve*ents, alon! )ith !reat cities <see his poe* 50yeACrossin!5=, *odern co*puters, space travel, *odern *edical procedures, and, *ay e up ahead, !ene theory, !ene splicin!, !enetic en!ineerin!, and clonin!. Clonin!, in fact, is the perfect e'a*ple of )hat Burke is thinkin! a out. Because it is no) possi le to clone sheep and theoretically possi le to clone a hu*an ein!, so*e scientists )ant to #ust !o ahead and do it )ithout re!ard to the possi le horrifyin! conseIuences. Clonin! and !enetic en!ineerin! are the ulti*ate <so far= hu*an atte*pts to control and *anipulate

nature, y creatin! and alterin! 5life5 itself. &7& Kno)led!e and hi!h technolo!y have *ade this possi le and the entelechial *otive, )hich is intrinsic to hu*ans, drives us ever on)ard in our atte*pt to understand and control nature and to e a le to create life. +n so*e )ays, @ata and his identical rother6the ad @ata <fro* 2tar -rek=, and androids in !eneral, represent the cul*ination of this drive. -hey did, that is, until scientists learned ho) to clone and recreate iolo!ical rather than artificial life. @ata, after all, is all circuitry and can e turned on and off. 8e is a technolo!ical )onder. :e )ould not say that of a cloned hu*an or the cloned sheep, @olly, )ho is after all a 5real5 iolo!ical sheep. 2o, as Burke *i!ht ask, :here are )e no)L @evelop*ents that are already happenin! are part of BurkeFs ni!ht*are. 8e *i!ht have called the* the curse of kno)led!e or the tra!ic in!redient in kno)led!e. 8is *ain Iuestion )as al)ays )hether )e could save ourselves fro* ourselves or )hether our drive for *ore and *ore kno)led!e and the technolo!y needed to translate it into action )ould finally e fatal6not for nature and the life force, )hich are i**ortal, ut for us *ortals. -here is a )onderful episode in Kurt 9onne!utFs /laughterhouse Five in )hich the -ralfa*adorians, a hi!hly advanced civiliBation far eyond even the )ildest drea*s of our scientists and technolo!ists, lo) the*selves and their )orld to its testin! a ne) fuel for their space ships. -hey kne) the risk involved, ut took it any)ay. 2o it !oes, as 9onne!ut says. 8e certainly had in *ind a co*para le earth situation involvin! nuclear )eapons and the after*ath of any nuclear or any conflict in )hich che*ical )eapons are used. -hanks to *odern science and technolo!y, )e are no) a le to e'ter*inate ourselves. Burke )orried a out this funda*ental hu*an dile**a ri!ht to the end. :e acIuired lan!ua!e, no one Iuite kno)s e'actly ho) or e'actly )hen, and )ere li erated fro* our total dependence on nature y it. :e created 5 counterAnature,5 )hich is BurkeFs ter* for )hat hu*ans have added to nature. :hat the use of lan!ua!e has added to hu*an life is *ore o vious than the Iuestion of )here lan!ua!e )ill take <or lead= us in the various possi le futures open to us. >ost of the essays in the collection are *editations on so*e part of this 5lan!ua!e Iuestion5 )hich is the asic lo!olo!ical Iuestion. -here is a neat parallel here et)een the technolo!ists )ho, Burke says, propose *ore technolo!y to solve pro le*s caused y technolo!y, and BurkeFs lo!olo!ical proposal, )hich is to use *ore )ords a out )ords to solve the pro le*s caused y )ords6 or, if not 5solve5 the*, at least rin! us kno)led!e of )hat they are. Burke )as al)ays a !reat eliever in therapeutic kno)led!e. &3& /ot all of the essays, of course, e'plore these )ei!hty, !lo al Iuestions. 2o*e, such as 5.n 2tress, +ts 2eekin!5 are a out Burke hi*self. -hou!h this essay e'plores the !eneral topic of its title, it also e'plores the autohypnotic effects of )ritin! a novel such as -owar(s a %etter ,i$e. Burke used to descri e this as *akin! yourself over in the i*a!e of your i*a!ery6or tryin! to, as 8art Crane and :alt :hit*an clearly did. -his idea or process )as al)ays a part of BurkeFs theory of sy* olic action. ( readin! of his +olle'te( .oems )ill reveal #ust ho) e'tensively this essential part of BurkeFs thinkin! a out literature )ill apply to his o)n poe*s. +t also clearly applies to his lon! poe* 50yeACrossin!5, )hich )as )ritten )hile his )ife, ?i ie, )as slo)ly dyin! of the pro!ressive failure of the *uscular syste*s that ena le the ody to *ove and act. (t the end of its course, it leaves you )ith a *ind and a useless ody <includin! the lan!ua!e *uscles= )hich *ust still e fed and tended to. +t is a horrifyin! end to a life as full and vi rant as ?i ie BurkeFs. (nd it *ust have een e'cruciatin!ly stressful and painful for Burke to )atch it destroyin! his eloved )ife. (s he often did, Burke )rote his )ay throu!h

his pro le*s and crises, e'e*plifyin! his o)n theory of sy* olic action and the pur!ative rede*ptive function of literature in particular and )ritin! in !eneral. Cinally, there is the lon! intervie) 5CounterA Dridlock,5 )hich is not only filled )ith infor*ation a out Burke the *an, ut also provides us )ith a fine opportunity to e'perience BurkeFs *ind in action. (re these essays the est of BurkeL 2o*e *ost certainly are, ut others sho) si!ns of a!e and BurkeFs late co*pulsion to refer ack to earlier and other )orks of his, and to Iuote hi*self often. 8e also had a ha it in the late essays of usin! the sa*e e'a*ples over and over a!ain. +n spite of these 5faults,5 these essays are essential readin! if )e )ant to have a co*prehensive vie) of BurkeFs overall develop*ent fro* the t)enties to the *idAei!hties. BurkeFs lon!evity and his si'ty years of productivity are oth e'ceptional. 8e )as, in fact, still carryin! on in "%%0 )hen )e had the first *eetin! of the Kenneth Burke 2ociety in /e) 8ar*ony, +ndiana, to cele rate his ninetyAthird irthday. 8ere are so*e selections fro* BurkeFs 5Clo)erishes,5 )hich )ere selected and arran!ed y ?i ie Burke: (t the very start oneFs ter*s #u*p to conclusionsG 0ven hu*ility can !o to oneFs headG (ni*als are ideas )alkin! in their sleepG (ll )e need fear is lack of fear +tselfG Poets )ith little to say learn to )rite as thou!h !uardin! a secretG :ars )ith clean o* sG ,usty )ith ironyG Cields lyin! silent in the son!ful da)n. J0choK he shouted6and 0cho ans)ered J0!o.K +olle'te( .oems, 5Clo)erishes5 &4& Burke loved ironic, co*pressed )isdo*6)hole stories reduced to an aphoris* or a title, a tra!edy reduced to a tra!ic tension, a *otive or a literary for* reduced to a definition, a *ethodolo!y reduced to four for*ulas. +t is a !ood )ay to re*e* er hi*. ?ike Caulkner, also orn in ";%4, he )as a s*all *an )ith a i! *ind, or is it a short *an )ith a tall *ind. -hey )ere selfAtau!ht (*erican !eniuses. &%&

1. Creativity
& "" &

1. On Stress, Its Seeking

196
Kenneth Burke )rote this essay in "%33E34 soon after the repu lication of his first and only novel, -o)ards a Better ?ife <"%32=, in "%33 y the University of California Press. -he occasion for the essay is identified y Burke in para!raph one. -he *any references to the novel are to this second edition, )hich also has a ne) preface in )hich Burke reinterprets the novel as a ritual of re irth rather than a ritual of riddance. ( uniIue and interestin!

io!raphical feature of the preface to the first edition <dated 2epte* er %, "%3"= is its crypto!raphic dedication of the novel to li ie <his second )ife= usin! the first letter of each para!raph. BurkeFs first and second )ives )ere sisters. 8e had *arried ?ily in "%"% and divorced her in the early thirtiesG he *arried ?i ie in @ece* er "%33. /o dou t, the personal trou le he refers to in the essay )as partly caused y the reakup of his first *arria!e and his involve*ent )ith his )ifeFs sister. Burke )rote the novel durin! a period of profound stress and chan!e in his personal and professional life, as )ell as in the life of his country. 8e discusses these riefly in the section entitled 52ociopsycholo!y of 2tress.5 BurkeFs essay does not tell us a lot a out his novel or the )ays in )hich )e kno) it *ust have functioned as sy* olic action for hi*. -he essay *akes no atte*pt to )ork out an interpretation of the novel ut uses it as a source of readily availa le illustrations for an e'ploration of the topic Burke identifies in his title6)hich is stress, !enerated fro* )ithin and )ithout, and deli erate stress seekin! as a 5call.5 ( *an )ho cli* s >ount 0verest or sails sin!lehandedly around the )orld is o viously a 5stress seeker5G as are professional athletes and soldiers, C0.s of i! corporations, and traders on the stock *arket. :hat Burke does in the essay is e'plore so*e of the )ays in )hich his o)n fiction is stress driven and stress seekin!G he also e'plores so*e of the )ays in )hich fictions in !eneral *ay help us to etter understand these *ost asic of hu*an *otives. >y first6and so*e *i!ht say *y la*est6e'cuse for offerin! this article is that our inIuiry has to do )ith stressAseekin!, and the article is concerned )ith a fiction featurin! a character )ho is forever stressin! his notions a out stress and thus distress6as a vocation, the deli erate ans)er to a 5call.5 >y so*e)hat *ore #ustified ut perhaps *ore e* arrassin! e'cuse for )ritin! on this su #ect is that the fiction is a story of *y o)n *akin! & "2 & and, since the story )as ori!inally pu lished a out thirtyAfive years a!o, *y discussion of it could have at least the advanta!e of ein! oth a& intra and a& e1tra# Cor, in one sense, the ook is nearly as alien to *e as to anyone else. Met + do kno) *any thin!s a out it that no one else can. (nd since + have lon! een on the friendly frin!es of the social sciences6*uch to the distrust of so*e collea!ues6+ dare hope that this area in co**on )ill have so*e effect. -he pro le*, asically, is this: Cirst, + *ust set up an account of the )ork as vie)ed a& intra# 8ere several sheerly aesthetic considerations *ust e treated. 8o)ever since + take it that our inIuiry should ulti*ately focus upon an approach a& e1tra6anapproach that looks upon the )ork as sy*pto*atic of so*ethin! or other6even in the 5aesthetic5 section + keep incidentally pointin! to)ard the discussion that is to follo). (ll told, the article is concerned )ith three orders of *otives, orders y no *eans *utually e'clusive,thou!h )e can at ti*es distin!uish the* clearly enou!h. -hese three orders of *otives are:theaesthetic,orpoeticG the personal, or psycholo!icalG and the environ*ental, or sociolo!ical. ?etFs illustrate the three in their o vious distinctness: ". +tFs an aesthetic or poetic fact that a fiction *i!ht put stress upon a stressAseekin! character ecause such character helps keep a plot !oin!. +n this sense, the the*e of stress is as handy to a storyteller as, for instance, ven!eance, or e'cessive reli!iosity. (nd, in fact, )hen !oin! over old notes that + had taken ut not used in preparation for *y novel, + found a*on! the* that !loriously resonant line fro* the Aenei(, @idoFs curse <+9, 327=: 5(rise, so*e aven!er, fro* our ones5 5e1oriare ali6uis

nostris e1 ossi&us ultor7# 2. +tFs a personal or psycholo!ical fact that6as )ill e noted at *any points in our discussion6the author variously reproduced or transfor*ed for purposes of the fiction *aterial that )as e'perienced y hi* differently in the course of livin!. 3. +tFs an environ*ental or sociolo!ical fact that the ook )as )ritten durin! the period i**ediately leadin! up to and a)ay fro* the cultural and econo*ic situation rife in the United 2tates at the ti*e of the 5trau*atic5 *arket crash in "%2%. +t is necessary to e!in )ith a consideration of the )ork in its internality efore !radually )idenin! the ran!e of our speculations to include the *a#or psycholo!ical and sociolo!ical *otives. & "3 &

!"# S!$%IS!ICS O& S!'#SS

( *an, )ho is envious and #ealous, deli erately sets up the situation )here y a friend of his is surprised, on a fatal ni!ht, into sharin! the sa*e apart*ent )ith the )o*an )ho* he hi*self had coveted. 8e it terly resents the union that he had thus strate!ically helped to con su**ate. (nd his resent*ent is a!!ravated y his clai* that the lovers profited fro* a kind of unearned incre*ent. Cirst, he accuses the* of carryin! over into real life the roles they had played in a decadent dra*a a out the incuna ula of the Christian culture. <-he play de picted >ary, for all her e'ceptional delicacy and love of her hus and, as havin! een successfully courted y a fiery youn! Dreek. -he a!in! Hoseph had kno)n a out this state of affairs, )hich he had sy*pa thetically left un*entioned )hen the )ise *en ca*e to honor the vir!in irth.= .ur 8eroFs other accusation a!ainst the lovers concerns the di!nity they derived fro* their putative roles in plans for a colony. -hou!h these plans never eventuate, for a )hile they look pro*isin!, particularly since .ur 8eroFs rival suddenly co*es into possession of the *oney that )ould *ake the* feasi le. +n frustrated i*itation, .ur 8ero starts e'trava!antly spendin! his o)n funds, on the hunch that so*ethin! favora le )ill happen. /othin! does. 8ence, at the end of part one )e see hi* ankrupt and leavin! to)n. 8e has picked a destination at rando*, in the country6 antithetically to the *etropolitan situation that has *arked the conditions of his distress. -he last t)o sentences of this section eni!*atically foretell the su seIuent develop *ents of the story: ,eachin! the little country station at da)n, in a valley still lank )ith *ist, + stood on the cinders )ith *y suitcase, in the chilly *ornin! air, )hile the train continued on its )ay throu!h the valley, and the vi rations of the en!ine di*inished irre!ularly to silence. + noticed then the t)itter of *any unrelated irdAnotes, )ith the rustle of )ater so*e)here ehind the *ist6 and a do! )as arkin!, i*posin! fresh sharp sounds upon his o)n lunt echoes. <30= -he *iddle section of this tripartite novel *arks a nota le turn in the direction of its *otives. 8ere the narrator recounts the steps he takes, after he has left the city and *arried for *oney in the country, in arran!in! for a troupe of actors to !ive a perfor*ance at a near y to)n. (*on! the* appears the !irl fro* )ho* he had fled. (fter he has een falsely oastin! of an idyllic love affair, althou!h they are actually still apart, she finally does spend the ni!ht )ith hi*, in her din!y roo* at a local & "$ & hotel. 8is true account of this episode is of a )holly different Iuality. Breakin! do)n, she tells hi* of various unsavory incidents in her life since his disappearance, includin! the fact that his friend had #ilted her. -he upshot of it all is that in his eyes she has lost her *a!ic, and the section ends on his

decision to see no *ore of her. -he final section <part three= unfolds the *otives i*plicit in this chan!e. 5+ had een pushin! a!ainst a !reat )ei!ht,5 he saysG 5and )ith this )ei!ht !one, + fell for)ard. :hile her train hurried do)n the valley, + e'perienced such !loo* as terrified *e. Cor even a life of itterness )as desira le as co*pared )ith a life )ithout purpose.5 2he had *ade hi* live 5as thou!h N livin! )ere a ven!eance.5 But no) 5 JMou have no reason,K + )hispered to *yself, Jfor doin! any sin!le thin!K 5 <"3"E32=. (lone y the tracks, he e!ins turnin! his )ords 5into a *ilitary rhyth*,5 and 5*akin! a tune to fit at rando*.5 8e calls his conduct 5clo)nishness,5 and a 5*echanical atte*pt to )ard off the !ro)th of *elancholy.5 But *elancholy ca*e, like the fo! even then risin! fro* the river. OCinallyPN the ar* of the near y si!nal sank, sho)in! that the track )as free. 5+ )ill do only )hat + have to do,5 + said slo)ly into the e*ptiness, ut + kne) that this place )ould e henceforth un eara le. <"32= -he story no) pro!ressively reveals the nature of this 5free5 track, eni!*atically indicated y the sinkin! si!nal. Cirst, the narrator eco*es en!rossed 5in chippin! crude, unfinished shapes out of stone. N -hen + )ould punish the !rotesIue thin!s y s*ashin! the* )ith one lo) of a *allet, thou!h + do not kno) )hy + either *ade the* or destroyed the*5 <"33=. But surely their secret nature as vessels of a ne) *otive is indicated )hen he says, 52ince the e!innin! of *y ne) pil!ri*a!e, + have hacked at stone )ith veno*. ?et !ranite e a used, + have said, until its relevant particles drop fro* it, and it stands forth, a statue.5 +n su*, this 5store5 )hich he 5had accu*ulated una)ares5 and is no) 5tappin!5 is of an in)ard turnin!, refle'ive nature, a sy* ol of selfviolation <"3$E37=. (t various places in the story there are references to another !irl, )ho loved the narrator )ith a si*ple, defenseless devotion, and )ho* he treated adly. (t this point he takes up )ith her a!ain, takes her )ith hi* on his 5pil!ri*a!e,5 and *istreats her to the point )here she finally leaves, a andonin! hi* to his selfAi*posed selfAtor*ent. (fter her departure )ithout fare)ell, he calls do)n this evil fate upon hi*self: & "7 & +f + )ere not *yself, ut so*ethin! that looked do)n upon this that )as *yself, + should rand it, + should in Iuietude put an effective curse upon it, + should corrode it )ith the slo) acids of the *ind. <"74= -he other aspects of the *otivational recipe ear *entionin!. (t *any points throu!hout the te't a principle of divisiveness <a kind of 5separatin! out5= *anifests itself. +t takes *any for*s. 8ere + shall cite ut a fe): /eed one )ho is uneasy on findin! hi*self in t)o *irrors <;"=. N O)hile talkin! desolately in a phone ooth, he is !rinnin! so thatP the *an eyond the !lass, )aitin! to speak here ne't O*i!ht not suspect his conditionP <22"=. N it )as at this ti*e, on !lancin! into the a)ry *irrors of a shop )indo), that + *istook so*eone else for *e. :hen the phone ne't door )as rin!in!, + thou!ht it )as ours <$7=. N he *entioned a ell )hich, installed at the door to announce the entrance of ne) patrons, !ratuitously *arked their e'it <73=. N + can re*e* er steppin! slo)ly into a lake, until *y eyes )ere even )ith its surface, the )ater cuttin! across the eyeA alls <"37=. N 2o, like a ventriloIuistFs doll, + suffered in#urious re*arks to rise un idden to *y lips <"$3=. N the ne!li!i le shred of co*fort he had !ot for hi*self recently y talkin! in t)o voices. <"3;= -his pattern of o servations has its analo!ue in various kinds of characters )ith )ho* the narrator feels a kinship, so*eti*es hateful, ecause of traits or situations that he finds duplicated in hi*self.

-)o in particular should e *entioned. +n chapter 7 of part one, there is the despairin! lover )ho, )hile the narrator offers no resistance, co**its suicide. -he incident is su**ed up thus: 58n'i)it vita nova,5 he confided s*ilin!ly as he left the ta le for this ?eucadian leap into the unseen litter of the courtyard. (nd + felt that the ne) life he spoke of )as to e *y o)n. 58e died for *e,5 + )hispered )ith conviction, thou!h he had not yet descended. (nd for days after)ards + found *yself repeatin!, 58e died for *e.5 <$4= +n the third section there is a different ut related *ode of identification: 5.ne evenin! )hen )e )ere in his apart*ent, and he had interpreted an operatic score for *e )ith unusual Best, after )e had drunk so*e)hat, seein! that )e )ere alone, and not lia le to e interrupted, like youn!sters )e toyed )ith each other5 <"33=. 2ince this fi!ure is called 5(lter 0!o,5 in *y present role as analyst + see it as a rounda out )ay of distin!uishin! the pattern of selfAinvolve*ent y narratively splittin! the *otive into t)o roles. Cor such is the direction in )hich the 5free5 track is leadin!. (nd )hen (lter 0!o vanishes, this is only another variant on the the*e of selfAa andon*ent. (n earlier variant is the ritual & "3 & chapter in )hich the narrator a* i!uously courts a 5*ad !irl in )hite5 <the sheer essence *adnessL=. +n keepin! )ith the nature of the sinkin! si!nal, there are only du* passes et)een the*G here a!ain he is )ith a )o*an in a din!y hotel roo*. (nd efore that is a chapter in )hich .ur 8ero valiantly fi!hts )ith friends, althou!h he 5could as easily have loved these people5 <"$7=. -here is an interlude, a story y the narrator. :e should note its ulti*ate internality even as sheer for*, since it is a story )ithin a story. +n *y su seIuent criticis* + have een *uch concerned )ith this aspect of the refle'ive principle, )here y a )ork !ets to the ulti*ate point of ein! inside itself. (nd as re!ards our sheerly sociopsycholo!ical inIuiries here, + *i!ht point out that, althou!h this chapter in its present for* is the product of considera le revision, it ste*s fro* a story that + )rote as an adolescent student eset y an acute sense of isolation. By then its develop*ent had reached a sta!e of 5sy* olic re!ression5 that )ould attain its *ost accurate for*al representation y reduction to a story )ithin a story, a )ithinnessAofA)ithinness that )as ideal for *y purposes, ut that + could not have *ade to order. Cor + could not have so directly rei*a!ined such conditions of *y past that )ere no) closed to *e, so far as conscious retrieval )as concerned. Met here )as the essence of the re!ression )ith )hich + )as dealin!. (n acco**odatin! fate had preserved one copy of the story and let *e find it. (nd as re!ards content, + needed a kind of docu*ent that actually ste**ed fro* a period of fierce *ale vir!inity, as e'perienced fro* )ithin. Met, in keepin! )ith the nature of the )ork, it had to e a fiction. (*on! *y unused notes + found a conceit that *i!ht e introduced fi!uratively: 5-he ne) application of this old story is as thou!h, after learnin! a forei!n lan!ua!e, + )ere to re*e* er )ord for )ord a fatal conversation + had overheard in that lan!ua!e efore + kne) it.5 .ne detail, ho)ever, is o*itted. +n the ori!inal version, the narrator thinks that he *i!ht throttle a oy he had seen clin!in! to the )ooden fi!ure upon )hich the victi* of the 5narratorFs5 story !ets his fi'ation6 in its nature as a ri!id statue, !uiltyG ut in its nature as a police*an, ad*onitory. :hen + think of the chokin! in Othello, alon! )ith the reference to one )ho* .thello likened to hi*self and )ho* he 5seiBed y the throat5 precisely )hen killin! hi*self, + realiBe that this detail of fantasy should have een left in. + took it out ecause at the ti*e )hen + )as )orkin! on the ook + did not interpret the chapter as + do no), and + si*ply found the notion too repellent to retain. :here ne'tL -he story )ithin a story carries the narrator to the point

& "4 & )here he is cau!ht in a vicious circle. 8is loneliness e!ets loneliness, and there is no )ay out e'cept for the flareAup of a co*pensatory fantasy, the vision of a *ystic reversal )here y he is not alone, ut is one )ith Universal Purpose. +s his vision a lie, or notL (t least, it co*es to a focus in the i*a!e of an ark. 8ence all this re!ression *i!ht so*eho) add up to re irthL +n the last chapter, the narrative a* i!uously tries it oth )ays. -he develop*ent *ay e ine'ora ly ack, ack, ack into silence6i.e., the )o* in the a solute6or thin!s *ay e directed to)ards resur!ence, as so*e of the final #ottin!s e'plicitly pro*ise. + think that )e are here involved in vacillations ulti*ately havin! to do )ith the relations et)een tra!edy and co*edy. -he pattern is this: -he character uilds upon a cult of tra!edy, deli erately desi!ned to rule out the a*enities of hu*or. 5Under the sli!htest of reverses, + )ould )elco*e ad )eather, )ould !o out to scan a road, lonely sky at sunset, sayin!, J-his + kno)G this is a return, a ho*eco*in!K 5 <33=. -here are t)o aspects of this *otive. Cirst: 5-here )as !ratification fro* the thou!ht that + *i!ht derive even *y defeat fro* )ithin5 <77=. 2econd: 5?et us endure *inor reversals y invitin! *a#or cala*itiesG let us d)arf annoyances, or even *elancholy, y callin! upon lifeFs entire structure to collapse5 <7%=. (ll told, he cele rates his 5despisals5 as a 5vocation5 in )hich he *ust 5persevere, even at the risk of !reat inconvenience5 <"$7=. 8e chooses 5to !ro) sullen )here + *i!ht have dis*issed a dile**a y lau!hter6lau!hter )hich leaves us untried, )hich is a stifler in the interests of co*fort, surrenderin! in advance, renouncin! prior to e'cess, ena lin! a *an to avoid the ulti*ate i*plications of his )ishes5 <"%;=. ( secondary effect arises thus: 5-hou!h no one )ould choose failure, )e *ay yet *aintain that failure is a choice, since one *ay persist in attitudes )hich *ake his failure inevita le5 <200=. (nd: 5.ne should live in such a )ay that he has )ith hi* these three considerations daily: *adness, the Caith, and death y his o)n hand5 <"3;=. +t eco*es a Iuestion of purpose: 5Place a *an a*on! these streets, instruct hi* to choose so*e act )hich puts a strain upon his te*per. :hat )ork )ill he perfor* here, if it is )ork in the a solute, and not the accidental *atter of flunkeyin! to an e*ployerL +f he does not *ean y )ork the earnin! of a little *oney throu!h assistin! in a superiorFs lind purposes, ut the strainin! of his resources, )hat *anner of livin! *ust he chooseL5 <200= -o )hich his ans)er is: 58o) e called *uscular if you )ould not prefer the se)ers and ratAholes of the *etropolisL5 <200=G & "; & 5@ie as a *an!led )asp dies6its ody hunched, its )in!s futile, ut its stin! !ropin! viciously for its tor*entor5 <20"=. -he ulti*ate co*plication lies in his relation to *oney. 5:ealth and talent ein! co*ple*entary, neither )ill dee* itself enou!h )ithout the other5 <74=. 5+ have never consented to console *yself )ith the thou!ht that )e *ay e rich in spirit )hile tan!i ly i*poverished. :ealth6 )ealth in love, *oney, the ad*iration of oneself and others6is indispensa le to those )ho )ould surround the*selves )ith the flatterin!s and sti*ulations of eauty5 <2;=. Met, in his 5vision,5 at the cul*ination of his distress, he oasts and/or pleads: 5+t is !ood that so*e *en are scorned y their fello)s and *ade to feel ho*eless a*on! the*, since these outcasts are, throu!h their sheer )orldly disa ilities, vo)ed to !raver *atters and could not, even if they )ould, prevent the*selves fro* pourin! forth their ne!lected love upon a for*ida le Cather5 <203=. -hrou!hout the ook, he keeps *oralistically fluctuatin! et)een the parado'ical prosperity of poverty

6a deli erate cult of disaster6and the conviction that there is an ideal need for a tradition of !reat )ealth. (nd even at the last, )hen he is reduced to a total destitution lar!ely of his o)n *akin!, he )arns hi*self: 5Mou cannot renounce, for none ut the rich dare speak in praise of poverty5 <2"0=. 8e ends in the condition that a stran!er had descri ed for hi* in the first chapter: (nd upon *y enIuirin! as to )hat he feared *ost of the future, he ans)ered: 5@estitution. @estitution of finances, destitution of *ind, destitution of love. -he ina ility to retort. -he need of possessin! oneFs opposite in years, se', and te'ture of the skinG and the kno)led!e that y this need one has een *ade repu!nant. -he replacin! of independence y solitude.5 <;= (s re!ards the Iuestion of literary species, this fluctuant attitude involves a kind of !rotesIueness that is *id)ay et)een tra!edy and co*edy, or, in the narratorFs )ords, 5the hilarious aspects of distress5 <$7=. >any of the situations could e easily transfor*ed into farce. Perhaps the *ost o vious instance is the episode a out a co*pulsion to address the )ooden statue of a police*an at the entrance to a store. 8e yields to the te*ptation, then fears that his act has een noticed: + could have done the sa*e under happier circu*stances, ut the *eanin! )ould not have een the sa*e. +t is Iuite natural to address inani*ate thin!s6it is no *ore foolish than confidin! secrets to a do!. But as + looked a out apprehensively, + sa) that a )o*an had o served *e. 2he )as pretty, and insolent, and )as )atchin! *e intently. -here )as no kindness in her eyes, nothin! ut cold curiosity. 8er eyes, *y dear, passed a terri le & "% & #ud!*ent upon *e. (nd to escape her #ud!*ent, + repeated *y !reetin!, this ti*e leanin! ack, sIuintin!, and )avin! *y hand, as thou!h + had een speakin! to so*eone in the recesses of the store 6 ut no) + noticed that the clerk inside, )ith e)ildered *oonface, )as starin! at *e !lu*ly. + a* no) endin! eneath eyes, the )ooden eyes of the police*an, the cold, curious eyes of the )o*an, and the !lu* eyes of the clerk inside the store. <"%0= Perhaps these t)o preparatory notes indicate the pattern *ost clearly: 5Be sure to have hi* oast of thin!s for )hich he has attacked others5G and 58eFs all for settin! up rules, ut )hen they are applied to hi* he insists that the case is different.5 +n this respect, the )ork adds up to a !rotesIue tra!edy )ith the irth of co*edy a* i!uously in the offin!: -hou!h you, in learnin!, rou!ht trou le upon yourself, let no *an discredit your discoveries y pointin! to your trou les. /or *ust you turn a!ainst your itterness. -he s)ord of discovery !oes efore the couch of lau!hter. .ne sneers y the *odifyin! of a snarlG one s*iles y the *odifyin! of a sneer. Mou should have lived t)ice, and s*iled the second ti*e. <2"4= (nd the narratorFs talk of lapsin! into total silence is inter)oven )ith his cry: 5resurgam9 resurgam9 + shall rise a!ainQ 8ail, all hailQ 8ere is a pro*ise: resurgam.5 -hus, personally, + look ack upon the )ork as a kind of !rotesIue tra!edy servin! as a rite (e )assage into a cult of co*edy, as e'plained in *y preface to the ne) edition. But thou!h + think that, in an ideal )orld, co*edy )ould e the hi!hest for* of art, + find that tra!edy leads *ost directly into the study of *anFs atte*pted solutions for his pro le*s. + )ould ut add the hope that, as )ith the ancient Dreek theater, )e su* up the analysis of 5tra!ic di!nification5 y a satyr play, that is to say, a urlesIue of the sole*nities that have preceded it. Before turnin! directly to the sociopsycholo!y of our present concerns, perhaps + should *ention one further point as re!ards the sheerly literary aspect of the ook. (t the ti*e )hen + )as takin! preparatory notes, + )as also doin! *uch research in studies to do )ith the nature and etiolo!y of dru! addiction. (s a result, + eca*e interested in the notion that the case history could e readily adapted for purely poetic purposes. -he for* *ade for a kind of vi!nette )ith a stron!ly aphoristic aspect.

2ince the narrative is so desi!ned that the plot !radually e*er!es fro* a sententious conte't6thou!h the aphoris*s are 5in character,5 hence not to e taken as strictly identical )ith the vie) of the author 6+ discovered that the case history, as a for*, lends )ell )ith the aphoristicG a reader hardly notices )hen one leaves off and the other takes over. & 20 & -his relationship is of !reat assistance to the effect + *ention in *y preface to the first edition: 5?a*entation, re#oicin!, eseech*ent, ad*onition, sayin!s, and invective6these see*ed to *e central *atters, )hile a plot in )hich they *i!ht occur see*ed peripheral, little *ore than a prete't,#ustifia le not as aJ!ood story,K ut only in so far a sit could rin! these si' characteristics to the fore.5 <+n the sa*e preface + o serve: 5+f *y her olackshu*or, he does not lack !rote sIueness6and the !rotes Iue is ut the hu*orous )ithout its proper ad#unct of lau!hter.5= 2o *uch for a vie) of the )ork in its internality. ?et us no) reverse thin!s and approach it situationally, fro* )ithout.

!"# SOCIOPS$C"O%O($ O& S!'#SS

52urely no one )ill fall victi* to a for* of insanity )hich he a hors,5 .ur 8ero speculates <4$= )hile )illfully i*posin! upon hi*self a kind of stress that pro!ressively tears at the ed!es of his *ind, until his cult of Iuarrelso*eness and selfAinterference leads hi* into a selfAperpetuatin! state of total isolation. 2ince )e ended the for*er discussion on purely poetic considerations, )e *i!ht take the* as our point of departure for this ne) phase. +n @#una BarnesFs novel Nightwoo(, her *a#or spokes*an, the overripely perverted doctor, .FConnor, avo)s: 5Cala*ity is )hat )e are all seekin!.5 .n )hich + co**ented <in the sprin! "%33 issue of -he /outhern 4eview=, 5>ay e yes, *ay e no, so far as life is concerned6 ut 'ertainly yes, as regar(s the stylisti's o$ lamentation.5 -hat is, + take it that, purely fro* the standpoint of literary appeal, la*entation is a pleasure. Cor 5there is one nota le difference et)een a i lical #ere*iad and a purely literary variant of the species. N 8o)ever !reat the artistry of any docu*ent that !ained ad*ission to the i lical canon <even so o viously literary an enterprise as the Book of Ho =, one should not approach a sin!le sentence of the Bi le purely in ter*s of literary entertain*ent.5 .ne should not, that is, if one is in the role of a devout eliever. But 5a literary #ere*iad *ust so*eho) e fun.5 -he sa*e point is developed thus in *y essay 5+oriolanus6and the @eli!hts of Caction5 <-he Hu(son 4eview, su**er "%33=: + )ould assu*e that such deli!ht e!ins in the prever al solace of an infant so in! itself to sleep. <2ee *y co**ents on the 5three freedo*s5 of la*entation, praise, an invective, in *y essay on 2hakespeareFs -imon o$ Athens in the paper ack ?aurel edition.= Cala*ity, or pathos, serves another function, )hich + have called 5tra!ic di!nification.5 + here refer & 2" & to the rhetorical fact that one can di!nify a cause y depictin! serious people )ho are )illin! to under!o sacrifices on ehalf of that cause. 2ufferin! is a )ay of 5 earin! )itness56that is, in ety*olo!ical literalness, ein! a 5*artyr.5 -his stylistic strate!y presu*a ly ties in )ith the fear of oastin!, a fear that runs counter to the nor*s of sales*anship, and that has often een rationaliBed alon! the lines of the notion that y lo)liness one avoids the envy of the !ods. +n the case of this particular ook, since the )hole cult of stress co*es to a focus in )hat a*ounts to a

rounda out courtin! of insanity6or *ore accurately perhaps, nearAinsanity, a state up to ut not eyond the ed!e of the a yss6it *i!ht e relevant to Iuote so*e lines fro* the recently deceased poet, -heodore ,oethke, re!ardin! his desire 5to reak throu!h the arriers of rational e'perience.5 .r a!ain 5-he only kno)led!e is reason in *adness5G and 5. to e delivered fro* the rational into the real* of pure son!.5 -his vie) of poetic insi!ht o viously takes on a hierarchal di*ension in his rhetorical Iuestion: 5:hatFs *adness ut no ility of soul / (t odds )ith circu*stanceL5 <-he Iuotations are fro* an e'cellent article on ,oethke y @enis @ono!hue, in his recent volu*e +onnoisseurs o$ +haos O"%37P.= +n ,oethkeFs case, the predica*ents that he periodically !ot hi*self into )ere, in a sense, )illed6for he deli erately cultivated a vi!ilant search for a kind of e'pression that )ould e in its very essence neoinfantile. 8ere another strand ties in. + refer to the 5aesthetic of alcohol,5 the desire to attain, in oneFs so er )ritin!, the kind of effects that one feels one is !ettin! )hen under alcoholFs influence. +n a sense alcohol thus acts as a kind of 5call,5 )hich the so riety of )ritin! can never )holly ans)er. +n particular, insofar as alcohol sti*ulates assertiveness, like heated ar!u*ent it tends to si*plify co*ple'ity, a recipe one can discern Iuite clearly in the authorFs use of the fictional device of )ritin! letters not #ust to a for*er friend, ut also against that sa*e person6a si*plified co*ple'ity further co*pounded y the fact that the *an to )ho* they are addressed is a recipient only in principle, since the epistles re*ain unsent. But there is a further issue, as + have o served in *y article 5(rt6and the Cirst ,ou!h @raft of ?ivin!5 <2o(ern Age, sprin! "%3$=. (lcohol 6ua alcohol is not the sa*e as alcohol durin! Prohi ition6a nota le aspect of the 5cultural5 cli*ate prevailin! durin! the years )hen this ook )as conceived and )ritten. Cor those )ho )ere not ootle!!ers ut )ho *erely patroniBed ootle!!ers, alcohol under such conditions )as in a penu* ra of *otives indeter*inately la)less and sanctioned y custo*. & 22 & -he che*ical spirits )ere thus linked )ith a kind of spirit that had the aura of adventure even )hile ein! Iuite )ithin the ran!e of ordinary ef forts and co*forts. +n any case, lookin! ack no), + find it no accident that, in *y preface to the first edition, + e'plain a pro le* in *ethod in ter*s of an anecdote a out 5an illicit JdiveK in Dreen)ich 9illa!e.5 (nd + see no reason to retract *y co**ent in the 2o(ern Age article: 5+ in cline no) to elieve that the )hole of the C. 2cott CitB!erald enterprise )ould have collapsed )ithout Prohi ition and the illicit dispensin! of alcoholic spirits that )ent alon! )ith it.5 -he clearest instance of this aesthetic is in part three, chapter ", )here .ur 8ero *ost ener!etically invei!hs <"$0E$3=. Hust as in so*e pri*itive tri es there are places )here, )ithout fear of punish*ent, one can !o and curse the kin!, so alcoholic ar!u*entativeness )as taken for !ranted. 8ence *any thin!s, ho)ever vehe*ently they )ere said, could e received like )ater off a duckFs ack, e'cept for the une'pected occasion )hen so*e ody !ot clo ered for al*ost no reason at all. (ll told, that co*ple' co*posed a su personality )ithin oneself, so that one )as, as it )ere, 5hearin! a call5 of that sort fro* )ithin. +n a sense, it added up to a va!ue, na!!in! kind of vo'ation for )hich no sheer :o& )ould e the ans)er. Curther*ore, it could tie in )ith earlier *otives that e*er!e and co*e to a focus in adolescence, a ti*e )hen a 5lea!ue of youth56a and of heterose'ual *ales6i*provises *odes or friendship that at the sa*e ti*e keep the *e* ers of the and se'ually apart y Iuarrelso*eness. 2uch 5si*ple5 conditions necessarily drop a)ay in later life, )hen oneFs financial and *arital relationships, developed out of ties and o li!ations alien to the ori!inal situation, !ive rise to a set of 5clai*s5 no lon!er tolerant of such harsh sparrin! as )as once the nor*. <Perhaps the !randest instance of such a chan!e is CalstaffFs lostness )hen 8al eco*es kin! and loses all sy*pathy )ith his

clo)nin!.= (n early story, 5Prince ?lan,5 in so*e )ays illustrates the co*ple'ities of the case. -he prince, no) *ulierose, has eco*e separated fro* his old friend, Dudruff, )hose nature as a *otive is *ost clearly revealed y this passa!e, )ritten in, + hope, not too un!ra**atical ?atin6after the fashion of the Gree* Anthology, )hich the author had studied e'tracurricularly )hile at colle!e, and )hich !ave 0n!lish translations for all ut the 5indecent5 entries: 2uddenly, suddenly, )lena re'ognitio $a'ultaturn 'or)oris latuit su&ito ei; se rela1a&at, est molliter la)sus 'ontra terram, (ein(e se (a&at suorurn tem)tationi in6uinum# -he re*ainder of the *ornin! he spent in readin!. & 23 & -he prince, in tryin! to ans)er this call, dissolves as in a drea* )hile he opens a door that leads to a door that allo)s hi* 5do)n a corridor eyond, the !li*pse of a door5 <-he +om)lete White O1en, 233=. (s + no) interpret it, the incident represents a fantasy in )hich a later aspect of the authorFs self, in a *ood of stocktakin!, recalls an earlier adolescent identity, still survivin! as a kind of su personality in the unconscious, and essentially identified )ith the poetic *otive6in that our first literary *ethods are usually developed under refle'ive conditions that are a le to e a* i!uously sy* oliBed in ter*s of suicide, or 5death y oneFs o)n hand.5 (s re!ards the full scope of the hierarchal possi ilities here, )e necessarily *ove into a socioecono*ic sphere far eyond the *uddled tieup linkin! propoetic, prealcoholic adolescence )ith the e!innin!s of *ature relationships6a chan!e that often reaks up old friendships co*pletely. + have een tryin! to indicate )ays in )hich adolescence, alcohol, and a *odified aesthetic cult of *adness, ho)ever distressin!, *i!ht all tie in )ith one another. Met, thinkin! alon! these sa*e lines, )e are no) ready to consider a *uch )ider ran!e of pro le*s. Cirst of all, as re!ards our funda*ental inIuiry into stressAseekin!, there is an unresolved conflict centerin! in )hat *i!ht e called a seculariBed version of the poorAchurch principle6a vie) that co*es to focus in the conviction that poverty is spiritual6in contrast )ith the cult of co**odities )ithout )hich our civiliBation could not last even until to*orro). + take it that, althou!h the narratorFs surna*e, /eal, co* ines several *otivational strands, a *a#or one is 5kneel.5 Contrast, in this re!ard, the conditions under )hich his na*e first fi!ures6in connection )ith an act of cruelty, on pa!e "226 and the passa!e on pa!e 207: 58e knelt )hile love poured fro* hi*, or poured into hi* fro* all out)ard thin!s.5 -he author )as raised in din!y su ur an nei!h orhoods. -o e sure, he didnFt kno) ho) din!y they really )ere. Cor there )as a scatterin! of )eedy fields a*on! the houses, and *any years later he could )rite a out the* lyrically, nostal!ically. <-here )as even a deserted, )indo)As*ashed haunted house )ith fascinatin! stories a out it.= -he author )as a*on! the poor relatives. (nd thou!h he no) realiBes that there )ere no rich relatives, he took it for !ranted that his !randparents, )ho )ere so *uch etter off, )ere rich, particularly since his !randfather had al)ays oasted of !reat )ealth )hen handin! out a fe) pennies to the !reedy, !ratified !randson. (nd since the !randparentsF house )as o viously in a *uch etter part of to)n than his parentsF, the difference & 2$ & *eant Wealth in the A&solute6for those are the years )hen a solutes take for*. +n rief, the poorAchurch principle6prosperity of poverty6had to co* ine )ith the thou!ht that

)ealth and aesthetic flo)erin! needed each other. ( devious fusion, or co*pro*ise, )as attained y i*a!inary acIuiescence to *ental stress6*ental distress as a kind of ideal. <(t least, such a develop*ent )as to e )elco*ed as a sheerly aesthetic kind of risk.= (lso, althou!h the actual story is a fiction fro* e!innin! to end, in principle it )as 5true56at least in the sense that, as discussed in *y first preface, it produced a 5*onster5 y *a!nifyin! so*e aspects of the authorFs character and *ini*iBin! others. +n this ale* icated sense, it )as a perversely idealiBed selfAportrait. -he author )as in a state of acute internal conflict o)in! to *alad#ust*ents in his personal affairs. 8e )as cau!ht in a kind of dile**a fro* )hich such i*a!inin!s see*ed like a kind of escape, or at least relief, as on pa!e 2"": 52peech ein! a *ode of conduct, he converted his faulty livin! into eloIuence. -hen should any like his diction, they )ould indirectly have sanctioned his ha its.5 -hus these potentialities )ere intensely a* ivalent. .n the one hand, the fiction threatened to e autosu!!estive, a!!ravatin! the very conditions for )hich it served as a relief. Cor the authorFs en!ross*ent in its develop*ents invited hi* to carry the attitude of the fiction over into real life, #ust as his prota!onist had accused the fictive lovers of doin!, )hen they endo)ed their lives )ith !la*our orro)ed fro* their roles in the lasphe*ous play. .n the other hand, there )as the ho*eopathic aspect of such tra!ic i*a!inin!s, alon! the lines of this for*ulation in >iltonFs /amson Agonistes: (ccordin! to (ristotle, >ilton says, tra!edy is desi!ned 5to te*per and reduce5 such passions as pity and fear 5to *easure )ith a kind of deli!ht, stirred up y readin! or seein! those passions )ell i*itated.5 (nd he continues: 5/or is /ature )antin! in her o)n effects to *ake !ood his assertionG for so, in physic, thin!s of *elancholic hue and Iuality are used a!ainst *elancholy, sour a!ainst sour, salt to re*ove salt hu*ours.5 (t least, often the poetic usefulness of an authorFs personal Iuandaries does allo) the* to e faced. 2o*e years ack + su!!ested in the *a!aBine .oetry that the *yth of Perseus is particularly relevant in this re!ard. (lthou!h one cannot stare directly at the Dor!onFs head of his entan!led *otives )ithout ein! as it )ere turned into stone, their nature as *aterial for art acts as a kind of protective reflector. By the su terfu!es & 27 & of for*, one *ay e a le to e'a*ine oneFs difficulties Iuite 5realistically,5 even thou!h the instru*ent also has the properties of a *a!nifyin! !lass )hich can transfor* a tiny spider into a hu!e, !lo)erin!, hairy o!re a out to seiBe and devour the o server, )ho so*eho) i*a!ines hi*self d)arfed and defenseless. .n this score, )hen !oin! over old notes taken at the ti*e )hen the novel )as in utero the author )as surprised to find a letter, )ritten to a friend ut never sent, in )hich, referrin! to a )ealthy *an in !reat *ental difficulty, the author )rote )ith re!ard to his fears for his o)n )elfare: + a* attlin! like a fiend, attlin! for nothin! less than *y *ind itself6and unless it is true, as + freIuently tell *yself, that <= )ent *ad for *e, that + can derive fro* his collapse vicariously *y o)n rescue, unless this is true <and the idea, + *ay convince you, *ay not e totally coocoo Osi'P, since + have in the kno)led!e of his errors the one sta le point fro* )hich to orient *y o)n=, that unless this is true N Othe sentence )as left thus unfinishedP. ( nota le feature a out this state*ent is that the author is referrin! to a real personFs *ental collapse *uch as his 8ero refers to the fictive suicide in part one, chapter 7. (nd the ook itself, as early as the second pa!e, esta lishes the relevant converti ility of ter*s )hen sayin! that a person 5*ay )orry lest this day e the very one on )hich he snaps under the urden and, if not talented at suicide, eco*es insane.5 -he ne't sentence turns to the co*pensatory ho*eopathic principle: 5Met it is possi le that y

a constant livin! )ith tor*ent, one *ay !ro) i**une to it.5 But here 5constant livin! )ith5 should e read as a Iuasite*poral synony* for 5radically i*a!inin! in principle.5 -he fictive suicide, incidentally, killed hi*self in the cause of #ealousy, a sy*pto* that the author shared )ith his 5s*ellA feast5 prota!onist, althou!h in real life there )as no such trian!le as the plot is uilt around. Perhaps + should pause here to say that )hen + state that this story is fiction fro* start to finish, + do hope that the reader )ill take *e at *y )ord. + a* not *erely usin! a stylistic su terfu!e, for there )ould e no point to *y lyin!, since all +Fd have to do )ould e to leave these *atters unsaid. :hat + a* tryin! to !et at, rather, is this: + a* tryin! to *ake as clear as possi le those respects in )hich a story that is totally false in its details can so*eho) e true in principle. Consider, for instance, this kind of transfor*ation fro* personal e'perience to fictive analo!ue: the narratorFs notion that actors can derive unearned incre*ent y reenactin! offsta!e their roles onsta!e ste*s fro* & 23 & early years of loiterin! a out the frin!es of the Provinceto)n Playhouse6on >ac@ou!al 2treet in /e) Mork City. (nd )hether or not the actors and actresses so thou!ht of the*selves, thatFs the kind of aura they had for *e. 2i*ilarly, althou!h there )as no actual plan for a colony, the con!re!atin! of artists and )riters is al)ays on the ed!e of 5colonyAthinkin!,5 and the attack upon coteries is not far, y i*plication, fro* the renouncin! of a practice that )as atte*pted a!ain and a!ain in the history of our nation, and thus dou tless is inherent in the very trends that *ilitate a!ainst it. .r consider the narratorFs *ystic vision on pa!es """E"7. + had in *ind a place )here + had actually lived for a ti*e, on a hilltop. Cro* there, one sultry afternoon, + had )atched a stor*, caused y contrary )inds clashin! and s)irlin! in the valley. -he a ility to o serve the sheer for* of the do)npour as a 5happenin!5 *ade an unfor!etta le i*pression upon *e, particularly since the torrent )as, as it )ere, the sin!le outco*e of conflictin! currents in the air. Met the situation )as Iuite different fro* the lonely fury recounted in the ook, )hile the nine )hite cranes are i*ported fro* *e*ories of the *ornin! after a stor* at ni!ht in a )holly different valley under Iuite different circu*stances. (nd )hoFs to say that there )ere nineL .ne can only say that they so*eho) see*ed like a *essa!e. /or did the author ever eco*e the proprietor of a herd throu!h *arryin! for *oney, to say nothin! of stealin! *oney fro* a )o*an )ho* he had coveted unsuccessfully. (nd a ove all, )ith re!ard to the cult of 5strainin!5 )hich .ur 8ero propounds so earnestly on pa!es 200E203, please allo) it to e a fiction )hen he says, 5Pro)lin! a out the )harves, + have *inistered to unclean *en, for in this there )as so*e !hastly decency, so*ethin! eyond *ere safety.5 (ccordin! to *y tentative notion, all such fictions are 5ideal co*pletions5 of personal e'periences that are circu*stantially Iuite differentG ut they contain so*e pro le*atic *otivational trace )hich, if isolated and *ade a solute, )ould e sy* oliBed *ost accurately6or )ith *ost dra*atic thorou!hness, *ost 5drastically56 y such a fulfill*ent as the fiction settles on. (nd + )ould tinker )ith the possi ility that any such aesthetic i*itatin! of *otives prevailin! outside the real* of art can have literal analo!ues involvin! persons )ho in effect *ake up such )orks of art ut live the* )holly in the real* of life itself, and )ithout enefit of the for*al reflector that Perseus had in his attles )ith the snakyAheaded *onster he could not dare to look upon. & 24 &

But + should say *ore a out the role of the econo*ic *otive in these i*a!inin!s. -he authorFs early for*ative years coincided, + elieve, )ith the ti*e in our national history )hen the stress upon capital !oods6 rails, *ills, *ines, etc.6)as #ust !ivin! )ay to the rise of cheap, *achine*ade consu*er !oods6an e*er!ent trend that )as epito*iBed in the :ool)orth chain of fiveAandAtenAcent stores. -he correspondin! slo!an, )hich *y father constantly repeated )ith a hu*orous t)ist )henever the )o*en e!an talkin! of so*e ne) contrivance, )as 5:ho )ould sit do)n and *ake it for thatL5 People *arveled not only at the thin! itself ut also at its price, )hich they still considered in ter*s of the ela orate preparations needed if you had decided to asse* le all the *aterial and !o throu!h all the operations needed for the production of one such ite*. @urin! an era )hen a country is uildin! up its industrial plant, there is necessarily a stron! e*phasis upon *odes of thinkin! Iuite analo!ous to )hat + have called the reli!ious stress upon the 5prosperity of poverty.5 -he senti*ents in Ben#a*in CranklinFs Almana' are pro a ly the est e'a*ple of such puritanical a ste*iousness, a set of secular nor*s reli!iously !rounded, and still stron!, thou!h often est honored in the reach, as in the case of Cranklin hi*self, )ho could eco*e )elltoAdo y praisin! the austerities of poor *en. -his sort of *orality see*ed natural to the author in his early years, even )hile feelin! proud at the naive thou!ht that his !randparents )ere rich. +ndeed, he even thou!ht of the* as a kind of alternate parenthood6a divisive trend sharpened y the fact that, often in the su**er, his !randparents took hi* to so*e lake or the seashore, )here, for a )eek or t)o, he )as transfi!ured y life in the *a!ic of a 5rich5 hotel. 8is ook )as planned6and several early chapters )ritten and pu lished6durin! the fantastic ull *arket of the /e) 0ra. (nd althou!h the author in a *ild )ay !ot enou!h fro* his #o s and )ritin!s to feel that he too )as in the s)i*, so*eho) it never see*ed 5natural5 to hi*. 8e al)ays felt uneasy, as thou!h he had stolen his *oney and )ould eventually !et cau!ht. -rue, *any persons like hi* did !et cau!ht in the crash of "%2%6 ut not the authorG for even the fe) stocks he had ou!ht at a ti*e )hen people )ere !a* lin! like craBy he ou!ht outri!ht and not on *ar!in. 2o they could e held, and eventually in a *ild )ay they recovered. Met the ook )as already far enou!h alon! to act su!!estively upon the author hi*self. @urin! the al*ost *a!ical terror that follo)ed the crash, he deli erately resi!ned fro* a )ellApayin! #o , havin! resolved & 2; & to e'pend all his ener!ies on his )ritin!, oth the novel and the *aterial that )ent into his first ook of criticis*, +ounter /tatement# +t so turns out that if he hadnFt resi!ned, heFd *ost likely have een dis*issed a year laterG for the entire ranch of the or!aniBation y )hich he had een e*ployed )as discontinued. But the point is that )hen he Iuit he had no thou!ht of such eventualities. -hus, in effect, he put hi*self in #eopardy as thou!h y deli erate intention. (nd the ook )as finished in a state of chronic financial terror, inter*in!led )ith distress due to other e*otional entan!le*ents. Met this terror )as *ainly a *atter of principle. Cor althou!h *any kinds of i*a!inin!s to do )ith acute *onetary e* arrass*ent keep recurrin! throu!hout the novel, the author had so*e *oney in the ank and suffered no actual deprivation. But even thou!h his runAdo)n far* in the country )as o)ned outri!ht, )ithout *ort!a!e, and he earned so*e *oney y revie)s and articles, his little hoard )as d)indlin! slo)ly yet ine'ora ly to)ard Bero. -his )as 5destitution in principle,5 )e *i!ht say punnin!ly, for he )as livin! on his principle. But )e have anticipated so*e)hat. +t should also e *entioned that, particularly durin! his connection

)ith -he 3ial, he had seen, in all its i*pressiveness, the *a!ical inter)eavin! of )ealth and talent, and *any of the co**ents on this su #ect reflect o servations a out the *arvelous assort*ent of persons that variously ca*e and )ent around -he 3ialKs offices. 8ere are typical co**ents: 5+ kne) one *an )ho had applied his )ealth to carryin! dou t into his very tissues. (s irds, thou!h out of dan!er, fly )ith selfAprotective darts and veerin!s proper to their kind, so he kept his state*ents !uarded, even a*on! friends5 <74=. .r the narratorFs drunken state*ent of policy <"%4= to the effect that one should 5*ake *oney N efore railin! a!ainst )ealth5G for 5)hatever he )ould renounce, let hi* first acIuire it in a*ple Iuantities, that he eco*e i**une to hecklers5 <"%4=. @ou tless it )as for this reason that, after 2hakespeareFs -i*on of (thens eco*es a vicious *isanthrope6 )hen deserted y his friends follo)in! the loss of his fortune6the dra*atist arran!es for hi* to find another treasure, )hich he thro)s a)ay like filth, there y lettin! the audience see that -i*on is no) a universal hater on principle, and not #ust ecause of 5sour !rapes.5 (lso at the offices )as one *an of !reat refine*ent )hose )ealthy up rin!in! had o viously put a !reat strain upon hi*, *akin! hi* i*perious even thou!h he also had an al*ost pathetic desire to e frank and friendly. (ll told, it )as a sta le of racehorses if there ever )as one6all s)ishin!, and sta*pin!, and tossin! their heads nervously, all rou!ht to!ether y the & 2% & resources of patrona!e, and all under the strain of their o)n te*pera*ents, )hich )ere at once their assets and their lia ilities. Perhaps the *ost !eneral !roundin! of all for the kind of outlook )e are here considerin! could e called /ietBschean, as )ith )riters ent upon 5!lorifyin! the pro le*atical in art5 and 5stressin! the state of tension in itself, picturin! the dan!ers and disco*forts in *aintainin! it, hence relyin! upon the &asi' *ilitary eIuip*ent in *an as their last source of appeal6thou!h differin! )idely in their selection of the sy* ols )hich )ould serve as the channels in )hich this ori!inal iolo!ic psychosis )ould run.5 + a* Iuotin! fro* *y .ermanen'e an( +hange <"%37=, pa!es ;4E;;, 8er*es edition. + had in *ind here an ani*alistic !roundin! <3$=. (nd in a section on 5-he PeaceA:ar Conflict5 <"%4E%;=, + tan!le )ith the /ietBschean puBBle in )hich, thou!h 5the or!anis* has developed an eIuip*ent for attainin! the eni!n slu!!ishness of satiety, the very eIuip*ent for rin!in! a out such a )orldly /irvana is in itself the essence of tur ulence and stru!!le.5 -hus: :e perceive here a contradiction at the very asis of ehavior. Cor if the or!anis* attained its state of Iuiescence per*anently, the *ilitary eIuip*ent of nervous a!ility, of odily and *ental *uscle, )ould fall into decay. .n the other hand, to prevent such decay, one *ust e'ert hi*self in 5)arfare,5 a idin! y the co*petitive !enius of *ind and ody, there y denyin! hi*self precisely that state of conscious death )hich he *i!ht derive fro* the ooty acIuired y his pro)ess. +t is a contrast that had lon! )orried *e. -he titular story of *y first ook, -he +om)lete White O1en, is uilt around a contrast et)een a lion and the o'en, in a Boo: @isdainful to the last, the lion retained his superiority even )hile ein! fed. 8e !reeted the attendant )ith a arin! of yello) fan!s )hich !ave the i*pression of sneerin!G and he snatched the *eat fro* the iron pron!s )ith a !ro)l, as thou!h he )ere stealin! it. 8e kept his eyes on his feeder until he had disappeared, and then e!an tearin! the flesh fro* the one y lickin! it )ith his rou!h, scaly ton!ue. <4= +n contrast, it is said of the )hite o'en: -hey )ere che)in! in deli erate content*ent. (t ti*es they )ould *ove their heads to look in another

directionG at such ti*es they ceased their che)in!, as thou!h disapprovin! of too *any si*ultaneous *otions. But once their head )as fir*ly esta lished in this ne) direction, their che)in! )ould e resu*ed. Cal*, har*less, sleepy, they lolled a out their ca!e. O(nd laterP -o the* the supre*e !ift of Dod )as to sleep and kno) that & 30 & one is sleepin!. 8e yearned to see thin!s )ith their dull, slo)A linkin! eyes, to retire into their lissful sloth of se*iAsensation. <%= @ou tless )e have a considera le *easure of ve!etarian idealiBin! here. (nd, as + o serve in a footnote <.ermanen'e an( +hange, "%;E%%=, an overstress upon the contrast et)een the hunt and rela'ation after !or!in! can *islead, in deflectin! the attention fro* the hu*ane real* of the senti*ents. (lso, in *y analysis of /ietBscheFs style, + tried to sho) that there are purely for*al considerations involved in his use of )hat he calls 5perspective56a kind of sheerly ter*inistic violence achieved y a *ethod for )renchin! )ords fro* a custo*ary conte't and puttin! the* in ne), theoretical surroundin!s6a device for )hich + proposed the for*ula 5perspective y incon!ruity.5 But the *ain point is this: insofar as the hu*an or!anis* is prepared y adaptations throu!h thousands of years to under!o strain, such eIuip*ent *ust *anifest itself as a need to e e'ercised, as in sports, horror stories, *onastic disciplines, e'cesses of a* ition in the uildin! of financial or political e*pire, #uvenile delinIuency, and si*ilar e'ertions )raeter ne'essitatem# (nd there *ay even e a kind of reality a out pain that is )eakened y anesthetics, anodynes, soporifics, and the like. .ne *ay Iuestion )hether such conditions esta lish the psycholo!ical necessity for )ar. But they )ould i*ply !rounds for a cult of conflict. :ar is ut one species of conflict6and the kinds of )ar in )hich )e have distin!uished ourselves depend upon fantastically e'cess )ealth, in contrast )ith the (frican tri e that lives in so sparse an area it e'ists )holly )ithout internecine strife. +ndeed, the food supply is so scanty, the tri e )ould y no) e e'tinct if its *e* ers had not developed *odes of peaceful cooperation to a *a'i*u*6for nothin! less could save the*. But, of course, the severity of their environ*ent supplies all the conflict necessary to e'ercise the odyFs natural aptitude for the under!oin! of stress. But #ust as delinIuency can en!a!e the efforts of spirited youths )hose )ay of life other)ise6in an orderly, )ellAtoAdo su ur , for instance6)ould not sufficiently ta' the*, so )ars help any in our ti*es )ho, un ekno)n to the*selves, )ant not #o s ut vo'ations, as + put it in a 5su versive5 poe* + )rote in "%33 <%oo* o$ 2oments O"%77P, 7%=: :e have even hoped for the trenches, -hat *en *i!ht a!ain e cronies. :e have even told ourselves ho) y the )ars :e *i!ht a!ain e rou!ht to!ether, & 3" & By the helpfulness of slau!hter. -he )ars are fuller than the peace +n fello)ship. :e should also consider the freIuent co*pensatory tendencies6 alon! the lines of 5tra!ic di!nification56)here y our ail*ents can provide the *akin!s for inverted kinds of oastin!6 en!ross*ents of ours that )e ask others to share, even thou!h )e *ay ore the* to the ed!e of shriekin!. (nd thereFs a )onderful variant of such *atters in a docu*entary fil* + once sa) 5/avage

/)len(or7, a out )hich + once )rote thus <in 58er*es 2croll /o. 45=:

A )O'A% )A*# )A+I&#S!

2ee /avage /)len(or, a lon! docu*entary fil* too soon over. (nd a ove all, donFt *iss the shot of the 300Apound kin! usin! for his throne the ack of a prostrate slave. -he kin! further urdened hi*self )ith 200 pounds of orna*ents, and so*e several hundred )ives, sho)n unched in ro)s like a choir. (nd all told you could o serve hi* ein! )ei!hted do)n literally )ith the responsi ilities of office, only 700 pounds of )hich he could transfer to the ack of his slave. 8is i**o iliBin! fat )as presu*a ly a *ark of e'ceptional )ealth and no le status, since only a persona!e of !reat *eans could afford to e so sedentary in a #un!le. +t contrasted )ith the litheness of the dancers )ho had co*e lon! distances to perfor* in his honor. Mou could see efore your very eyes a !ross physical urlesIue of the 2toic scruples and *editative spirituality )ith )hich a >arcus (urelius *i!ht assu*e the urdens of e*pire. (nd )hat directness of realism there )as, in the sym&olism of the prostrate slave so heavily urdened y the *asterQ -here )as an indirectness, too. :e refer to the )ay in )hich the urdenso*eness ca*e ack to pla!ue his lordship, a sufferance attested y the dra)n lines of the royal phiB, so very )eary, and y the technicolor of the loodshot eyes. (nother possi ility: *i!ht not the slave have felt un&eara&ly )rou(< 2urely he lorded it over the other slaves, )ho )ere not thus sat upon )ith such @istinction. (nd if he kne) his 8e!el, he *ust have understood that he )as, in his crouchin! )ay, a )orldAhistorical fi!ure, evolved y the @ivine +dea to fulfill this DodAappointed task, as re!ards the heavy responsi ilities of Universal .rder. (nd since )e are no) on the ver!e of tra!ic farce, letFs include a reference to a practice of so*e current pitch*en, )ho help reinforce your sense of !uilt y sellin! you re*edies after first persuadin! you that you need the*. .f course you stink. 2o, adopt the *ost 5natural5 solution possi leG na*ely, o struct the pores of your ody *urderously, or !ar!le )ith poisons. .f course you stink. (fter all, )hat are you for, if & 32 & sche*ers canFt !et you to load yourself )ith che*icals costly oth in *oney and healthL +n su*, think on all those stressAseekin!, stresssou!ht deniBens of >adison (venue, forever pleadin! )ith youG they e! you to help ease their ulcers y ein! as stupid as you can, in ans)er to their IuackAIuack. >adison (venue stands for the very Priesthood of 2tress. (nd it stands to reason: .f course you stink. >e tooQ

A**#+*,)- O+ .SPA'A()OS. A+* !"# #$#

(s re!ards the eni!*atic foretellin! at the end of part one in the novel, + take it that the sound of )ater ehind the *ist presa!es the final do)npour6of oth the ersatB *ystic vision on pa!es """E"7 and the ookFs last sentence: 58enceforth silence, that the torrent *ay e heard descendin! in all its fullness.5 Besides the flo) of )ater, the )hole ran!e of connotations )ould pro a ly include, at various places alon! the )ay, the flo) of )ords, the flo) of ti*e, the fri!htened flo) of urine, and )hat Colerid!e called 5the strea*y nature of association,5 :illia* Ha*es the 5strea* of consciousness.5 -he passa!e *ost o viously linkin! )ords and do)npour is near the e!innin!: 5+ )ould speak as a !ar!oyle )ould speak )hich, in ti*es of stor*, spouted forth )ords5 <%=. +ts further tieAup is indicated y the fact that the narrator is on the su #ect of his scorn. -he do! arkin!, 5i*posin! fresh sharp sounds upon his o)n lunt echoes,5 su*s up the essence of the refle'ive principle <includin! the chapter in )hich the narrator vilifies his cronies=. -he 5t)itter of

*any unrelated irdAnotes5 presa!es the disinte!rative for* of the last chapter. Borro)in! fro* the Ca* rid!e anthropolo!istsF speculations on the incuna ula of Dreek tra!edy, +Fd )ant to contend that here, even in its very for*, )e find the 5rendin! and teasin!5 that is necessary for a ne't phase, the a* i!uously foretold turn fro* !rotesIue tra!edy to a cult of co*edy. +n the novel, for reasons )hich + hope + have *ade clear, this process of disinte!ration preparatory to reinte!ration takes place eni!*atically and a* i!uously at the end. But in *y ne't ook, .ermanen'e an( +hange, )hich is e'plicitly concerned )ith Iuestions dealin! )ith the develop*ent fro* an earlier orientation to a ne) one, fittin!ly the 5rendin! and tearin!56or s)aragmos6takes place in the *iddle section, co*in! to a focus in the concept of 5perspective y incon!ruity,5 )hich involves the /ietBschean clash of cate!ories )hen a ter* that has & 33 & co*e to see* natural in one conte't is suddenly #a**ed into a different and hitherto alien conte't. (nd to ack this point, + should also *ention, in *y .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form <"%$", una rid!ed edition=, *y discussion of a paintin! y Peter Blu*e. Cor, as + interpret it, there is a si*ilar kind of disinte!ration inter*ediate et)een t)o Iuite distinct *otivational real*s, althou!h necessarily, y the nature of the *ediu*, the o server confronts the three sta!es6of Before, @urin!, and (fter6 si*ultaneously. +ncidentally, as considered fro* the sheerly aesthetic or poetic point of vie), the *i*etics of reakdo)n in the last chapter are seen to e ut the transfor*ation of a )riterFs preparatory note takin! into a kind of cul*ination in e1tremis# ( fuller discussion of the ook in its internality )ould have reIuired the inde'in! of several other recurrent ter*s, such as the thesaurus of *eanin!s surroundin! the )ord 5*ouse,5 for instance, ran!in! fro* the 5sickly and unsi!htly creature, a *ouseAfaced *an5 <2%=, throu!h 5if she ut sta*ped her foot you )ould, deep )ithin you, scurry a)ay like *ice5 <"$%=, to 5)ould liken Dod to a little *ouse5 <20%=. (nd the ter* 5yield5 ran!es fro* yieldin! in !uilt, throu!h yieldin! in ad#ust*ent or acco**odation, to yieldin! like Christ on the cross. But one ter* at least + should pause to consider at so*e len!th, since it also ears stron!ly upon an e'perience outside the ook. +nas*uch as any cult of conflict6or stressAseekin!6is likely to take on *oralistic connotations, eyeAi*a!ery can naturally fi!ure, particularly if, like the author, one )as constantly ad*onished as a child that Dod )as al)ays )atchin!. 8o) )ould this conceit *anifest itself in sheerly secular ter*sL :e have already cited the passa!e fro* the story )ithin a story. But on !oin! throu!h the ook a!ain, + note t)o others that are particularly relevant. .n pa!e 42: 5.n di*, deserted streets + hurried throu!h a city of eyes, under the surveillance of disparate o #ects )hich, as + passed, each transferred *e to the supervision of the ne't. (nd there )ere real eyes a*on! the*, eyes of the cats that paused to note *e )ith distrust <so*e of the cats strin!y, others crouchin! in unches ehind their faces=.5 .n pa!e 2"0, )hen .ur 8ero is in e1tremis: 5-here is an eye, fir* as the eye of the ne)ly dead. :hen + a* alone, this eye inspects *e.5 + cannot say for sure )hether + already kne) 0*ily @ickinsonFs lines on )atchin! 5a dyin! eye.5 But, to the est of *y *e*ory, + can say that after finishin! the ook, the author had an al*ost intolera le & 3$ & sense of an eye constantly earin! do)n upon hi*. 8e sa) it so clearly in his *indFs eye, at ti*es he

couldnFt keep fro* lookin! for it outside hi*, even thou!h he kne) it )as ut a fantasy. (nd al)ays, )herever he did look, it )as still off to one side.

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in -he %ennington 4eview " <su**er "%34=: 32E$%, used )ith per*ission fro* Bennin!ton Colle!e, Bennin!ton, 9er*ontG and Why 2en -a*e +han'es, ed. 2a*uel R. Klausner </e) Mork: (nchor Books, "%40=, 43E"03. & 37 &

/. On .Creativity.0 A Partial 'etraction

19 1
-he Core)ord y @onald 0. 8ayden e'plains the occasion for Kenneth BurkeFs essay, )hich, he tells us, is a revision of an earlier talk on the sa*e topic. 5.n JCreativityK6( Partial ,etraction5 is i*portant for the )ay in )hich it further develops the antitechnolo!y the*e of his late essays, and especially for the )ay he for*ulates his ecolo!ical vision and his idea of ecotra!edy. (s far as + kno), this is the first ti*e Burke co* ined tra!edy and catharsis, the central concepts in his dra*atistic poetics as he developed it in the fifties, )ith the !lo al ecolo!ical de!radation caused y hi!h technolo!y. +t is creativity in the physical sciences that rou!ht a out the electronic technolo!ical revolution still !oin! stron! in our ti*e. BurkeFs Iuestion at the end is )hether or not creativity in the hu*anities <the ver al arts in particular= and social sciences, can do anythin! to counteract the destructive creativity of the physical sciences and the tra!ic situation created y the *arvels of hi!h technolo!y. BurkeFs *odel for the tra!ic situation is (nti!one and especially the tra!ic dile**a faced y Creon. Burke oth ad*ires and fears creativity in the physical sciences. 8is 5partial retraction5 is to Iualify his previously unIualified praise for the principle of creativity )herever it does its )ork. -his leads hi* to the principle of destructive creativity, an i*portant concept for an understandin! of the culture of the late t)entieth century, )here not only technolo!y ut *any of the arts are deli erately as )ell as inadvertently destructive. :itness rock ands, for e'a*ple, )ith their destructive na*es and antisocial ehavior and lyrics. Creativity is not, ipso facto, a !ood, as )e )ere once tau!ht, and as )e ourselves tau!ht, and as our children are still ein! tau!ht at every level of their education. Burke speculates here, as he does else)here in these essays, on the autosu!!estive effects of an artistFs )orks on the artist hi*self6effects )hich, Burke ar!ues, are often Iuite destructive. +t )as the constructive effects of creativity in the real* of sy* olic action6say in :hit*anFs poetry 6that Burke *ostly focused on in his earlier )ork in the thirties under the ae!is of the phrase that 5you can *ake yourself over in the i*a!e of your i*a!ery.5 -hat concept is treated )ith a lot of Burkean irony in this essay, part of )hich see*s like a doo*sday la*ent for a future too a)ful to think a out.

& 33 &

&O'#1O'*
@urin! the sprin! se*ester "%40, *y collea!ues in the 0n!lish depart*ent a!reed that there *i!ht e value in holdin! the fall "%40 sy*posiu* <nu* er si' for the depart*ent over the past four years= on the !eneral su #ect of 5creativity56and *ore especially as the literary artist hi*self sees it. <+ suppose in a )ay this )ould e dou ly introspective.= -he presenters of the 52y*posiu*6405 papers *et several ti*es )orkin! out the !eneral !round rules. .n the afternoon of @ece* er "0, "%40, the five papers y *e* ers of the University of -ulsa faculty )ere presented. -he the*e of 5-he Creative Process6+ntrospection5 )as developed first y :inston :eathers in an archetypal fashion, follo)ed y the four applications to specific )riters. +n his study of +oleri(ge on 8magination <Bloo*in!ton: +ndiana University Press, "%30=, +. (. ,ichards calls attention to a !ro)in! suspicion of 5introspection5 in an a!e of scientific inIuiry. 8e points out that introspection *ay properly e discredited 5as a *eans of settlin! *atters not )ithin the scope of direction inspection N ut that there still re*ains a field in )hich introspection is not only a possi le ut an indispensa le source of infor*ation5 <$;=. ,ichards !oes on to say that )hile introspection *ay e iased, )hat )e seek is not definitive results ut 5possi le, useful hypotheses.5 -he result of such introspection *ay )ell e, as :ords)orth elieved, that )e learn 52o*ethin! of )hat )e are.5 -he evenin! presentation y Kenneth Burke )as enthusiastically received y an audience that nearly filled the a*phitheater. -he ne't day as + drove hi* to the airport, >r. Burke co**ented that rarely had he seen a !roup en#oy the*selves so *uch upon ein! told that 5)e are all doo*edQ5 (s he put this cheery senti*ent, 5+ e!an )ith a theory of co*edy. +n ti*e + ca*e to studyin! the *ystiIue of pollution in Dreek tra!edy. /o) + a* fascinated y the horror of pollution in (*erican pra!*atics.5 + )as old enou!h to su!!est t)o replies: Cor one, the en#oy*ent *ay have een not so *uch fro* the anticipation of tra!ic annihilation as fro* the 5style5 in )hich the prospect )as presented. (s >r. Burke had hi*self indicated in his lecture, 5+t see*s as thou!h, for *an, the typically sy* olAusin! ani*al, each fra!*entarily under!one encounter in his practical e'istence calls for a for*ally perfected analo!ue in the real* of the purely *ythopoeic.5 (nd our en#oy*ent thus resulted fro* seein! our i*pendin! doo* 5perfectly sy* oliBed5 y >r. BurkeFs lecture. & 34 & (nd, for another thin!, it *ay have een that )e en#oyed the possi ility that the )orld *i!ht yet end not )ith a )hi*per ut )ith a an!. +n any event, >r. Burke, concluded the evenin! and 52y*posiu*6 405 y readin! selections fro* his poe* 50ye Crossin!6fro* Brooklyn to >anhattan56)hich *ay e found in Nation 20; <Hune 2, "%3%=, 400E40$. :e )ish for *ono!raph readers a *odicu* of pleasure )e en#oyed at the sy*posiu*. @onald 0. 8ayden, Hanuary "%4"

I
-his talk is the revision of one + !ave efore so*e teachers of 0n!lish in the /orth)est, a out this ti*e last year.

+n the ori!inal piece, + e!an )ith a reference to ,e*y @e Dour*ont, )hose in!enious critical )ritin!s had had a stron! for*ative influence upon *e, over half a century a!o. 8e had su!!ested that in so*e cases a soAcalled state of decadence *i!ht e due, not to a *ere runnin!Ado)n of a peopleFs cultureG ut rather it *i!ht e a sy*pto* of over mu'h fertility. (nd + thou!ht that this notion could serve as a !ood ad*onitory speculation re!ardin! the state of affairs in )hich )e no) find ourselves. Bein! of a divided *ind, + had first tinkered )ith the idea of dod!in! *y responsi ilities so*e)hat y castin! *y discussion in the for* of a dialo!ue. But + couldnFt even !et past the pro le* of choosin! na*es for *y t)o voices <or should there e threeL=. (nd should they, or should they not, e of the sa*e se'L ,ou!hly they )ere intended to represent a contrast <yet so*eti*es a concordance= et)een the physical sciences and the hu*anities. -entatively, uneasily, + thou!ht of havin! the physical sciences represented y a sturdy *ale )ho* + na*ed 5Pro!ressus.5 (nd the real* of the >uses in !eneral and of literature in particular *i!ht e represented y an ardent poetess, to e na*ed 5,e!resseen.5 .r one helpful su!!estion )as that, o)in! to the presti!e of the ter* 5i*a!ination5 in the real* of letters, + should na*e her 5>ad!e.5 >ore specifically, Pro!ressus )as to represent not theoretical science, ut technolo!y6or at ti*es, still *ore narro)ly, en!ineerin!. 8e )as to e a vi!orous fello), )ho neither s*oked nor drank, let alone da lin! in the ne)er psychedelic *edia of co**unication for )hich his o)n pro)ess is responsi le. +t )ould e stackin! the cards too *uch if + *ade & 3; & hi* oastful. Met there )as *uch that he could le!iti*ately oast a out. But )hat of ,e!resseenL :hen + thou!ht of her as unfriendly to the acco*plish*ents that Pro!ressus cele rated, + e!an to feel the need of a Bestful chap <letFs call hi* 5Curioso5= )ho san! of the ne) *acro!ad!etry and *icro!ad!etry *uch as :hit*an had sun! the son! of the roada'e. Particularly in *usic, sculpture, paintin!, and the !raphic arts, Curioso )ould e Iuite at ho*e in ne) *edia *ade possi le y such enterprise as Pro!ressus represented. (nd at that point + sa) e*er!in! a )illfully disor!aniBed lad, 8irsutus, )ho )as !iven to scroun!in! around in the interstices of our society. + e!an lookin! for )ays to tie hi* in )ith so*e lines of *ine, 5-he cure for di!!in! in the dirt is an ideaG the cure for any idea is *ore ideasG the cure for all ideas is di!!in! in the dirt.5 But that state*ent of policy )ould fit my needs *ore than his# (nd y no) you have seen the dialo!ue collapsin! even efore it had e!un. +n any case, here )as *y asic Iuandary: + )as to talk on the su #ect of 5creativity5 <and the very )ord *ade *e uneasy=. + )as addressin! a !roup of e'perts )hose interest in this su #ect )as ound up )ith their interest in hu*anis* !enerally, and literature specifically. Met + had the uneasy conviction that the truly vital focus of creativity today is in the physical sciences. Suite pro*ptly, ho)ever, alon! )ith this state*ent of elief + felt the need to add a t)ist. +t )as eIueathed to us y a social scientist )ho )as as in!enious in his )ay as @e Dour*ont had een, )hen parado'ically *er!in! the creative and the 5decadent.5 + have in *ind -horstein 9e len )hen, y the lunt, ironic reversal of a prover , he su**ed up our current Iuandaries in that *arvelously shre)d proposition: 5+nvention is the *other of necessity.5 :e are not co*petent to decide here )hether technolo!y can solve the pro le*s to )hich it has !iven riseG or )hether, even if it can do so on a purely technolo!ical asis, *ankind can *ake the e'actin! social and political ad#ust*ents that the fantastic ups)in! of technolo!ical creativity de*ands. /or can )e decide )hether the )orld )ill e ulti*ately etter off or )orse off as the result of the chan!es that technolo!y has already rou!ht or *ay rin! in the future, as the !radual interposition of its devices

et)een us and a sheerly ani*al state of nature has co*e to *ake us variously at ho*e or lost in a *anA*ade 5second nature,5 a vastly co*plicated structure that )as ulti*ately *ade possi le y the ho*inidsF special aptitude )ith sy* ol syste*s. +n order to contrast a si*ple )ay of life )ith our characteristically co*plicated situation, + used to lay store y an un)ieldy para le of this sort: +f you raise a carrot in your !arden, and you )ant a carrot, then the & 3% & only transaction involved is your !oin! into your !arden and di!!in! the carrot. .n the other hand, if you uy the carrot at a super*arket, loQ you are en*eshed in a sociopolitical net)ork that )ould e eyond hu*an a ility to trace in detail: road uildin!, politics, police, the ankin! structure, advertisin! a!encies, educational institutions, accountants, clerks, and so forth. (t first the t)o situations do look Iuite different. But look closer6and the sa*e tan!led co*ple' is seen to e i*plicit in oth, if you ut e!in )ith your !arden plot, so*e tools, and a packet of carrot seeds. Mou individually *ay contrive to find a place in the interstices of all that entan!le*ent, Iuite as *ost citiBens cannot6 ut overarchin! it all is the sa*e entan!le*ent. :e are no) ready for a second step. But efore takin! it, perhaps + should try to anticipate a possi le o #ection. 2o*e persons )ith )ho* + discussed this talk contended that + should *ake a distinction et)een 5creativity5 and 5invention,5 )hereas + tend to treat the t)o ter*s as synony*ous. 2o*e of you *ay have the sa*e *is!ivin!. +f you do feel that + should stress such a distinction <speakin! of literary or poetic 5creativity5 on one side and of technolo!ical 5inventiveness5 on the other=, please translate accordin!ly, as + proceed. >y paper should then e read as thou!h it )ere entitled 52cientific +nvention and Poetic Creation6( Partial ,etraction.5 :ith either )ordin! the underlyin! urden of *y ar!u*ent re*ains the sa*e. Usin! a ter* that )ould o viously apply to oth, )e could say that the talk concerns a relationship et)een t)o orders of innovation# (nd the physical sciencesF kinds of innovation have produced such radical chan!es in the real* of motion, they have placed correspondin! responsi ilities of innovation upon the literary or poetic or hu*anistic real* of actin! sy* olically. (nd so to our ne't step, hin!in! a out *y 5partial retraction.5

II
+n *y first ook of literary criticis*, +ounter /tatement, pu lished a out forty years a!o, + partly took issue )ith a position that the recently deceased critic, Hoseph :ood Krutch, upheld in his volu*e, -he 2o(ern -em)er, a )ork concerned )ith the loss of elief in the kind of relationship et)een *an and the universe that *ade tra!edy possi le.O"P +Fll Iuote a relevant passa!e, inter)oven )ith Iuotations fro* Krutch: 8avin! said that tra!edy is dead, and that it is dead ecause the ne) scientific 5truths5 have destroyed the tra!ic 5illusions,5 he ends: 52o*e s*all part of the tra!ic fallacy *ay e said indeed to e still valid for & $0 & us, for if )e cannot feel ourselves as !reat as 2hakespeare did, if )e no lon!er elieve in neither our infinite capacities or our i*portance in the universe, )e kno) at least that )e have discovered the trick )hich has een played upon us and that )hatever else )e *ay e )e are no lon!er dupes.5 8e )ill accept the full responsi ilities of this 5truth,5 thou!h the 5truth5 deprive hi* of so*ethin! so edifyin!,

so necessary to the *ost )holeso*e hu*an e'pansiveness, as tra!edy: 5+f death for us and our kind is the inevita le result of our stu ornness, then )e can only say J2o e it.K .urs is a lost cause and there is no place for us in the natural universe, ut )e are not, for all that, sorry to e hu*an. :e should rather die as *en than live as ani*als.5 8e pictures those of his kind )atchin! si*pler *en )ho, throu!h havin! !one far less in their thinkin!, en#oy certain vital advanta!es <hi!h a*on! )hich is 5tra!ic i*portance5=. But thou!h reco!niBin! the advanta!es that lie )ith the si*ple, those of his kind )ill follo) their thou!hts even to disaster. 2uch are >r. KrutchFs o durate conclusions. >ay e *y ans)er )as too pat. But anyho), hereFs ho) it runs: /o), tra!edy as a *echanis* is ased on a cala*itous persistence in oneFs )ays. +t is 5no ler5 )hen the persistence is due to a *oral sta ility on the part of the hero than )hen it is due to a *ere *isunderstandin!. :hat, then, if not the for*ula for tra!edy is this position of >r. KrutchL 8e )ill take a personal stand in relation to an histori' process <the historic process ein! in this instance the loss of certain *a!ical and theolo!ical or *etaphysical 5illusions5 ased upon 5nonscientific5 syste*s of causality=6and in this stand he )ill persist at all haBards. +t is !ood to have a )riter display so )ell the asic *achinery for a *odern tra!edy in a ook heraldin! the death of all tra!edy. + proposed to save the day y a distinction et)een tra!ic (rama and the tra!ic s)irit# (nd + contended that KrutchFs o)n ook ad*ira ly e'e*plified an essayistic instance of the tra!ic in this latter sense. -hus, y this test, the Iuality of his ook disproved his thesis. But the *atter of the 5retraction5 fi!ures here ecause of the )ay in )hich + had set up the case: 2ince certain thin!s )ere elieved, and poets used these eliefs to produce poetic effects, the eliefs eca*e 5poetic.5 But in the course of ti*e contrary thin!s ca*e to e elieved, )ith the conseIuence that the earlier eliefs )ere no) called 5illusions.5 (nd notin! that so *uch of the )orldFs poetry had een uilt upon )hat )ere no) called illusions, the critics ar!ued in a circle: -he illusions, they said, )ere poetic, and in the loss of the illusions throu!h science )e face the death of poetry throu!h science. -he difficulty lay in the assu*ption that illusions )ere inherently 5poetic56)hereas they had een *ade 5poetic5 y the fact that poets had constructed poetry upon the*. & $" & (lon! these lines, later in the article + said: :ords)orth, in his Preface to the ,yri'al %alla(s O";02P, has stated the opposite position Iuite succinctly. +f science, he says, 5should ever create any *aterial revolution, direct or indirect, in our condition, and in the i*pressions )hich )e ha itually receive,5 the poet )ill carry 5sensation into the *idst of the o #ects of the 2cience itself. -he re*otest discoveries of the Che*ist, the Botanist, or >ineralo!ist, )ill e as proper o #ects of the PoetFs art as any upon )hich it can e e*ployed, if the ti*e should ever co*e )hen these thin!s shall e fa*iliar to us, and the relations under )hich they are conte*plated y the follo)ers of these respective 2ciences shall e *anifestly and palpa ly *aterial to us as en#oyin! and sufferin! ein!s.5 :hich is to say that if an ideolo!y of science o tains !eneral credence, the poet )ill poetiBe it y usin! it for the production of e*otional <5hu*an,5 5poetic5= effects. +t is not surprisin! that this state*ent should have een *ade y one )hose poetry is a si*plification, a utiliBation of 5)hat is left,5 rather than an atte*pt to incorporate *uch ne) *aterial. Cor this si*plification itself indicated an appreciation of the fact that an ideolo!y )as in a state of re*akin!6it sho)ed a deter*ination to use only so *uch of the 5certain5 as re*ained fairly intact <)hich )as, for hi*, sensation, or nature and the senti*ent arisin! fro* the e'altation of natural processes=. .ne pro le*, + noted, involved the insta ility of scienceFs eliefs. 8o)ever, + risked na*in! so*e

candidates for canoniBation, e!innin! )ith scientific *ethod itself <)hich, in !reater assurance then than +Fd have no), + eIuated )ith 5the acceptance of skepticis* as a *a#or principle of !uidance5=. +n any case, + ended up thus: (lready there are *any ne) ele*ents to e 5poetiBed.5 But in so far as the poet 5looks efore and after,5 or 5 inds to!ether y passion and kno)led!e the vast e*pire of hu*an society,5 he cannot at this ti*e e concerned )ith the ne) alone. +ndeed <+Fd add no)=, can he e concerned )ith 5the ne) alone5 at any ti*eL 8e )ill, if he is sensitive to the entire situation, retreat slo)ly <or advance slo)ly, as one prefers=, relinIuishin! only )hat *ust e relinIuished, retainin! the voca ulary of past eauty so lon! as he can rin! hi*self to feel its validity, yet never closin! his eyes in the interests of co*fort and respite, ut continually testin! the valves and )heels of his poetic *echanis*, and not for a *o*ent atte*ptin! to conceal fro* hi*self the fact that so*e part or other is out)orn. +t is Iuite likely that for each elief science takes fro* us, so*e other elief )ill e placed in its stead. -hat a ne) elief see*s *ore 5difficult5 or less 5poetic5 need trou le us little, for the difficulty is not inherent, ut arises fro* the fact that )e *ust alter old *ethods6and if an old elief e'isted lon! enou!h for !enial poets to *ake & $2 & it poetic, a ne) and contrary elief *ust necessarily see* unpoetic until it in turn has een e'ploited y a poet. 2o *uch, to set the conditions for *y partial recantation, )hich + hold to e necessary, in an atte*pt to clear the )ay for thou!hts on creativity in the )holly literary real*.

III
Cirst, on lookin! ack over those para!raphs, + note that :ords)orth, in his idealis*, had een !uilty of a *a#or oversi!htG and + too, in follo)in! his lead. -hus, there is no reference to the possi ility of the ecolo!ical pro le*s that )e no) find pla!uin! us, as the result of technolo!yFs creativeness, or inventiveness, or innovative pro)ess. +n *y ori!inal talk, after riefly *entionin! so*e of the ne) environ*ental pro le*s that no) eset us, + added: 5But even as + )as )ritin! do)n this list, + said to *yself, JBut surely + *ust not take a trip all the )ay across the continent, #ust to !et *yself involved in a platitude.K 5 (nd of a sudden + )as !reeted y a distur in!ly enthusiastic out urst of applause. (s re!ards at least the o li!ations of rhetorical creativity, it is not enou!h that co**ents on a deplora le situation e relevant. -rou les need ut !o on ein! )hat they areG yet tal* a out the* *ust continually e orn ane), lest the sheer *ention of the pro le* ut reinforce our oredo* )ith its persistence. >ean)hile, ecolo!ists, 5environ*entalists,5 have een tellin! us so *uch a out the da*a!e done y the creativity of our contrivances, even the arely adeIuate distri ution of the docu*ents detailin! such analyses and ad*onitions )ould in itself reIuire a catastrophic destruction of forests to supply enou!h pulpA)ood for the paper on )hich the sefateAladen persuasions )ould e distri uted. +n all likelihood )e today are neither *ore nor less virtuous than *ankind ever )as, neither *ore nor less stupid, neither *ore nor less uni*a!inative. But all these in!enious contraptions that )e o)e to the ur!eonin! of the applied physical sciences are )owers# @ou tless the hu*an race has *ade i! *istakes since the e!innin! of ti*e. But ad as they occasionally )ere, they couldnFt add up to *uch, as re!ards their threat to the survival or )elfare of the hu*an race in !eneral. Cor in earlier ti*es there

)as si*ply not enou!h physical po)er availa le to *ake a *istake that even re*otely approached in scope the )orld)ide conseIuences that current technolo!y has *ade possi le. Diven the fantastic & $3 & coefficient of po)er )ith )hich the creative !enius of the physical sciences has provided us, )hen )e *ake *istakes no), they can e )hoppers. .ur )holeso*e nor*al hu*an !reed, our )holeso*e nor*al hu*an stupidity, our )holeso*e nor*al lack of i*a!ination, they never had it so !ood, thanks to the irony )here y the fruits of in!enuity in the physical sciences, reinforced y *uch creativity in the sy* olis* of plannin! and persuasion, rin! forth everAne) possi ilities of po)erladen enterprises. (nd )ould not that situation put ne) strains upon the resources of creativity in the hu*anistic real*L ?et us no) return to that partial recantation + have een leadin! to)ards. (n inter*ediate sta!e is still to e inserted, and + propose to introduce it thus: +n an early ook, Attitu(es towar( History, + tinkered )ith an incon!ruous concept that + called 5the ureaucratiBation of the i*a!inative.5 Doin! ack, + think, to 2pen!lerFs <for *e trau*atic= distinction et)een 5culture5 and 5civiliBation,5 and eyond that to 0duard von 8art*annFs .hiloso)hy o$ the =n'ons'ious, it looked upon historic develop*ents as su #ect to a kind of pro!ressive ri!idification <so*e)hat like hardenin! of the arteries in old a!e=. -he 5i*a!inative5 + thou!ht of as intrinsically )liant, 'reative6 ut the act of !ivin! ody to an i*a!inative pro#ect involved a contradiction, for )hich + proposed the intentionally un)ieldy )ord, 5 ureaucratiBation.5 -hus, once any i*a!inative ideal attains its 5 ureaucratiBation,5 or institutional counterpart, it )ill have eco*e in so*e respects the very opposite of its ori!inal i*pulse. +n su*, y the 5 ureaucratiBation of the i*a!inative5 )as *eant a perspective y incon!ruity, such as 5the ri!idifyin! of the pliant.5O2P -his process see*ed to involve a further parado'ical t)ist )here y, in the very enactin! of a purpose, a society necessarily selects *eans so*e)hat illAadapted to that purpose. Cor y the sheer fact of ein! itself, anythin! )ill contain potentialities eyond the use for )hich it *ay happen to e desi!ned. -hus, thou!h a ha**er is specifically *ade for drivin! nails, it can also e used in a ra)l for cloutin! an opponent. -o this aspect of ureaucratiBation, or ri!idification, + !ave the na*e 5unintended yA product.5 (nd + proposed so*e *ild ter*inistic innovations that + thou!ht )ere needed to spot and identify cultural *anifestations of this sort.O3P -he lore of the ne) )onder dru!s *akes it o vious that )ith *y concept of 5unintended yAproducts5 + )as !ropin! fu* lin!ly to)ards the current e'pression, 5 side effects.5 Clearly, 5side effects5 is the ter* + need, for recantin! so*e)hat on *y earlier vote of favorin! the science & $$ & plank in :ords)orthFs platfor* for poets of the future. +n rief, he )as thinkin! of ho) )oeti' creativity *i!ht cele rate the )onders of s'ienti$i' creativity. (nd there si*ply )as no *ention of unintended side effects <or 5residues5= such as poets in particular and citiBens in !eneral *ust no) variously confront, )ith correspondin! i*a!es, ideas, concepts, and attitudiniBin! fictions <in rief, various *odes of sy* olic creativity=. :hether e'plicitly or i*plicitly, poets )ill necessarily e'perience a )orld infused )ith the 5second nature5 of ureaucratiBed technolo!ic creativity, includin! its *any sea*y side effects. -hese include the threat that, even if )e contrive to postpone per*anently an ulti*ate )orldAenco*passin! che*ical, acteriolo!ical, ther*onuclear sho)do)n, even in their peaceful e'ploitation of ra) *aterials the side effects of the ne) po)ers *ay fatally upset the alance of nature on )hich hu*an e'istence ulti*ately depends. (nd even if this eventuality is per*anently postponed, )e *ust continue to live )ith it as a threat, )hile *odifyin! our *odes of livin! and

thinkin! accordin!ly <a situation that in itself )ould e a radical challen!e to our po)ers of creativity in the real* of the spirit=.O$P >ean)hile, there is an ironic sense in )hich :ords)orthFs prophecy has co*e true. Poets have already *ade *any of our technolo!ical develop*ents 5poetic,5 y )idenin! the ran!e of thin!s talked a out in poe*s, despite the resistance of *any readers, of *any critics, and even of *any poets )ho still look upon such *odes of e'pression as essentially 5prosaic.5 -he prevalent aversion to didactic poetry also fi!ures here6 and thou!h it is yieldin!, this resistance is pro a ly upheld in part y poets )ho, ein! the*selves teachers, think of their verse )ritin! as flatly antithetical to their peda!o!ic *ode of livelihood. (lso, )hereas + )ould interpret :ords)orth as havin! had in *ind an increased ran!e )here y thin!s not for*erly considered eautiful )ould e rou!ht )ithin the real* of eauty, there developed a different trend )here y the test of eauty itself dropped a)ay. -his, + take it, is the !roundin! for that kind of poetic creativity )e no) call the 5antiApoe*.5 (n easy )ay to appreciate the difference is y contrastin! :ords)orthFs preface )ith Cilippo -o**aso >arinettiFs *anifestoes proclai*in! the !ospel of futuris* )hich )ould !o eyond free verse to free )ords: 5-he mots li&ristes orchestrate colors, noises, sounds, they for* su!!estive co* inations )ith the *aterials of lan!ua!e and slan!, arith*etical and !eo*etrical for*ulae, old )ords, )ords distorted and invented, the cries of ani*als and the roar of *otors.5 >arinetti had eco*e re*ade, he tells us, durin! a trip in an airplane, & $7 & an occasion relevant to our present concerns. :hereupon, his *anifestoes proclai* a and )ho 5are for a J*a'i*u* of disorderKG a Jlyric o session )ith *atterKG the a olition of senti*entG for the Jtele!raphic,K the Jvi ratory,K the Jcult of speed, the ne).K Cor the u!ly, the Jrei!n of *achinery,K Ji*a!ination unchained,K the !lorification of industrial and financial nationalis*. -hey are Ja!ainst the har*onious,K a!ainst J*oonli!ht, re*iniscence, nostal!ia, eternity, i**ortality.K 5 5+nstead of hu*aniBin!, let us ani*aliBe, ve!etaliBe, *ineraliBe, electrify, or liIuefy our style.5 ( 5*anifesto in !lorification of )ar sho)s ho) )ell the futurist *ode of acceptance )as adapted for recruitin! in the service of >ussolini. -he futurist, to praise )ar, needed only to recite its horrors, and call the* &eauti$ul <so*e)hat as the ancient Dreeks considered the left illo*ened, and *ade up the difference euphe*istically y callin! the left flank of their ar*ies the J)ell na*edK=.5 5>arinetti contrived to attain JyeaAsayin!K at )hatever cost. ?ike a cruel caricature of :hit*an, he )ould e the o*nivorous appetite. By a cult of the picturesIue, his pro#ect cate!orically silenced o #ections. -o any )ho *i!ht say, J-his *odern )orld is disease,K it could ans)er, JBut )hat a )er$e't e'a*ple of diseaseQK N :ere the streets noisyL +t could counter y advocatin! an uncritical cult of noise. >i!ht there e stenchL +t )ould discuss the J eautiesF of stench.5 (nd so on. + a* here Iuotin! so*e references to >arinetti that + pu lished in "%34<*y Attitu(es towar( History=. O7P + feel that they have a kind of 5this is )here + ca*e in5 effect. But they punctuate a literary creativity such as :ords)orth o viously did not have in *ind, re!ardin! an attitude to)ards the 5second nature5 that )ould develop in response to the advance of te'hnologi' creativity. >arinettiFs *anifestoes are useful *ainly as a sy*pto*G or )e *i!ht call the* the e*er!ent suppuratin! of a tendency that no) *anifests itself in *anifold scattered and attenuated variants. + elieve it leads ulti*ately into a position that + *i!ht est approach so*e)hat rounda out, thus: +f + read the ecolo!ists correctly, their ad*onitions a out the technolo!ic future really e* ody the principle on )hich Dreek tra!edy )as uilt. Consider the structure of 2ophoclesF Antigone, for

instance. Usin! his po)er for )hat he took to e the !ood of the state, Creon had conscientiously pro*ul!ated a decree that, under the circu*stances, )ould result in the heroineFs death. -hen, ein! rou!ht to see the error of his )ays, he relented, and retracted his decree. But it )as too late. 8e & $3 & had already set in *otion the chain of develop*ents that, actin! eyond his po)ers, )ould ine'ora ly entan!le oth (nti!one and Creon in ulti*ate tra!ic )retchedness. + take it that our ecolo!ists are asically concerned )ith a possi le desi!n of that sort, the fear that, y the ti*e the dislocations caused y *anFs !reat technolo!ic pro)ess eco*e o vious enou!h for even the 5silent *a#ority5 to see and renounce, thin!s *ay have passed a point of no return. -hus, out of our !reat pride, our causes for oastin! and unrestrained adventure, could co*e the fall. 8ere, certainly, )ould e a scientific fear Iuite in keepin! )ith the desi!n of tra!edy. .r perhaps it )ould no) sho) up rather as a kind of cruel, !rotesIue farceL

I2
Cuturis* can turn into a kind of 2uperACuturis*, carryin! to e'cess the 8oratian for*ula, carpe die* seiBe the day. -hereFs *uch creativity of that sort in our attitude to)ards situations that see* eyond our po)ers. Parado'ically, to a lar!e e'tent the current cult of the irrational profits y the fact that, for all our unsureness, there still is a vast acklo! of re!ularity. -hus, *uch creativity even on its face averse to current trends is actually *ade possi le only y the conditions a out )hich it )ould co*plain. (nd there are the ran!es in )hich )e can still cultivate the !reat )orks left us y tradition, so*eti*es lovin! the* all the *ore ecause they are out of line )ith circu*stances no). :hen, in !rade school )e )ere edified y the resoundin! challen!e, 5:oods*an, spare that tree, / -ouch not a sin!le o), / +n youth it sheltered *e, / (nd +Fll protect it no),5 our edification )as *ade possi le only ecause so*e other )oods*en had not spared so*e other trees. Hust think )hat vast treasures *ust e du! up, transported, processed, ou!ht, sold, catalo!ued, recorded in archives of one sort or another, so that ut a sin!le dayFs input *ay e fed into the *a)s of our *any co**unicative *edia, thus providin! *aterial of so*e sort for the creativity of sy* olic action. But as re!ards all 2uperACuturistic *ove*ents, all cults of the a surd, do they not rather sift do)n to each !enerationFs sayin! in effect, 5(fter *e, the delu!eL5 +s it not possi le that Creud *isled us, in his stress upon the alli*portance of the fatherkillL (t least, as re!ards the creativity of the sa'ri$i'ial )rin'i)le, )hich + see as central to the Bi le, in the .ld -esta*ent there is the focal story of Cather ( raha* piously resi!ned to sacrificin! his son, +saac. (nd the lo!ic of the /e) -esta*ent !ravitates a out a transcendent Cather )ho sent his onlyA e!otten 2on for sacrifice. (s for & $4 & the Dreeks, the curse on the 8ouse of (treus, )hich !ave the* so *any the*es for their tra!edies, involved a father )ho unkno)in!ly ate the hearts of his sons at a anIuet. 2o itFs #ust possi le that thereFs a kind of infanticidal *otive i*plicit in any drive 50ver on)ard.5 2o*e iolo!ists no) Bealously at )ork studyin! the nature of !enes have frankly ad*itted that their kno)led!e could turn out to e disastrous <for if perfected it )ould reIuire a )hole ne) set of sociopolitical controls=. -he ato*ic o* , as developed in the United 2tates, )as no *ore su #ected to the de*ocratic processes of pu lic de ate and decision than )as its develop*ent under dictatorship in ,ussia. (nd *any of our citiBens have si*ilarly proved their )illin!ness to e'peri*ent creatively )ith che*ical and

acteriolo!ical *eans of !enocide, )holly in defiance of the de*ocratic traditions that )e are supposedly eIueathin! to the youn!. Mes, *ay e even despite ourselves, the *otto for *uch creativity should e: 5(fter *e, the delu!e.5O3P

2
(s for specifically )oeti' creativity, pro a ly its *ost profound aspect co*es to a focus in that sense of resolution )e co**only refer to as 5catharsis.5 -here is also the rudi*entary catharsis of !ettin! so*ethin! said at all, as re!ards the pressure of a thin!, situation, or process that, thou!h affectin! us, had not een na*ed. -he unna*ed is another na*e for the potentially na*a le6and all *en, even the *ost reticent, are the kind of ani*al that is 5sentenced to the sentence,5 so )e are *oved y the ulti*ate lo!ic of the su**ariBin!, attitudiniBin! *o*ent. But the catharsis of !ettin! it well said is so*ethin! else a!ain, involvin! all sorts of selfi*posed o li!ations, and correspondin! sense of !uilt, to)ards so*e ideal (udience T <*ay e ut an especially e'actin! aspect of oneFs o)n person=. Curther, the creative attle a!ainst such harass*ents does not end )ith the confrontin! and overco*in! of the difficulties the*selves. Cor there is still the pro le* of pu lic reception, )hich *ay even e )ithheld not ecause a )ork is intrinsically inferior, ut ecause it is !ood in )ays that the authorFs conte*poraries do not take to. Hust think: -he !reatest Creator of the* all sa) that 8is Creation )as !ood. . viously 8e kne) )hat 8e )as talkin! a out. But think of the endless !ru* lin! that 8is eloved Creatures have een creatively en!a!ed in ever since. (nd if a )ork happens to e of a sort that persons in authority consider su versive or in so*e other respect reprehensi le, its creativity *ay not e a resolution at all for the author, ut rather the source of *uch distress. & $; & -hen too, there *ay e a su tler issue involved. .ften )e tend to think of 5catharsis5 as a *ere e*etic process, a )ay of spittin! forth undi!ested pro le*s, as thou!h 5.ut )ith it5 )ere the recipe for a cureall and one could e cleansed of repressed vindictiveness y the sheer act of !ettin! it e'pressed. -o e sure, this is an i*portant part of the recipeG ut + su *it that itFs not all. -otal tragi' catharsis also involves an attitude that is on the slope of love. +f one could intensely love all *ankind, y that very condition he )ould e cleansed. -ra!edy provides a surro!ateG na*elyG pity, )hich is on the slo)e of love. + have *entioned 2ophoclesF Antigone# :hereas CreonFs conscientious devotion to the state and (nti!oneFs fa*ily piety involve the* in flatly anta!onistic positions, the play is so desi!ned that partisanship is transcendedG and )e feel pity for the* oth. + take it that, )ithin the conditions of the for*, the i*itation of an a!on in )hich one feels eIually sy*pathetic to oth anta!onists )ould e the nearest dra*atic analo!ue of universal love, so far as its 5cathartic5 effects are concerned. -here is a ook relevant to our present concerns: .oetry -hera)y: -he =se o$ .oetry in the -reatment o$ Emotional 3isor(ers <edited y Hack H. ?eedyG Philadelphia: ?ippincott, "%3%=. -he various articles consider literary creativity fro* the standpoint of cures for sick souls rather than as e'a*ples of artistic e'cellence. +n an ite* that + contri uted, 5-hou!hts on the PoetsF Corner,5 + rou!ht up one point that +Fd like to try out here, on the su #ect of 5creativity5: :here speculations on these *atters are concerned, + )ould propose one ad*onitory rule of thu* . 2ince, in past eras, *any of the )orldFs keenest *inds treated central pro le*s of hu*an *otivation in theolo!ical ter*s, + devoutly #oin forces )ith those )ho elieve that one should al)ays ask, at least e'peri*entally, )hether any theolo!ical account of *otives can e sho)n to have a secular analo!ue. +n the case of our present Iuandaries, +Fd naturally think of the pro le*atical relationship et)een church*enFs theories of 5de*onolo!y5 and

conte*porary concerns )ith creativity. -hus, at least for heuristic purposes, )e should ask )hether one possi le e* arrassin! analo!ue should al)ays e kept in *ind. 0ven if oneFs drea*s had een an ecstatic vision of Christ or >ary, the church*en ad*onished that it *i!ht e a delusion i*posed upon the drea*er y the Prince of @arkness. (nd, si*ilarly, should )e not e on !uard lest 5creativity5 escape proper IuiBBical inspectionL + *ean: Creativity should not ear the *ask of purely and si*ply a 5!ood5 )ord. ,ather, keepin! in *ind possi le secular analo!ues of the de*onolo!ical should )e not al)ays e on the lookAout for syste*atic )ays of & $% & distin!uishin! et)een 5creativity5 that heals and 5creativity5 that endan!ers <includin! further t)ists )here y a poorly paid and poorApayin! artist *i!ht, throu!h the creative sacrificin! of hi*self, contri ute to the co*fort of trivial people for )ho* his dedicated sufferin!s provide a conversationApiece at cocktail hour=L -here is *uch here still to eA puBBled over. Dod only kno)s ho) autosu!!estive oneFs )ork )ith sy* olAsyste*s can eco*e. + kno) of at least one fello) )ho )rote a novel a out a )ordA*anFs crackin! up. By the ti*e he had finished, he had !ot hi*self so !reatly entan!led in his plotFs develop*ent, he arely did escape endin! in an asylu* hi*self. 2everal steps )ere needed to help hi* dispel the spell that the sustained en!ross*ent in his fiction had i*posed upon hi*. (nd a*on! the* )as a deli erate renouncin! of his e*er!ent plans for another novel. 8e turned to criticis* instead6and that su terfu!e served hi* passa ly. 8e does not contend that novel )ritin! ne'essarily produces such results. But heFs ada*ant in his insistence that it )orked that )ay )ith hi*. (nd )riters can develop )ays of )orkin! )here y their creativity !ets ound up )ith physically e'actin! ha its that they could not a andon )ithout a andonin! the *ental attitudes intrinsic to such creativity. 2o they al*ost necessarily persist in their )ays of ta'in! the*selves until they die y )hat they had *ost creatively lived y. :ho kno)s ho) deep all such *atters !oL 2o*eti*es + have tinkered )ith the notion that all courses should e tau!ht under the si!n of fear, so*e)hat as <+ assu*e )ithout any ut re*ote and unrelia le kno)led!e= certain *onks in ancient -i etan *onasteries )ere *ethodically prepared for the ti*e )hen each could !o into a solitary cell, never a!ain to co**une )ith even one other *e* er of his o)n order. -hin!s )ere so arran!ed that the interchan!e of food and offal could e *ana!ed, )ithout si!ht or )ord of any other hu*an. 0ventually, there ca*e the day )hen the food )as not accepted. ( sure si!nQ 2o the cell )as opened, dou tless )ith appropriate ritual, and the dead *onk )as re*oved, to *ake roo* for the ne't saintly occupant, )ho )ould in turn have een prepared thus to co**une henceforth )ith silence. >ay e + heard it )ron!, or *ay e itFs a lie in the first place. But are there not aspects in )hich it is true of all creativity, in principleL (lon! such lines, purely for preparation, + have asked students to )rite *e three pieces, one praisin! so*ethin!, one invei!hin! a!ainst so*ethin!, and one la*entin!. -he students )ere to choose )hatever su #ects they preferred, for each such e'ercise. .ne student, choosin! ut one su #ect,

& 70 & praised, invei!hed, and la*ented )ithin the ran!e of that one the*e alone. :e donFt )ant to e syste*atically put a)ay after the fashion of the -i etan conceit. But )hat of that student, )ho su #ected the sa*e topic to three totally different attitudesL + *ean: >i!ht the est protection a!ainst the dan!ers of autosu!!estion e in the develop*ent of *ethods desi!ned to *aintain *a'i*u* liIuidity in all sy* olic e'ercisin!L 0ssentially, (ristotleFs 4hetori' is so desi!ned. (nd letFs not for!et that he refers us to the 4hetori' )hen on the su #ect of 5thou!ht5 5(ianoia7 in his .oeti's# >y !eneral notion is that ter*s are not *erely su!!estive in their effects upon readers, ut also autosu!!estive in their effects upon the )riters )ho !et used y usin! the*. 8ence, )here Iuestions of creativity are upper*ost, )e should a ove all e IuiBBical a out the field and not #ust assu*e that every hu*an creator is to e vie)ed si*ply as a fra!*ent of an overall Creator. >ay e yes, *ay e no. >ay e he is ut a victi* of faulty selfAdia!nosis <particularly since itFs so *uch easier to see other peopleFs kinds of selfAsu #ection than oneFs o)n=.

2I
Cor a Iuick su**ary, )here then are )eL + e!an y )orryin! in line )ith the thou!ht that the everA acceleratin! drive to)ards the production and consu*ption of technolo!ic po)er is so in!rained in the nature of our econo*y, any nota le alteration in this )ay of life on a national scale )ould have radical i*plications of al*ost sta!!erin! proportions, possi ilities or necessities involvin! attitudinal and institutional chan!es far *ore radical than )e can e'pect of *ere co**unist or fascist revolutions. (nd such unfoldin!s )ould involve al*ost insupera le de*ands for a )hole ne) round of creativity in the arts of hu*an relations. >ay e + !ot started on the )ron! foot, and there y painted *yself into a corner. + realiBe no), so late in the day, + *i!ht easily have talked <Iuite as *any of us, includin! *yself, Iuite often have= a out the civiliBin! virtues of i*a!ination. -here is a !reat 5enrich*ent5 of our lives to e derived fro* the hu*an pursuit of the hu*anities. (ppreciation is a for* of thanks!ivin!6and thanks!ivin! is a*on! the *ost felicitous of attitudes <perhaps the est of all )e can have, to)ards the opportunities that the need to have lived affords us=. +n our appreciation of !reat )orks )e are intrinsically !ivin! thanks. (nd !reat )orks have found countless )ays of thus addin! to our !ratitude <)hich is to say, the ran!e of the appreciative=, as )hen so*ethin! said turns out to feel #ust ri!ht. & 7" & (nd since the hu*an ani*al so spontaneously approaches life throu!h the perspective of his sy* olA syste*s < e they in )ords, colors, dance, sculpture, or )hatever such=, any appreciation of life so*eho) does not see* co*plete until this kind of ani*al has, as it )ere, dou led his e'periences y findin! for the* a counterpart purely in the real* of sy* ols. +t see*s as thou!h, for *an, the typically sy* olusin! ani*al, each fra!*entarily under!one encounter in his practical e'istence calls for a for*ally perfected analo!ue in the real* of the purely *ythopoeic. :hat harvest is truly, piously co*plete )ithout a harvest son!L :hat sprin! has een e'perienced in all its fullness, until or unless so*e *yth*an has endo)ed it )ith its lovely duplicate, the sheer for*aliBed li*eness of a e!innin!L :hat se'ual union is really in essence a union unless si!naliBed y an epithala*iu* of so*e sort, thou!h it *ay deviate far indeed fro* traditional e'pectationsL <+ have in *ind even a couple )ho first had a child, ne't )ent on their honey*oon, and eventually !ot *arried, a state that could conceiva ly lead into a period of courtship.=

+n su*, then: Mes, in *any )ays creativity can eco*e a da*ned nuisance. -here is only one kind of ?evity that could conceiva ly e )orse than Creativity. -hat is ?ack of Creativity.

+O!#S
Cro* 8ntros)e'tion: -he Artist ,oo*s at Himsel$, ed., @onald 0. 8ayden, University of -ulsa >ono!raph 2eries no. "2 <-ulsa: University of -ulsa, "%4"=, 33E;". -his paper )as ori!inally !iven at the Pacific /orth)est Conference in 0n!lish held at Maki*a 9alley Colle!e, Maki*a, :ashin!ton, in Ce ruary of "%40. ". -he pertinent selections are fro* +ounter /tatement </e) Mork: 8arcourt, "%32G reprint, ?os (ltos: 8er*es, "%7%=, "%;E20$. <Paper ack edition, University of California Press, "%3;.= 2. 2ee Attitu(es towar( History </e) Mork: /e) ,epu lic, "%34G reprint, ?os (ltos: 8er*es, "%7%=, vol. 2, 33 ff. <Paper ack edition, Beacon Press. "%3".= :e could est su* up this vie) of history y a story, an anecdote presu*a ly invented y the late ?incoln 2teffens. +t is so asic, if there )ere such a thin! as a Co*ic Book of Denesis surely this story )ould e there: 2teffens, as the story !oes, )as enterin! the /e) Mork Pu lic ?i rary )hen a friend of his ca*e stu* lin! out. -he *an )as o viously in !reat a!itation. J+Fve found itQK he shouted. (nd he cla*orously called for 2teffens to !o )ith hi* and listen )hile he told of his discovery. 2teffens o li!ed. -he t)o u*ped alon! CortyA2econd 2treet and turned do)n Cifth (venue )hile the friend so*e)hat incoherently e'plained. Dradually, despite his e'cite*ent, his )ords e!an to *ake sense6and 2teffens & 72 & realiBed that his friend had found a plan for savin! the )orld. (nd the *ore the outlines of the plan e!an to e*er!e, the etter the sche*e sounded. -hen 2teffens eca*e a)are that so*eone )as )alkin! alon! eside the*, listenin! to the account. (nd finally, turnin!, e sa) a very distin!uishedAlookin! !entle*an6then, lookin! a!ain, he realiBed that it )as the devil. SteffensMou see* to e interested in *y friendFs plan. !3e *evil@ecidedlyQ Steffens:hat do you think of itL

!3e *evil+ think itFs an e'cellent plan. SteffensMou *ean to say you think it )ould )orkL !3e *evil.h, yes. +t )ould certainly )ork. SteffensBut in that case, ho) a out youL :ouldnFt it put you out of a #o L !3e *evil/ot in the least. +ll or!aniBe it <'iv=.

3. Cor 5unintended yAproduct5 see Attitu(es towar( History, vol. 2, 34, 2"%. .r second and paper ack editions, 223, 224, 27%, 320. $. +ncidentally, as an o&iter (i'tum, in ehalf of the 2elfA?ove @epart*ent, +Fd like to Iuote a fe) lines fro* an article y :illia* Bo)en <5.ur /e) ()areness of the Dreat :e 5 Fortune ;" OCe ruaryP, "%;=: 5:e *ay assu*e that *ost predictions put for)ard in "%34, like those of other years, )ould no) e )orth recallin! only as e'a*ples of falli ility. But at least one prediction pu lished in that year has since co*e to see* e'ceedin!ly perspicacious. +t appeared in a ook y Kenneth Burke, a literary critic. J(*on! the sciences,K he )rote, Jthere is one little fello) na*ed 0colo!y, and in ti*e )e shall pay hi* *ore attention.K 5 -he editor kindly called his article to *y attention. But re!retta ly in the article itself his !enerosity fell short of na*in! the ook. 2o there has een no unsee*ly rush to e'haust the edition. <2ee Attitu(es towar( History, vol. ", "%2, "%;, 223. .r the second and paper ack editions, "70, "7$, "34.= 7. Attitu(es towar( History, vol. ", 34E$". 3. Hust as + had !ot this far alon!, and )as feelin! a it depressed, + read a ne)s story </an ,o ertson, 52ea or! 2ays >an +s ?ed y 2cience to Suestion 9alues,5 New >or* -imes, Ce ruary 7, "%40, pa!e ", colu*n $=, concernin! a state*ent y the chair*an of the (to*ic 0ner!y Co**ission and codiscoverer of plutoniu*, @r. Dlenn -. 2ea or!. 8e )as testifyin! efore the 8ouse 2elect 2u co**ittee on 0ducation. 8is testi*ony )as offered in ehalf of increased !overn*ent aid to the hu*anities, an ad*ira le policy, o viously dear to us all. 8e said that *any scientists, rather than re#oicin! in discovery as an end in itself, )ere e!innin! to ask, 5:hat is ein! done )ith our discoveriesL5 <+ shall leave un*entioned the fact that an ad#oinin! story concerned our presence in 9ietna*.= 8e told Con!ress 5that the a!e of triu*phant science and technolo!y )as forcin! *an into a ne) philosophic era ased on the J)hyK of livin!.5

2ince + e!an y Iuotin! 9e lenFs conceit, 5+nvention is the *other of necessity,5 it )ould e relevant to o serve that @r. 2ea or!Fs testi*ony )as presented, on the contrary, under the si!n of the prover in its pristine 0denic for*, )ithout the ironic t)ist. 5+ elieve that one of the characteristics of the hu*an race,5 he said, 5possi ly the one that is pri*arily responsi le for its course of evolution, is that it has !ro)n y creatively respondin! to failure.5 :here + )ould incline to )orry is in the para!raph: 5@r. 2ea or! e'pressed his elief that the Jdespair and ne!ativis* of the ti*esF )as a prelude to deeper & 73 & and *ore positive thinkin! in )hich *an )ould e'a*ine hu*an values and !oals.5 + )ould cate!orically Iuestion any turn fro* 5ne!ativis*5 to 5positive thinkin!.5 -he ne) technolo!y )hich defines our 5second nature5 is a vast net)ork of ne) *anA*ade )owers# (nd such po)ers need controllin!G )hich is to say they need la)s, re!ulationsG and la)s and re!ulations are essentially under the si!n of 5thou shalt not.5 (!ain, *anA*ade po)ers are )ro)erties6and ho)ever necessary so*e *easure of the* *ay e, properties are thin!s to $ight over# -here y they fall )ithin the realm o$ a(monition# Curther*ore, if anythin! is reasona ly to e e'pected of a 5second nature5 shaped, for either etter or )orse, y the advance of technolo!y, it )ill increasin!ly reIuire the !reatest a*ount of ureaucratiBation that the )orld has ever kno)n. (nd if so, )hat then of the i*a!inative, as re!ards our for*ula, 5the ureaucratiBation of the i*a!inative5L & 7$ &

4. !owards "el3aven
!3ree Stages of a 2ision 19 1
Kenneth Burke had a !reat talent for irony, co*edy, and satire. .ne can see it here in the first of the 8elhaven essays, as )ell as the second, 5:hy 2atire,5 ut one can also see it in BurkeFs poe*s, his 5Clo)erishes,5 in 50pilo!ue: Prolo!ue in 8eaven5 in -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion <"%3"=, in parts of a !reat *any of his essays, and in his letters. (nyone )ho ever sa) or heard Burke 5perfor*5 in his pri*e )ill re*e* er his i*provisational hu*or and his raspy lau!hter at his o)n ironic #okes and cracks. ?ike any satirist, Burke had a !reat sense of the a surd and a re*arka le a ility to reduce thin!s to a surdity #ust y follo)in! certain tendencies to the end of the line6as he does here )ith co*puters, hypertechnolo!is*, and pollution. ,eadin! the essay t)entyAfive years later, one can only say of BurkeFs predictions that they )ere, alas, all too true. -he CultureABu le on the >oon is not so farAfetched as it *i!ht see* at first. Burke hi*self )ould have een du* founded y the astoundin! co*puter revolution of the nineties, a technolo!ical revolution that )as #ust e!innin! durin! his last years. /o) there are co*puter screens every)here and soon, every school in the country )ill e eIuipped )ith the* and have access to the )orld)ide )e . +n so*e schools, there are proposals to do a)ay )ith ooks and have students do all their readin! on individual laptops. 8ypertechnolo!is* is one of the *ain the*es of BurkeFs late essays, as is the fact,

accordin! to Burke, that it is lan!ua!e ased. +t is hypertechnolo!is* that creates 5counterA nature,5 another *ain the*e of BurkeFs late essays.

I+!'O*,C!IO+
/ot )ithout uneasiness, + a* !oin! to indul!e in a it of satire. Cor several reasons satire is a trou lous for*, not the least ein! that so*e people donFt kno) ho) to take it. Mears a!o + pu lished a satire closely akin to the the*e of *y present 58elhaven5 vision. +t )as called 5:aste6or the Cuture of Prosperity.5 -he !eneral slant )as that, althou!h there is a li*it to the a*ount that people can use, thereFs no li*it to the a*ount that people can )aste. -herefore, in order to ensure *a'i*u* production, hence *a'i*u* prosperity, all that )e & 77 & needed to do )as keep on )astin! at a constantly accelerated pace6and )e could look for)ard to a per*anent ull *arket. -he article )as )ritten shortly &e$ore the i! *arket crash of "%2%. +t )as pu lished shortly a$ter the crash. +t satirically )elco*ed the already e*er!ent principle of planned o solescence )hich has since taken *uch *i!htier strides for)ard, so that not only products such as auto*o iles or refri!erators are scientifically desi!ned to )ear out efore they shouldG ut even architectural piles of considera le *a!nitude are no) planned as te*porary structures, to e knocked do)n after a fe) years and replaced y *onsters t)ice as i! <and they in turn )ill soon e !ettin! pounded apart6or if not, then they )ill si*ply fall apart=. Cor a ti*e, after the crash of "%2%, the standard )ays of acceleratin! prosperity y )asta!e lost so*e of their *o*entu*. But even so, the tradition re*ained intact. (nd )hile *any une*ployed persons )ere starvin! throu!h lack of )a!es )ith )hich to uy thin!s, prices )ere kept up y the fact that *uch food )as ein! syste*atically destroyed on the far*s )here it )as produced. -his )as the era of the plo)in!Aunder of the little pi!s. 2ince those dis*al days, of course, )asta!e has *ore than re!ained its pace. + recently read that, )hereas ten years a!o each citiBen contri uted an avera!e of four pounds of trash a day, )e no) avera!e si' pounds a dayG and if our current *ethods of production and distri ution can *aintain this e'actin! cultural standard, it is esti*ated that y "%;0 the avera!e output of trash per day )ill have cli* ed to the envia le hei!ht of ei!ht pounds per citiBen. But in *y earlier article, satirically salutin! this vie) of )hat is usually kno)n a*on! us as the hi!hest standard of livin! in the )orld, + also had a satirical passa!e alon! these lines: @espite our national pro)ess as )asters under conditions of peace, + said, one *ust reco!niBe that )ar is a still *ore efficient *eans of )asta!e. 2o + included a reference to the encoura!in! pro*ise of !reater ar*s production. ( syndicated colu*nist seiBed on that, Iuotin! it as thou!h it )ere to e taken strai!ht, )ithout the satiric discount. (nd in ne)spapers throu!hout the country he aired his *oral indi!nation at the thou!ht that any pu lication )ould sink so lo) as to see in )ar production a oon to prosperity. (t the ti*e, the editor of the )eekly )hich had pu lished *y satire told *e: +n all his *any years as an editor, he had never pu lished a satire that did not provoke a rash of letters fro* indi!nant readers )ho had taken the piece on its face, )ithout allo)ance for the satiric t)ist. But thin!s have *oved on since then, until no), as Huvenal said in the

& 73 & ,o*e of his day, it is hard not to )rite satire. Cor )e all no) kno) a out the sole*n puBBlin! of our *any crack econo*ists )ho canFt fi!ure out ho) )e could possi ly !et alon! )ithout the fantastic sIuanderin! of )ar *aterial in 9ietna* and the various other suspect re!i*es )e su sidiBe )here y, alon! )ith such ideal )asta!e as the (B> syste* and supersonic transport planes, *any factories can e kept usy, e*ployin! a vast peaceti*e ar*y of factory )orkers in such econo*ically helpful *ilitary output. :hen + )rote *y piece 5:aste6or the Cuture of Prosperity5 <"%30=, there )as of course no talk of co*puters. (nd )aste )as s*all potatoes as co*pared )ith the concerns that no) eset us, such as pollution y *ercury poisonin!, )hich has *ade the fish of several )hole states inedi le, and also has een found in life in the hi!h seas. .n the other hand, thou!h + have, for several *onths, een co*pulsively clippin! ne)s stories a out pollution, in the lon! run any kind of co*plainin! eco*es a da*ned ore. + recall so*e *onths a!o, )hen + )as addressin! a conference of 0n!lish teachers in the /orth)est, a section that tea*s )ith conservationists. +ndeed, even )hile + )as there, university students )ere doin! 8erculean la ors cleanin! the #unk out of a scenic river into )hich every conceiva le kind of discarda le o #ect had een du*ped. + )as scheduled to talk on 5creativity.5 >y point )as that the center of 5creativity5 in our day )as )ith the physical sciences, )hich )ere havin! an al*ost *iraculous upsur!e. (nd the #o of the social sciences and the hu*anities )as so*eho) to try to keep up )ith the cultural pro le*s )hich this !reat flo)erin! of creativity in the physical sciences had i*posed upon us. 2o, y )ay or introduction, + talked for a it a out the un)anted side effects of industrial e'pansion. -hen + happened to say, 5But surely, you didnFt )ant *e to co*e three thousand *iles #ust to talk )ith you a out the su #ect of pollution.5 (nd + !ot a *ost distur in!ly enthusiastic out urst of applause. 2i*ilarly, + had read ho) the 2cots are indi!nant ecause so*e lecturer clai*s that pollution has killed the ?och /ess >onster. (s for co*plaints a out technolo!y: (ll of us have een )eary of the* for Iuite so*e ti*e. -he 5Dod is dead5 theolo!ians have helped us to realiBe: +t )ere far etter that )e lasphe*e .ur Cather than that )e lasphe*e -echnolo!y. :e are sick of ?a*entation. :hat )e )ant is affir*ation. (nd if )e canFt !et affir*ation y any other route, then letFs !et at least the sheer gestures and a''ents of affir*ation, )ith the help of a satiric t)ist. Cor our slo!an, then, )e stoutly affir*: :e *ust not turn ack the & 74 & clock. :e *ust continue in the )ays that *ade us !reat63 percent of the )orldFs population, usin! up $0 percent of the )orldFs production. Cor)ard, out)ard, and up6as per *y vision of 8elhaven, to )hich let us no) repair.

I !"# "I(" P'O)IS# O& !"# CO)P,!#'

-hose persons are )ron!in! the co*puter )ho say that it )ill cause une*ploy*ent. Consider this situation, for instance: Mou confront a citiBen )ith a Iuestionnaire that reIuired *any hours to plan and *any *ore hours to fill out properly. Met all such data, ho)ever slo)ly and la oriously asse* led, could e run throu!h a co*putin! apparatus in a flash. -hus is it not o vious that co*puters )ill ena le us to !atnher ever !reater *ountains of infor*ationL (nd the !reater the nu* er and co*ple'ity of the co*puters, then proportionately !reater the a*ount of painstakin! effort that *ust !o

into the pro!ra**in! of such inIuiries, )ith a correspondin!ly increased nu* er of *anAhours devoted to the task of keepin! these o*nivora adeIuately fed. Cor recall that,unlike hu*an ein!s, they can perfor* continuously t)entyAfour hours a day. (ccordin!ly, you need ut allo) for the !reat disparity et)een the ti*e needed to asse* le the data for a punched card and the fraction of a second in )hich it can e processed once the infor*ation is asse* led, )hereupon it eco*es o vious that properly varied and co*plicated Iuestionnaires could reIuire at least three hours a day of a citiBenFs ti*e in fillin! the* out, plus all the other hours involved in plannin!, pro!ra**in!, and intervie)in!G then add the ti*e and effort spent in pu lishin! the *aterial, and the *any further activities reIuired y the fact that no one )ill read it. 8ence still other in!enious operations *ust e planned, to coordinate all such findin!s )ith *any other eIually unread and unreada le reports y specialists in totally different channels of investi!ation. Cor instance, )ho kno)s ho) *any in!o players also su scri e to the thesis: 5:e canFt !et out of 9ietna* no) ecause )e shouldnFt have een there in the first place5L :ho kno)s the correlation et)een elief in pro!ress and peptic ulcers due to food additivesL :ho kno)s )hether the Pill has *ade for *ore fun or *ore oredo*L :ho kno)s the avera!e a!e of the e'perts )ho helped President Hohnson put over the Dulf of -onkin ployL :ho kno)s )hat percenta!e of leaders in the *ilitaryindustrial co*ple' have eco*e the parents of flo)er childrenL :ho kno)s ho) *uch of the *oney that the United 2tates shells out for 9ietna* !ets shipped strai!ht into 2)iss ank accounts y *e* ers of the & 7; & -hieuAKy cliIueL :ho kno)s )hatL :ho kno)s fro* nothinKL :ho kno)s his fro* a hole in the !roundL (nd so on. . viously, once )e start in a i! )ay itin! on its of infor*ation, an endless ran!e of further infor*ation opens up efore us. +s it true or false, for instance, that HohnsonFs private estate appreciated to the e'tent of five *illion dollars durin! the years )hen his illAstarred, fiveAstarred )ar saddled his country )ith further costs of circa ei!htyAthree illionL ( ove all, let us take to heart the encoura!in! frontApa!e story fro* our nationFs capital <New >or* -imes, Hune 24, "%40=. 5-he police, security and *ilitary intelli!ence of the Cederal Dovern*ent are Iuietly co*pilin! a *ass of co*puteriBed and *icrofil*ed files here on hundreds of thousands5 of citiBens )ho are ad#ud!ed to e )hat is kno)n to the trade as 5persons of protective interest.5 @ata anks uildin! such an 5array of instantly retrieva le infor*ation5 )ould provide !ainful occupation for an enor*ous ar*y of snoopers, even if the purpose )ere ut to keep kno)n cri*inals under surveillance. But the scope of this (r!useyed investi!ation !oes far eyond that. Cor instance <and hereFs a nice conceit=: 5-he co*puter *i!ht i**ediately supply you, for ut the askin!, )ith all the infor*ation it contains on the JcharacteristicsF of su #ects encoded on its tapes6all the short, fat, lon!A haired, youn! )hite ca*pus activists in Kno'ville, -ennessee.5 -rue, at that point the reporter )as pro a ly #ust airin! his hi!h idealis*6yet his e'a*ple helps #ustify *y clai* that, on one such pro#ect alone <and + can pro*ise you that each !raduate student in the social sciences can *ake a doBen Iuestionnaires e needed )here ut one had een efore=, the speed )ith )hich the co*puter can scan, store, in!est, and put forth its info )ill vastly increase the a*ount of )ork needed to keep it adeIuately fed. Cor )hat is *ore o vious than the fact that data anks alon! those lines cannot e co*plete until they tell us, in a flash, ho) *any citiBens elieve in or!anic !ardenin!, ho) *any !ro) furious )hen they have een hit )ith the sa*e da*ned sin!in! co**ercial a!ain and a!ain and a!ain <they )ho couldnFt have stood a fe) ars of even the !reatest *usic thus sadistically reduplicated=, or ho) *any happen to lithp )hen they thay pithL 8o)ever, there still re*ains the possi ility that, re!ardless of all such contri utions to the *a!nifyin!

of the D/P < y )hich is *eant 5Dross /ational Product,5 not 5!uinea pi!5=, a co*puteriBed technolo!y *ay produce a trou leso*e situation in )hich, despite the ur!ent !eneratin! of 5ne) needs,5 the proliferation of la orAsavin! devices actually does save so*e la or6and to that e'tent a certain percenta!e of our )orkforce *i!ht e une*ploya le <and thus they )ill e socioecono*ically & 7% & useAless to the state e'cept insofar as correspondin! instru*ents can e developed )here y the very e'istence of such une*ployed )ould provide #o s for various sociolo!ical and psychiatric specialists devoted to the study of their pli!ht=. 8o)ever, insofar as there is une*ploy*ent <to e distin!uished fro* those kinds of une*ploy*ent )e call leisure=, and insofar as so*e of the une*ployed *ay not *anifest enou!h disorders to keep researchers !ainfully e*ployed, the vision of another possi ility <or rather, + should say, o))ortunity= opens efore us. Cirst, there is the technical fact that co*puters, if properly fed, could di!est and e'crete authoritative infor*ation as to the nu* er of citiBens that the !iven econo*y can !ainfully e*ploy, alon! )ith the various cate!ories of e*ploy*ent that )ould also e predicta le. Cor this purpose all that is needed is the !atherin! of data desi!ned to predict <on the asis of each citiBenFs profile at the a!e of t)o= #ust )hat !rades any class of such citiBens can e e'pected to receive durin! its school years, )hat kinds of schools <if any= )ill e attended, )hat Iuality of education )ill follo) fro* such schoolin!, ho) *any are *ost likely to e dropouts, and )hat inco*es these various classes of citiBen )ill predicta ly receive, at various sta!es alon! their lifespan. -hus, )e )ould need only to arran!e a draft y lot. 2uch a )holly de*ocratic process )ould ena le us to isolate the nu* er of citiBens, in the various cate!ories, that the econo*y cannot e*ploy. Cor instance, at the a!e of t)o, CitiBen CS4A0%"2A7$4; !ives relia le indications that he )ould end up as a pu lic accountant, at suchAandAsuch a salary. But there are *ore of such incipient accountants than the econo*y can take care of. (ccordin!ly, it is decided y lot ho) *any of such t)oAyearAolds *ust e drafted for inclusion in a class of une*ployed accountants. (ny such scientifically selected !roup )ill not have to attend school, or take #o s, and the like. But, in accordance )ith their classification, at the proper a!e they )ill receive )hatever !rades, diplo*as, )a!es, honors, and such the co*puter had predicted for the*, if the )hole class of such incipient accountants )ere actually to !o throu!h all these processes that )ould necessarily involve the eli*ination of a !iven nu* er. (nd later, in the course of their *aturin!, they )ill receive all the su seIuent su*s, services, psychiatric or *edical aid that co*puterolo!y )ill have esta lished as natural to their station. -rue, there are pro le*s still to e ironed out, as re!ards a )holly accurate ratin! for all necessary data. (lso, so*e persons drafted to e classed as une*ployed accountants *i!ht e te*pted to try au!*entin! & 30 & their le!ally !uaranteed inco*es y *oonli!htin! in other occupations. Met, even if these and other difficulties should prove this plan un)orka le, )e should never for!et )hat splendid proof the co*puters have already !iven as re!ards their !reat contri ution to the production, distri ution, and consu*ption of *ilitary hard)are. .ne *i!ht think, for instance, that the concept of 5cost effectiveness5 could not possi ly serve as a test for the rationaliBin! of a re*ote forei!n invasion such

as United 2tates involve*ent in +ndochina. ,ather, youFd tend to #ud!e that this adventure under the !uidance of the Penta!onFs fiveAstar usiness*en is #ust a out the *ost costly and ineffective lunder in all the history of +*perialis*. 2i*ilarly, youFd tend to think that y 5 ody count5 is *eant ody count. But once you introduce the co*puter as a factor in your calculations, everythin! falls perfectly into place. -hen all you need do is plaster a !iven area )ith a !iven a*ount of indiscri*inate o* in!, and the co*puter tells you )hat proportionate nu* er of ene*y co* atants should e counted as dead odies. <Mou could also co*pute the correspondin! nu* er of )o*en, children, old *en, and allies that !ot slau!htered6 ut for!et itQ= -hanks to the co*puter, a nota le idealistic di*ension has een added to )hat )ould other)ise e a pretty sorry sho). (nd #ust as 5 ody count5 doesnFt *ean ody count, so 5cost effectiveness5 doesnFt *ean cost effectiveness. (nd y the sa*e token )e dare hope that our insistence upon an 5honora le peace5 )onFt tie us do)n to anythin! like an honora le peace, after so dishonora le a )ar.

II A '#SI*,A% P'O5%#)
But ho)ever !reat the co*puterFs contri ution to our culture *ay e, there still re*ains the pro le* of ho) life on 0arth can *ana!e to survive the urdens of )orld)ide pollution that pla!ue the )ays of industrial pro!ress. :hen you consider ho) *uch such 5effluence5 is al*ost inevita le in such hi!hly developed technolo!ic enterprises as oil refineries, pulp *ills, che*ical plants6in su*, the profuse production of po)er y the *inin! and processin! of *inerals, the use of a!riculture for industrial purposes, and the consu*ption of either fossil fuels or ato*ic ener!y6it eco*es hard to i*a!ine ho) such trends can e adeIuately neutraliBed so lon! as Hy)erte'hnologism continues to set the pace for *ankindFs )ay of life. (nd the *ost violent of co**unist or fascist revolutions are far fro* the depths of radicalis* that )ould have to e reached efore the adventurous ideals of e'ploitation that are associated )ith *odern industrial, financial, and political a* itions could & 3" & e transfor*ed into *odes of restraint, piety, !ratitude, and fear proper to *anFs a)areness of his necessary place in the entire sche*e of nature. (dd also the !ri* fact that so *any !overn*ent ureaus, in response to the pressure of private lo ies, function as representatives of those very interests )hose e'cesses they are no*inally desi!ned to control. Crankly, + enroll *yself a*on! those )ho take it for !ranted that the co*pulsiveness of *anFs technolo!ic !enius, as co*pulsively i*ple*ented y the vast co*pulsions of our vast technolo!ic !rid, *akes for a selfAperpetuatin! cycle Iuite eyond our a ility to adopt any *a#or refor*s in our )ays of doin! thin!s. :e are happiest )hen )e can plun!e on and on. (nd any thou!ht of turnin! ack, of cur in! rather than a!!ravatin! our cult of 5ne) needs,5 see*s to us suicidal, even thou!h the situation is actually the reverse, and it is our *ountin! technolo!ic clutter that threatens us. But + do not despair. Cor a true futuris* is no) da)nin! a*on! us. -he pro*ise of the !ospel of -otal Cuturistic Pro*otion is *ost Iuickly annunciated in a para leAlike o servation of this sort: :hen you find that, )ithin forty years, a !reat and al*ost *iraculously handso*e lake has een transfor*ed into a cesspool, donFt ask ho) such destruction *i!ht e undone. -hat )ould e to turn ack6and )e *ust fare ever for)ard. 8ence, )ith your eyes fi'ed on the eacon of the future, rather ask yourselves ho), if you ut polluted the lake ten ti*es as *uch, you *i!ht convert it into so*e ne) source of ener!y. -hus, conceiva ly, you *i!ht end up y usin! the rotted )aters as a ne) fuel. .r, even etter, they *i!ht e *ade to serve as ra) *aterial for so*e ne) kind of poison, usa le either as a pesticide or to protect a!ainst un)holeso*e political ideas.

-here you !li*pse the principle ehind the vision. +n su*: +f there is a drive, )hy not drive )ith it, to)ards an ideal endL :e need ut e'tend to 5perfection5 the sort of conditions )e already confront in principle )hen )e uy ottled )ater ecause the pu lic )ater supply is s)illG or )hen a pro*oter, y i*pairin! the ha ita ility of so*e area <as, for instance, )ith a s*eltery or a #etport=, *akes profit enou!h to uild hi*self a secluded, idyllic estate a*on! still unconta*inated lakes, *eado)s, and )ooded peaks. Cor a happy endin!, then, envision an apocalyptic develop*ent )here y technolo!y could of itself procure, for a fortunate fe), an ulti*ate technolo!ical release fro* the very distresses )ith )hich that very technolo!y no) urdens us. & 32 &

III !"# SO%,!IO+- !"# C,%!,'#65,55%#

2o*e !ive a decent life on 0arth ten years, so*e thirty, so*e at *ost a hundred. +n any case, no) that the +rreversi le Chan!e is on the )ay, !et in on the !round floor. Buy shares for yourself or your fa*ily in 8elhaven, the !reatest apocalyptic pro#ect this side of >ars. 80?8(90/, the >i!hty Paradisal CultureABu le on the >oon. 2afer than any 2ea >eado)s venture <even under the (rctic ice= >ore nearly attaina le than a >artian pro#ect, helhaven, the Ulti*ate Colony, *er!in! in one enterprise, oth 0denic Darden and Ba ylonic, -echnolo!ic -o)er. (nd parado' of parado'es: -his Cinal Cli!ht )ill have een *ade possi le y the very conditions )hich *ade it necessary. Profitin! y the est resources of oth the physical and the social sciences, alon! )ith e'perts of ad*inistrative and *ana!erial capacity, the colonistsF ran!e of options )ill e considera le. 2o*e )ill, of course, prefer acco**odations in the ?unaA8ilton 8otel. 2o*e )ill choose private Iuarters, as in su ur s <if thatFs ho) their past e'perience *akes the* feel *ost at ho*e=. But there )ill also e arran!e*ents )here y d)ellin!s can e eIuipped )ith picture )indo)s lookin! out, as it )ere, upon the )holly lifelike illusion of an austere *ountain scene, or a deserted lake, either distant, or )ith )aters that see* to lap at the piles on )hich the house itself is uilt. (lso, in one co*part*ent of the u le, there )ill e an actual *an*ade shoreline, )ith )aves, and reakers, splendid for surfin!, and the est )hite sand for lu'uriatin! on the each <thou!h protected fro* the sun and e'posed only to a scientifically desi!ned su stitute=. +n another co*part*ent, there )ill e the si*ulacru* of an (lpine ca in reached y a ski to), )ith an artificially sno)Acovered slope that *akes possi le the *ost deli!htful of earthly )inter sports. -here )ill e drea*!ardens, !a* lin! #oints, places to !et lost in, and a 2uperA?ookout, a out )hich *ore in a *o*ent. -he lessons already learned fro* airAconditionin! on 0arth )ill have een so perfected that each such area )ill e kept in proper cli*atic alance. 8o)ever, e'perts in psychophysical pro le*s have also reco**ended that various Cha* ers of @isco*fort e provided, since so*e consultants have pointed out that too orderly a *ode of e'istence can itself eco*e a source of personal disorder. But there is still so*e de ate as to )hether a :hippin! ,oo* should e *ade availa le for custo*ers so inclined 6or should + say t)o :hippin! ,oo*s, one active, one passiveL & 33 & (*on! the *ost deeply pro in! facilities in the CultureABu le )ill e the a oveA*entioned 2uperA

?ookout, a kind of chapel, are e'cept for so*e s*all ut po)erful telescopes of a special co*petence. (nd on the )all, in ecclesiastical letterin!, there )ill e these funda*ental )ords fro* the /umma -heologi'a: 5(nd the lessed in 8eaven shall look upon the sufferin!s of the da*ned, that they *ay love their lessedness the *ore.5 -he underlyin! situation here is this: +n order that the ?unar Bu le e kept perfectly provisioned <and )e are ein! frank a out such *atters ecause )e )ant you to realiBe ho) scrupulously this entire pro#ect is ein! planned=, there )ill still e the necessity that !ases, *inerals, and even so*e or!anic !ro)ths e reclai*ed no) and then fro* 0arth. -hus the /e) Colonialis* )ill entail freIuent *issions ack to our >aternal 2ource for such replace*ents. +ncreased e'perience in the use of spacecraft )ill *ake it certain that the trip itself )ill not e dan!erous. But the possi ility of encounterin! a nasty and of stillAsurvivin! ho*inids )ill add risk to these forays, and !ive the* so*e)hat the Iuality of *araudin! e'peditions <thou!h the e'pression is o viously un#ustG for any ?unar Paradisiacs of the future )ill e ut replenishin! their !i!antic )o* like CultureABu le, as it )ere, fro* the placenta of the >other 0arth fro* )hich their very ody te*perature is derived, and )hich is #ust as *uch our ho*e, ho)ever filthy )e shall have *ade it efore clearin! out, as it is the ho*e of any scurvy anthropoid leftovers that *i!ht still so*eho) contrive to !o on hatchin! their dou tless de!enerate and *isshapen roods ack there a*on! those seven filthy seas=. -he old fello)s e*ployed y the Bu leFs Dreat (stronauts Corporation )ill e entrusted )ith such adventurous duties of salva!in!. (nd those su scri ers )ho at ti*es choose to enter the @ark ,eal* of >editation in the 2uperA?ookout Chapel can, )hile )atchin! the (stronauts in their fli!hts to 0arth, !et occasional !li*pses of the )orseAthanAMahoos still !aspin! and sIuir*in! and pesterin! one another on the Pro!ressA!utted planet y )hich our ?unar Paradise )ill ori!inally have een *ade possi le. +n all frankness, ho)ever, one pro le* has yet to e solved. 2ince -echnolo!is* is to e tied in )ith +*perialis*, one can reasona ly e'pect that descendants fro* certain construction )orkers on, say, a >artian Pro*otion or a 2eaABotto* >eado)s pro#ect *i!ht )ant to pick a fi!ht )ith the peaceAlovin! ?unar Paradisiacs. +t has not yet een decided )hether plans should also allo) for the possi ility that future e'pansionisticA*inded ?unar patriots *i!ht )ant to undertake a preventive & 3$ & )ar and at the sa*e ti*e e'tend the scope of 8elhavenFs he!e*ony. -he cost of the )hole ?unar pro#ect )ould e increased astrono*ically if such defenses had to e provided for, rather than the fairly ne!li!i le offensive )eapons reIuired )hen our peaceAlovin! e'peditions a road seek to out)it the fee le resistance of the re*ainin! su nor*al 0arthAor!anis*s. :e *ust e realistic in such *atters. +tFs hard to elieve that ho*o sap. )ill ever learn to e, in his very essence, peaceful. Cor y sheer definition it stands to reason that ho*o sap. is a sap. #+2OI- +OC!,'+# 1I!" +OIS# 2prin! sprin!s a*on! us, on this sod, 2prin! vs. -otal Call6 and *ay there e so*e kind of Dod, that 8e have *ercy on us technolo!ic all.

A**#+*,)- A+!IC%I)AC!IC ',)I+A!IO+S

,evertin! to the su #ect of the co*puter, +Fd note that it has already had !reat influence in the shapin! of doctoral dissertations. -here is al*ost an auto*atic tendency to )ork up a post!raduate pro#ect uilt around so*e kind of Iuestionnaire )here y not the student ut the persons Iuestioned *ust do the ulk of the )ork. ,ecently, in a related sort of enterprise, + )as intervie)ed for three hours, )hile all *y ans)ers )ere ein! taped. .ccasionally the intervie)er )ould say, 5+n su*, your position is suchandA such.5 + said, 5/o, thatFs not )hat + *eant.5 -hen + )as told, 5But there are only soAandAso *any ans)ers here, and + *ust check off one of the*.5 2o presu*a ly the statistics have *e assi!ned to the cate!ory est suited to the needs of the Iuestionnaire, )hich had no e'act in for *y ans)ers. -hen the intervie)er left *e )ith an ela orate set of lanks to fill out esides. -here )ere such Iuestions as: 5:ith )ho* have you talked seriously a out this *atter <a= )ithin the last three *onths, < = )ithin the last si' *onths, <c= )ithin the last yearL5 .r thereFd e a list of a doBen or so possi ly causative factors for so*ethin!, and + )as asked to rate the* in relative i*portance, ", 2, 3, throu!hout the* all. + *eant to ehave, ut si*ply fell apart. 8avin! received a follo)Aup inIuiry on Huly 3, + couldnFt resist de*urrin! the very ne't *ornin!, and datin! *y letter 5+ndependence @ay5 + said that, #ust as so*e people are not especially photo!enic, so*e not especially phono!enic, and so*e not especially apt kinesicsA)ise, + find *yself totally nonIuestionnaireo!enic. 0ven so, the Iuestionnaire )as sent to *e in toto once a!ain. & 37 & ,eturnin! to *y vision of the 5,e*nant,5 in 8elhaven, there are at least t)o *ore points that +Fd like to incorporate into this sche*e so*eho). -he first has to do )ith the fact that the everAintensifyin! cult of industrial po)er is ro in! the )orld of *any delicious natural flavors, as )hen oil spills and ther*al pollution destroy !ood fishin! areas. .ne an!le + thou!ht of )as to oast that 5so*e che*ists, fired y the 8elhaven vision, have nearly perfected a )ay of so treatin! *ercury that it tastes like caviar. (nother e'pert, takin! to heart the thou!ht that people like ar ecued *eat, has nearly synthesiBed an allA itu*inous steak. (lon! these lines, the deniBens of 8elhaven can e pro*ised a food supply )holly industrialiBed, plus an artificial sto*ach etter a le to di!est such products.5 -hese pro*ises are ased on the fact that already *any su stitutes and additives fro* the che*ical la oratory have een replacin! unadulterated or!anic foods ever since )e !ot >o* out of the kitchen and into the office or )orkshop. (lso, it *ust e reco!niBed: -o a !reat e'tent, conservationists are not in need of #o s that cause pollution. -heir properties thrive etter under si*pler conditions. But people out of )ork )ill )elco*e an industry that see*s likely to provide the* e*ploy*ent, even thou!h they *i!ht e Iuite a)are that it )ill cause *uch conta*ination. +n such situations, )e *ust face it, the une*ployed poor are one )ith the Crench *onarch )ho said, 5(fter *e, the delu!e.5 +tFs a *ean pro le*. But in any case, let there e no turnin! ack of the clock. .r no turnin! in)ard. .ur vice president has ri!htly cautioned: No negativism# :e )ant (CC+,>(-+./6-.:(,@2 80?8(90/ ./:(,@, .U-:(,@, and UPQ

+O!#S
-his essay )as first pu lished in the /ewanee 4eview 4% <)inter "%4"=: ""E27. Copyri!ht "%4" y the University of the 2outh. ,eprinted )ith the per*ission of the editor.

& 33 &

7. 13y Satire, 1it3 a Plan for 1riting One

19 7
-his is the second 8elhaven essay and is Kenneth BurkeFs *ost detailed and strident indict*ent of hypertechnolo!y and the technolo!ical psychosis, oth *ain the*es of all his late essays, includin! the t)o lon! after)ords for the "%;$ editions of Per*anence and Chan!e and (ttitudes to)ard 8istory. Both of these are entitled 5+n ,etrospective Prospect5 and co* ine the ack)ard and for)ard *ove*ent so characteristic of his late essays6 especially 5-o)ards ?ookin! Back,5 59ariations on JProvidence,K 5 and of course, the 8elhaven pair. -his ack)ard and for)ard *ove*ent is also typical of :alt :hit*an, )ho had very different results fro* )hat )e find in Burke. :alt :hit*an fi!ures pro*inently in *any of BurkeFs late )orks: 8e )as the *odel for so*e of BurkeFs late poe*s <such as 50yeACrossin!5 and 5.n Clood -ides of 2inkership5=, and is a central fi!ure in the 8elhaven essays, as )ell as in 5-o)ards ?ookin! Back5 and the t)o lon! poe*s *entioned a ove. :hy :hit*an, our !reat nineteenthAcentury poet of uplift, of the pro*issory in (*erican life and in the develop*ent of the individual selfL -here is a real love/hate relationship et)een Burke and :hit*an. ?ike so *any of the rest of us, Burke )ould like to elieve in :hit*an, the :alt*an of 50yeACrossin!,5 ut he canFt ecause he kno)s for a fact that :altFs drea* )as eco*in! a ni!ht*are. :altFs drea* )as a typical nineteenthAcentury (*erican drea* of a li*itless future, of cos*ic opti*is*, of a neverAendin! )esterin! in (*erican life6as in 52on! of the .pen ,oad5 and 5Passa!e to +ndia.5 2oured y t)o )orld )ars, the rutalities of the depression, the threat of a nuclear holocaust after 8iroshi*a and /a!asaki, the /aBiFs e'ter*ination of si' *illion He)s, the cold )ar, and *assive technolo!ically caused pollution of the environ*ent6and *ore6 Burke could not elieve in :hit*anFs drea* and *akes a frontal attack on hi* in this essay. Burke liked to say that :hit*an )as )histlin! in the dark in his poe*s. Mou )histle in the dark to keep yourself fro* ein! scared. +t is )hat kids do. +t is hardly )hat :hit*an did in poe* after poe* in 2on! of >yself and it is hardly )hat )e )ould accuse Burke of doin! in 50yeACrossin!.5 -o reduce :hit*anFs poe*s to )histlin! in the dark is to reduce the* to a kind of a surdity, to a purely ver al sy* olic action )ith no asis in reality. -o elieve in :hit*an you have to elieve that he elieved in )hat he )rote. 8e )as not, as Burke su!!ests, #ust peddlin! nature as (*erican real estate. -he t)o :hit*anian poe*s )ith )hich the essay ends65. ?esson .pportune <-he >asterFs Call=5 and 5Car, Car off the @ay reak Call </i!ht -hou!hts of the >aster=5 are the*selves tri utes to :hit*anFs style and rhetoric & 34 & even as they *ock hi* )ith heavy irony and a syste*atic cancellation of his drea*. >ay e that is )here )e should leave this *atter, in a typically Burkean a* i!uity. Burke )as a i! eliever in the autosu!!estive po)er of oneFs o)n )ritin!. 2o*eti*es he really does see* to elieve that a )riter can *ake hi*/herself over in the i*a!e of his/her i*a!ery <see

BurkeFs essay on his novel -o)ards a Better ?ife=. But if :hit*an )as *akin! hi*self over in the i*a!e of his po)erful poetry, he )as hardly )histlin! in the dark ut transfor*in! his 5self5 )ith the *a!ic of )ords into the revered fi!ure that )e no) identify )ith. :allace 2te!nerFs *ain character in (ll the ?ittle ?ive -hin!s, Hoe (llston, says this a out irony: 52y*pathy + have failed in, stoicis* + have arely passed. But + have *ade strai!ht (Fs in irony6that curse, that evasion, that ar*or, that )ay of stayin! safe )hile see*in! )ise.5 +t is precisely this vie) of irony that has so*eti*es een leveled a!ainst Burke: too *uch irony and not enou!h action, especially in this essay. But irony is also a kind of dou le vision, #ust as puns and *etaphors are. -he heavy irony of this essay is a t)oAed!ed s)ordG it cuts oth )ays. -hou!h Burke kept his outhouse and relied on an outside )ell for )ater into the "%30s, he )as, like the rest of us, heavily dependent upon technolo!y and as !uilty as the rest of us in pro*otin! and usin! *odern technolo!y. /o ody is clean these days. -his dou leness is in the na*e of BurkeFs CultureABu le on the >oon: 8elhaven, )ith an additional dou le *eanin! in the haven/heaven play on )ords. :e are turnin! our lovely planet into a hell of technolo!ical pollution and overpopulation. :hen it eco*es pure hell, )e uild ourselves a haven on the *oon )ith the sa*e technolo!y )e used to pollute the earth and then *i!rate to it6 that is, the elite does. But it is a 8elhaven ecause it divorces us, separates us fro* nature and the physical realities of oth. 0verythin! in 8elhaven is an i*a!e of an i*a!e of an i*a!e, as if )e )ere livin! in the -9 or the co*puter screen, or in a *ovie )here nothin! is really real ut is the creation of the special effects people. -he *ore you think a out 8elhaven, the etter it !ets in relation to recent develop*ents in technolo!y, )hich *ake it see* as if anythin! is possi le and that hu*ans are rushin! at full speed into a technolo!ical future they have not understood at all, seduced y the radiance and allure of, the daBBlin! resourcefulness of, technolo!y.

I
:here are )eL (nd + use the e'pression not in the procedural sense, as spoken to a class )hich has een considerin! so*e particular su #ect *atter throu!h several sessions, )here y a su**ary rin!in! thin!s up to date *i!ht e in order. ,ather, + have in *ind the sort of Iuestion that has the connotations, 5+n the na*e of Dod or the @evil, at this sta!e in our history, )here in 8ellFs na*e are )eL5 & 3; & 0ven *y title so*e)hat reflects *y pertur ations. +n its first for* it ran, 5+ :ant to :rite a 2atire.5 -hen thin!s so developed that + did not )ant to do anythin! of the sortG hence the for*, 5+ :anted to :rite a 2atire.5 -hen ca*e develop*ents that !ot *e to )averin!. @id +, or did + not, )ant to )rite a satireL 2o no), in the spirit of co*pro*ise + have hit upon a title that so*e)hat straddles the issue and that pro a ly fits est in any case, since the underlyin! desi!n has re*ained the sa*eG na*ely: + propose to interlard o servations a out satire in !eneral )ith notes to)ards one particular satire )hich, on and off, has een e'ercisin! *e. -he effort )ill involve these several aspects: :hile ein! ased on so*e trends in our civiliBation that, as a Huvenal *i!ht say, *ake it 5hard not to )rite satire,5 it )ill seriously consider situations and *otives on )hich these in turn are ased, and at ti*es incline to take the fun out of satire. +t )ill su*

up )hat + take to e the nature and possi le virtues of satire. (nd it )ill end y discussin! so*e t)ists encountered in plans for one particular satire, technically a )ork 5in pro!ress5 <thou!h, in an atte*pt to co*pro*ise et)een 5pro!ress5 and 5re!ress,5 + have proposed the inter*ediate ter* 5!ress,5 )hereupon the details of *y test case could e called a 5Dress ,eport5=. -he desi!n has one further strand, havin! to do )ith the fact that the satire in its present pro#ected for* )as a lon! ti*e aA ornin!. (nd often the handiest )ay to *ake clear #ust )here )e are <in this instance at the sta!e of askin! 5:here are )eL5= is to sho) ho) )e !ot there. 2o *y Dress ,eport )ill e!in )ith so*e para!raphs of re!ress. ( rudi*entary version of *y satire )as )ritten #ust efore the *arket crash of "%2%, and pu lished after. @one under the o vious influence of -horstein 9e len, it )as called 5:aste6or the Cuture of Prosperity5 <-he New 4e)u&li' 7; OHuly "%30P, 22;E3"P=. +t )as a perversely rational response to a ti*e )hen the principle of 5planned o solescence5 )as already eco*in! a *a#or factor in the en!ineerin! and *erchandisin! of co**odities *anufactured for the *ass *arket. Curther, and + Iuote fro* the article, 5.ur people are ein! tau!ht to uy )hat they donFt need and to replace it efore it is )orn out,5 in keepin! )ith the discovery that: .ur national )elfare depends upon attainin! the *a'i*u* rate of destruction of our national resources, )here y )e could hope for an eternal ull *arket ecause -he *ore )e learn to use )hat )e do not need, the !reater our consu*ptionG the !reater our consu*ption, the !reater our productionG the !reater our production, the !reater our prosperity. N+f & 3% & people can e tau!ht to )aste enou!h N usiness nee( never $a'e a saturation )oint# For, though there is a limit to what a man 'an use, there is no limit whatever to what he 'an waste# -he a*ount of production possi le to a properly )asteful society is thus seen to e enor*ous. N -he *a'i*u* possi le consu*ption is *ade possi le y the *a'i*u* possi le )aste, and therefore N 'ulture (e)en(s u)on a ma1imum o$ waste# -he article )orked *any variants on that no) only too fa*iliar the*e, )hich is ut a reduction to a surdity of the already Iuite a surd idea that cultural 5pro!ress5 is to e eIuated )ith the ever *ountin! develop*ent of 5ne) needs.5 8ere + *i!ht o serve that, as early as ";"3, in his Hea(long Hall, -ho*as ?ove Peacock had a character, >r. 0scot, the 5deteriorationist,5 )ho )as 5al)ays lookin! at the dark side of a Iuestion,5 and )ho contended that, )hile *echanical *ove*ents that are called 5pro!ress5 proceed 5in a si*ple ratio,5 the factitious )ants and unnatural appetites they en!ender proceed in a co*pound oneG and thus one !eneration acIuires fifty )ants, and fifty *eans of supplyin! the* are invented, )hile each in its turn en!enders t)o ne) onesG so that the ne't !eneration has a hundred, the ne't t)o hundred, the ne't four hundred, till every hu*an ein! eco*es such a helpless co*pound of perverted inclinations, that he is alto!ether at the *ercy of e'ternal circu*stances, loses all independence and sin!leness of character. Peacock )as there hittin! around the concept of the 5e'ponential curve5 )here y a vast technolo!ic clutter has eco*e for us a second nature. (nd + can proudly report that *y clo)nin! !ot included in an other)ise serious antholo!y <C. :. -ho*as, ed., Essays in +ontem)orary +ivili?ation O/e) Mork: >ac*illan, "%3"P=, alon! )ith *uch sound, solid, sole*n )ork y such )orthies as: ,andolph Bourne, Hohn @e)ey, ,o ert and 8elen ?ynd, 2her)ood (nderson, 8arold H. ?aski, Ha*es -ruslo) (da*s, Hohn ,uskin, :alter Pater, ?e)is >u*ford, ,o ert (. >illikan, -ho*as 8. 8u'ley, Hulian 8u'ley, Charles (. Beard, (0, Bertrand ,ussell, and +. (. ,ichards. (nd holdQ + should certainly *ention :esley C. >itchell, then fa*ous as the specialist in usiness cycles.

But satire does have its risks. + heard of one econo*ist )ho, thou!h he kne) that the piece )as a satire, couldnFt resist e'plainin! )hy the sche*e )ouldnFt )ork <)hich is pretty *uch like sayin! that a perpetual *otion *achine )onFt )ork, or a *an canFt lift hi*self y his o)n ootstraps, or people canFt *ake a livin! #ust y takin! in one anotherFs )ashin!, thou!h it has een proved that an en!ineer can e hoist )ith his o)n petard.= & 40 & ,e!retta ly, the risks are !reater than that. -o *ake thin!s as a surd as possi le y drivin! the* to their 5lo!ical conclusion,5 + had said: Cor lon! )e have )orried a out )ar, driven y a preAindustrial feelin! that )ar is the ene*y of *ankind. But y the theory of the econo*ic value of )aste )e find that )ar is the asis of culture. :ar is our !reat econo*ic safetyAvalve. Cor if )aste lets up, if people si*ply )onFt thro) out thin!s fast enou!h to create ne) needs in keepin! )ith the increased output under i*proved *ethods of *anufacture, )e can al)ays have recourse to the still *ore thorou!h!oin! )asta!e of )ar. (n intelli!ently *ana!ed )ar can leave )hole nations to e re uilt, thus providin! peak productivity for *illions of the survivin! population. O(nd of course + should have added a reference to !reat nu* ers of our citiBens )ho !et #o s )orkin! for co*panies that can prosper y undoin! so*e of the da*a!e )e *ay have done.P 2hortly after the article appeared <in a li eral )eekly, -he New 4e)u&li'=, a ne)spaper*an )hose colu*n had country)ide distri ution hit upon the idea of sin!lin! out that passa!e, and Iuotin! it 5strai!ht,5 )ithout !ivin! the sli!htest hint that it had to e discounted for satire. -here y he could severely repri*and the editor for pu lishin! such a *onstrous defense of *ilitaris*. -he editor Bruce Bliven, hi*self a ne)spaper*an of lon! e'perience, told *e he never kne) of a satire that didnFt rin! in so*e indi!nant letters y readers )ho had taken the piece at face value. (nd the *orally indi!nant colu*nist had cashed in on this suscepti ility a*on! his 5readership.5 But, as )e all have een re*inded, the )orld tends to outdate scientific Utopias y catchin! up )ith the* and even !oin! eyond the*. (ccordin!ly, think of all the )ritin!s since then, y editors, colu*nists, and )iBard theorists of finance, )ho assu*e eyond Iuestion the need of !reat *ilitary e'penditures as a asic stopA!ap for keepin! our econo*y in operation. By an ironic t)ist, the very thou!ht that any a'tual *a#or )ar )ould e re!retta ly e'cessive is taken to #ustify the fantastic illions spent on )re)arations for )ar, and such preparations in turn are vie)ed as a pu*pApri*in! activity of *a#or i*portance to the *aintenance of *a'i*u* factory output. But the )orld has so outpaced *y "%2% Utopia of profita le )asta!e y a cult of ever *ountin! ne) needs, *erely to *ention such *atters is to e in the e* arrassin! position of discussin! )hat is no) the dullest and *ost o vious of platitudes. + shall try later to pull *yself out of that hole, if + can. >ean)hile, unfortunately, + *ust *ention the unco*forta le relevance of t)o *ore platitudes. :hen + )rote the satiric plea uilt a out the eIuatin! of increased & 4" & consu*ption )ith increased )aste, + thou!ht of the situation as ut an a surdity. Met only shortly after, )hen + started !oin! throu!h 9e len in a i! )ay, + ca*e across the ne't step that, for all its surface cal*, is the hand)ritin! on the )all. + refer, in his 8nstin't o$ Wor*manshi), to his t)istin! of a prover thus: 5+nvention is the *other of necessity.5 .r, a it less perversely, he refers to 5the *achine process5 )hich *akes use of the )ork*an, )hereat + a* led to offer another )ay of puttin! it: 5-he driver

drives the car, ut the traffic drives the driver.5 Dradually it e!an to da)n on *e <if )e could call such thou!hts a da)n= that, as the productivity of our industrial plant increased, our cult of )aste )as not *erely a ad ha itG the *arket for a vast !lut of *assAproduced consu*er !oods eca*e an econo*ic necessity <)hile !radually e'pandin! the *oney supply y inflation and ne) e'tensions of credit=. -hin!s thus !ot to the point )here President Hohnson could pu licly re#oice that )e, )ith ut 3 percent of the )orldFs population, )ere consu*in! $0 percent of the )orldFs production, thou!h it soon eca*e apparent that this state of affairs *i!ht e etter !rounds for e* arrass*ent than for selfA con!ratulation. 2o *uch for Platitude /o. 2. Platitude /o. 3 has to do )ith the !reater and !reater realiBation of the fact that not only does technolo!ic )astefulness involve a !reat drain upon our sources of supply <as )ith the standard yet startlin! dictu* that )e *ust dou le our production and our consu*ption of ener!y every ten years=G ut also there is the 5environ*entalist5 fact that, )ithout radical chan!es in its technolo!ic )ays, the )orld )as headed for a cala*ity that *i!ht ulti*ately e as ad as )ere an actual nuclear )ar to reak out. 2uch, then, is the situation a out )hich + )anted to )rite a satire. But as + have noted else)here in connection )ith a portion of the satire + pu lished in the )inter "%4" issue of -he /ewanee 4eview, so*e ti*e ack )hen addressin! a conference of 0n!lish teachers on the su #ect of 5creativity5 + referred to the challen!in! upsur!e of the physical sciences. -here, + noted, you find creativity on a !rand scale. 2o y )ay of e!innin!, + talked for a it a out the un)anted side effects of industrial e'pansion. -hen + happened to say, 5But surely, you donFt )ant *e to co*e three thousand *iles #ust to talk )ith you a out pollution.5 (nd + !ot a *ost distur in!ly enthusiastic out urst of applause. -he unhappy fact is that the su #ect of *y tentatively proposed satire is technolo!ical pollution. . viously, therefore, +Fd e at considera le disadvanta!e if *y talk )ere ut special pleadin! for the virtues of a satire on pollution. ,ather, + *ust place the stress upon the pros and & 42 & cons of satire in !eneral. 2i*ilarly, the treat*ent of *y particular test case *ust e concerned )ith the satiristFs efforts so*eho) to e evasive# (s a *atter of fact, for several years + had een co*pulsively takin! notes on the su #ect of technolo!ical pollution6and + still do co*pulsively take such notes. But at the sa*e ti*e, + loathe the*. + )ould love to !et shut of the )hole issue, even to the e'tent of inattention y dissipation. But it !oes on na!!in! *e. ConseIuently, as + hope to *ake clear, *y thou!hts on satire in this connection co*e to a focus in plans for a literary co*pro*ise )here y, thanks to a stylistics of evasion, + oth *i!ht and *i!ht not continue )ith the ve'atiousness of this i(@e $i1e, this da*ned co**itted nuisance.

II "O1 S#!!%# O+ SA!I'#8

Possi ly, in part at least, ecause + happened to read Deor!e >eredithFs essay on co*edy )hen + )as Iuite youn! and i*pressiona le, + approach *y su #ect, *y i(@e $i1e, )ith the assu*ption that, a ove all, )henever and )herever possi le, one should )rite co*edy. (n ideal )orld )ould e one for )hich co*edy )ould e the perfect fit. But to say as *uch is y the sa*e token to disIualify co*edy, since this is so far fro* ein! an ideal )orld. -ra!edyL -hou!h the present develop*ents of technolo!ical enterprise, and especially its *ilitary resourcefulness, have led to the affliction of *uch sufferin!, and raise *any threats, the technically e'peri*ental attitude ehind all such activities is not in spirit tra!ic. 2o far as + can see, the technolo!ical i*pulse to keep on perpetually tinkerin! )ith thin!s could not e tra!ic unless or until

*en eca*e resi!ned to the likelihood that they *ay e fatally and ine'ora ly driven to keep on perpetually tinkerin! )ith thin!s. But even so, the chances are that, so lon! as the present *entality prevails, one )ould !o on tinkerin!, e!uiled y the thou!ht that )e *i!ht so*eho) !et over the pro le* y resortin! to sur!ery or !ivin! it a pill. (lso, + keep uneasily co*in! ack to the thou!ht that, )ith the cult of tra!edy, *ay e youFre askin! for it. ?a*entation is so near to tra!edy, it )ould not fi!ure as an overall *ode, thou!h Iuite relevant to occasional lyric *o*ents. :hat, then, of a related, ut differently te*pered for*: the docu*ent, the evidence, the indict*entL :ould that IualifyL +n one respect, yes. By all *eans, )e should #ealously cherish the cult of the records. But precisely there is )here the trou le ca*e in. Cor years + had )orked valiantly to uphold )hat + thou!ht of as a 5Co*ic Perspective.5 (nd + & 43 & still )onFt Iuite relinIuish it. -hen, on )orkin! )ith sociopsycholo!ical pro le*s havin! to do )ith the nature of hu*an con!re!ation, + eca*e convinced that the esta lishin! of an .rder in hu*an affairs involves a sa'ri$i'ial principle. :ith such thou!hts in *ind, + studied the *odes of victi*a!e in tra!edy, and in hi!hly developed theolo!ical structures. + a* not here ein! inconsistent. Cor thou!h the principle of victi*a!e is o viously central to tra!edy, it itself is not e'clusively tra!ic. -ra!edy enters )ith the principle of sy*pathetic resi!nation, ut 8itleris* is evidence enou!h that the principle of victi*a!e can e viciously pole*ical. Cor instance, consider 8itlerFs use of it as a rhetorical and ad*inistrative device for unifyin! his party. +t )as an e'a*ple of )hat + )ould call 5con!re!ation y se!re!ation,5 unifyin! a people y antithesis, in ter*s of a co**on ene*y. -hou!h tra!edy )ould )ell efit an account of 8itlerFs victi*s as such, the situation )ith )hich )e are concerned )ould e of a different sort, )ith a relation to technolo!y that ulti*ately involved us all, thou!h + shall try to sho) ho) this fact *i!ht e stylistically denied, in a fiction that reaffir*ed our pro le* y offerin! a satirically a surd 5solution,5 as )ith 2)iftFs 5solution5 to the pro le* of hun!er in +reland. ( treat*ent of 5the evidence,5 5the docu*ents,5 in the accents of invective )ould e even *ore )eariso*e than unrelieved accu*ulation of the data, thou!h as )ith la*entation an occasional sally in that *ode )ould e #ustified. -hou!hts on Dreek tra!edy and its i*plied theolo!y had !ot *e particularly interested in ideas and i*a!es of ritual pollution. But later, + found *yself takin! notes on pollution in the *ost pra!*atic, literal, scientific senseG na*ely: pollution as the 5un)anted yAproducts,5 or 5side effects,5 of advances in *odern industry. +n *y accu*ulation of clippin!s, here indeed )ere the docu*ents, the records, the factual data, the in(i'tments# But, as + have said, a *i!hty oredo* eset *e, even )hile + kept plun!in! on co*pulsively addin! to this unsi!htly pile. (nd that rin!s us to satire, ut not too directlyG rather y a so*e)hat rounda out route. +n essays and revie)s that + )rote durin! the thirties + !ot to thinkin! of )hat + called pro#ects that 5!o to the end of the line.5 Ha*es HoyceFs later )ork )ould e a pri*e e'a*ple. Certain artists, or purely speculative *inds !li*pse certain ulti*ate possi ilities in their vie) of thin!s, and there is no rest until they have tracked do)n the i*plications of their insi!ht, y transfor*in! its potentialities into total actualiBation. 0ventually, + ca*e to think of this tendency as a third creative *otive, & 4$ &

not Iuite reduci le to either selfAe'pression or co**unication, and even at ti*es runnin! counter to co**unication. + e!an to think of it as i*plicit in ter*inolo!y as such. 0ach specialiBed no*enclature, for instance, su!!ests further possi ilities in that direction6and the person )ho !li*pses the* is 5called,5 thus ein! under a kind of co*pulsion to track do)n the i*plications of his ter*inistically !oaded vision. Utopias are o vious e'a*ples of this !oad. (nd in this purely for*al, or lo!ical sense, >ar'is* )ould e an e'a*ple of such thorou!hness, re!ardless of the distinction that so*e partisans *i!ht )ant to introduce here et)een an outri!ht Utopia and the socialist future that >ar' held to e i*plicit in the nature of capitalis*Fs irth, !ro)th, and decay. ?ater + e!an to ask *yself )hether + could round out this notion of a purely for*al *otive <or !oad, i*plicit in our no*enclatures= y adaptin! for *y purposes the (ristotelian concept of the 5entelechy.5 (ristotle applied the ter* in a Iuite road sense. Cor instance, a stone )ould actualiBe its potentials as a stone, a tree )ould actualiBe its potentials as a tree, and *an *i!ht <not so successfully= actualiBe his potentials as a rational ani*al. But + )ould settle for less. + )ould apply the ter* si*ply to the real* of sy* olis*, )ith ver al structures as different as the >ar'ist vie) of history, 0d)ard Bella*yFs ,oo*ing %a'*war(, and ?e)is CarrollFs -hrough the ,oo*ing Glass, all illustrative, in their different )ays, of the 5entelechial5 principle, trackin! do)n the i*plications of a position, !oin! to the end of the line. :eFre no) ready for the one further step that rin!s us to satire. -o this end + )ill Iuote a Iuatrain that + have used else)here, )hen discussin! the principle of entelechy as + )ould adopt it and adapt it. -he lines have a title orro)ed fro* :illia* 0rnest 8enleyFs 5+nvictus5 <the poe* that rin!s out so challen!in!ly, 5+ a* the *aster of *y fate, the captain of *y soul5=: +f thin!s are ad, and + canFt *ake the* etter, then all the *ore +Fll e *ine o)n e!etter. (dversity shall e *y universe, *akin! *e free to act to *ake thin!s )orse. +t is thus that satire can e* ody the entelechial principle. But it does so perversely, y trackin! do)n possi ilities or i*plications to the point )here the result is a kind of UtopiaAinAreverse. +s the )orld Iuite i*perfectL +f ut so*e particular aspect of its i*perfection happens to en!a!e you, de*andin! despite yourself that you treat of it, you still have a fi!htin! chance. Chan!e the rules, resort to the )ays of satire6and loQ once & 47 & *ore there opens up for you the *ost deli!htful of all pro*ises, the opportunity to fare freely forth in pursuit of perfection, and thus under the ae!is of perfection. +n rief, the prospect of d)ellin! in the keen e'hilaration of /oAPlace <that is, Utopia= eckons to you6)ith ut the one *inor proviso that, y the rules of perfection peculiar to satire, you depict your ideal real* as a species of UtopiaAinAreverse. -hink of the situation thus: -echnolo!y is in its very essence rational. Met the accu*ulation of its instru*ents, )ith their un)anted yproducts, has in effect transfor*ed the fruits of our rationality into a prodi!ious pro le*, there y !ivin! rise to *any co*pensatory cults of irrationality. .n the other hand, as + shall try to sho), the satiriBin! of technolo!y can e as rational as technolo!y itself. (nd there y, once a!ain, )e !li*pse the possi ility of a co*pro*ise. Cor the satire can e as rational as the 5technolo!ical psychosis5 out of )hich it arisesG yet at the sa*e ti*e in its )ay it can *anifest !reat sy*pathy )ith the trends e* odied in the irrationality of current antitechnolo!ic trends. (nd even thou!h conditions that once see*ed a surd <the i*plicit and even e'plicit eIuatin! of 5culture5 )ith a cult of co**odities= no) see* o*inous, the task of the satirist is to set up a fiction )here y our

difficulties can e treated in the accents of the pro*issory. :hit*an, in his accents of !ladness, had !iven us the clue: + kno) not )here they !o, But + kno) that they !o to)ard the est6 to)ard so*ethin! !reat. -he satiristFs Iuasi solution should track that do)n, not #ust leavin! it en route as )ith :hit*anFs )ords, ut to the end of the line. -he turn involves certain i*plications in such poe*s of :hit*anFs as 5-he 2on! of .ccupations,5 5-he 2on! of the .pen ,oad,5 5-he 2on! of the BroadA('e,5 and 5. Pioneers.5 But they are to e seen satirically in the li!ht of su seIuent develop*ents. Considered thus, they are reduci le to a proposition of this sort: 2ince they )ere cele ratin! al*ost an or!y of construction, and since there is no construction )ithout destruction, it is no) clear that those poe*s )ere #oyously usherin! in the very era of carefree destruction no) nearin! its care)orn cul*ination in environ*entalist pro le*s due to technolo!ically caused pollution. :hit*anFs poe*s of that sort )ere in effect <or at least for purposes of satire they could e vie)ed as= utterances y a !reat prophetic ard of real estate pro*otion. .f course there )as *uch *ore to :hit*an than that, and + a* a*on! those )ho have said so. But for reasons that & 43 & )ill eco*e apparent *y pro#ect needs hi* adly in the role + have assi!ned hi*. (nd no) that all the territory )ithin our orders has eco*e the transfor*ation of nature into real estate of one kind or another, )e need ut ask ourselves ho), y puttin! satire in place of his easy idealis*, )e can reclai* and thus en#oy once *ore the accents of the e'ultantly pro*issory. -here are further tan!les, still to e considered. But for the *o*ent let us e content )ith )hat opens up efore us: a postA:hit*an, neoA:hit*an vision, carryin! the a* i!uities of construction and destruction into areas of pioneerin! and coloniBation unthinka le to the technolo!y of :hit*anFs ti*es. -hus )as orn the pro#ect of helhaven, a scientifically desi!ned CultureABu le on the >oon, and also involvin! a hi!h de!ree of technical organi?ation, )hereas :alt )as ut content to loaf and invite his soul. 80?8(90/, the e'pertly planned and !uided enterprise of ?unar Paradisiacs, +ncorporated. ( :o* A 8eaven, thus in the *ost asic sense 0denic, yet *ade possi le only y the hi!hest fli!hts of technolo!ic pro!ress6hence 0den and the -o)er in one. ( true eschatolo!y, rin!in! first and last thin!s to!ether6the union of (lpha and .*e!a. (nd so, soon no), -.:(,@2 80?8(90/. Cor Iuite a lon! ti*e, + had een content to a ide y a theory of satire that + had offered in a ook, Attitu(es towar( History, pu lished in the thirties. (pproachin! satire fro* the standpoint of the distinction et)een 5acceptance5 and 5re#ection5 <yeaAsayin! and nayAsayin!, )hich are attitudinally tin!ed variants of Mes and /o= + put satire on the ne!ative side of the eIuation. +n contrast, for instance, + thou!ht of epic, tra!edy, and co*edy as on the 5acceptance5 side. ?ater, alon! those lines, + noticed the shre)dness of 8o*er )ho did not 5suppress5 a critiIue of epic )ar. -he poet, or poets, so thorou!hly poetic as the sources ehind the t)o 8o*eric epics )ould not, like political ureaucrats in office, seek to su))ress a critiIue of the poe*sF assu*ptions. /o, youFll find in -he 8lia( itself an attack upon the herois* of epic )ar. (nd )ho )as entrusted )ith the #o of voicin! such an oppositionL /one other than -hersites, so loathso*e an e'cuse for a hu*an ein! that

8e!el e'panded hi* into the concept of 5-hersitis*,5 a ter* he )ould dou tless have applied to *uch that >ar' )as to say of 8e!elianis*. (s a )ay of *ovin! on y addin! further considerations for present purposes, let *e Iuote this *uch fro* *y earlier co**ents on satire as a 5Poetic cate!ory5: & 44 & -he satirist attacks in others the )eaknesses and te*ptations that are really within himsel$# A .ne cannot read !reat satirists like 2)ift or Huvenal )ithout feelin! this strate!ic a* i!uity. :e sense in the* the 2avanarola, )ho )ould e'orcise his o)n vanities y uildin! a fire of other peopleFs vanities. 2)iftFs aptitude at 5pro#ection5 invited hi* to eat hi*self un*ercifully. :hen + e!an plans for the satire + )anted to uild up, + had in *ind that principle. + *ean: +f + a* to )rite a satire, )hen all the returns are in, it *ustnFt turn out that + a* holier than thou. + *ust he a*on! *y victi*s. -hat is to say: + take it that *y satire on the 5technolo!ical psychosis5 )ill e an offsprin! of that sa*e psychosis. But to *y earlier notion that )e are all, includin! the satirist, tarred y the sa*e rush, there are added the sophistications )here y )e can !et the curative a''ents of assertion and perfection y callin! for a UtopiaAinAreverse. 8ence, to *ake that point clear, as + )ay sayin!, -o)ards helhaven.

III !O1A'*S "#%"A2#+

( out the ed!es of satire, o viously, hover related *odes of e'pression: hu*or, co*edy, irony, urlesIue, the !rotesIue <)hich *i!ht e defined as a kind of co*ic incon!ruity )ithout the lau!hter=. But )hereas the incon!ruousness of the !rotesIue is 5!ar!oyleAthinkin!,5 perhaps the *a#or resource of satiric a*plification is an e1'ess o$ 'onsisten'y# -akin! conditions that are there already, the satirist perversely, t)istedly, carries the* 5to the end of the line.5 + have already indicated )hy, )hereas :yndha* ?e)is vie)s satire as an approach 5fro* )ithout,5 +Fd )ant to call that approach not satire, ut urlesIue. Cor instance, )e are told that Buck*inster Culler centers his ener!y 5in a sin!le drive: to pro*ote the total use o$ total te'hnology $or total )o)ulation Jat the *a'i*u* feasi le rate of acceleration.K 5 -here surely lies the *aterial for satire. +n that for*ula, surely, is i*plicit the incentive for satiric e'a!!eration. Met )ho a*on! us is not affected and infected at least to so*e de!ree y technolo!ical )ays of thinkin! and livin!, thou!h not )ith such vatic thorou!hness, )hich *i!ht e called 58yperA-echnolo!is*5L (nother )ay of puttin! it )ould e to say that satire is universal, ut urlesIue is factional. -he line of de*arcation eco*es o scured, ut itFs clear enou!h in e'tre*e cases. (nd + elieve that, as + proceed, you )ill see ho) asically *y notions a out the entelechial principle, even & 4; & thou!h applied )ith a satiric t)ist, or perhaps ecause so applied, are involved in this proposition. ( pri*e reason, )e have een told, for undertakin! certain difficult and costly technolo!ic feats <as space travel= is that they no) see* possi le. 2uch a *otive is not unthinka le, and itself has the *akin!s of satire, or at least urlesIue. But +F* di!!in! at a deeper level. >y satiric a*plifications )ould e rooted in the proposition that *oney, *echanis*s in !eneral, and no) the co*puter in

particular represent cul*inatin! aspects of specifically hu*an !enius. +f you define *an alon! traditional lines as the 5rational ani*al,5 here surely is the non )lus ultra of his rationality, if only ecause so *uch rationality has !one into the plannin! and distri ution of our artificial devices. +n their roles as fulfill*ents of specifically hu*an potentialities )hich are arely detecta le in other ani*als, they e* ody the entelechial principle, they are takin! 5to the end of the line5 the drives to)ards perfection <or co*pletion= that are i*plicit in the*, as representative of hu*an !enius. >an, purely as an ani*al, has other *otivatin! ele*ents. But if they are all put into the centrifu!e of historical develop*ent and )hirled a out vi!orously, this peculiarly rational su stance, ein! of a different density, is separated fro* the rest in its che*ically 5pure5 state <as )hen slud!e in a centrifu!e is separated fro* oil=. 8o)ever, there is an o vious sense in )hich 5perfection,5 as so defined, is also a 'ari'ature of *an, since it plays up so*e traits and plays do)n others. 2uch specifically hu*an fulfill*ents of *an cannot lau!h or cryG they are not #ealous or for!ivin!G one o server discovered <and + take hi* at his )ord= that you canFt insult a co*puterG and thou!h they *ay )ear out, and even suffer 5*etal fati!ue,5 *echanis*s do not !ro) tired or sullen. -hus, ironically, their nature as 'ari'atures of *an resides in the very thorou!hness )ith )hich they represent so*e aspects of *an and e'clude others. >ay e y no) a notion + already touched upon can e *ade clearer. Before rationality attained its *aterial counterpart in the rationaliBed procedures of the *achine, it )as an i(eal of e'ceptional *en. (s e* odied in our current technolo!ical clutter, )ith countless *ore of such on the dra)in! oard, the rational is no lon!er an i(eal o$ the $ew, it is a )ro&lem o$ the many# >aterialiBe an ideal, and you !et a pro le*, includin! the ulti*ate ironic fact that an e1'ess of rationality as so defined adds up to a ne) level of irrationality. .ne *ore *atter of ack!round should e considered. :hen the su #ect of a satire is, like ours, an i*a!inary colony on the *oon, there is & 4% & the likelihood that a *easure of fantasy )ill e involved, alon! the lines of science fiction. But thanks to the technolo!ical fact that *en have actually landed on the *oon and rou!ht ack *uch scientific infor*ation a out conditions there, + can reduce such a!!a!e to a *ini*u*. + donFt have to think up Iuasi reportin!, as in 8. D. :ellsFs -he First 2en on the 2oon or Hules 9erneFs From the Earth to the 2oon# (nd precisely for that reason, the *a#or satirical ele*ent can e *ore efficiently e*phasiBed. + need ut follo) the fashion of @isneyland, )here a nineteenthAcentury street )ith a horse car is reproduced. -hus, + can envision such ideal future circu*stances as )hen helhaven, our transcendent CultureA Bu le, has a ?unaA8ilton 8otel, in every )ay indistin!uisha le fro* its unifor* counterparts in the hotel chains you find no) all over the )orld. -he *ain difference et)een the ?unaA8ilton and its opposite nu* ers on the terrestrial !lo e is that the !uest )ill have a si*ulated outlook fro* each i*itation )indo). Cor ut a s*all fee, he can, as it )ere, !aBe upon a eautiful lake, or upon a distant, sno)Acapped *ountain, or a tropical each6or if he !ets ho*esick for ur an thin!s ack here, y ut pressin! a different utton, he can )atch, sIuir*in! eneath hi*, a typical tan!le of traffic, si*ulated even )ith the sa*e noises, plus the stench <yet thou!h the s*ell )ill e like on 0arth, it )ill e scientifically free of all the poisons that actually acco*pany such conditions here=. + assure you that there )ill e a far !reater ran!e of such Perspectivos if + *ay call these outlooks y their future trade na*e6 ut since + a* not !ood at science fiction, + cannot i*a!ine )hether thereFll also e vie)s of *u!!in!s, pickAups, and riots. 2uch decisions )ill e at the discretion of the *ana!e*ent, )hen the ti*e co*es.

+t is conceiva le that rationality *i!ht have taken a different course. But once hu*an !enius !ot i*ple*ented, or channeliBed, in ter*s of technolo!ical proliferation, ho) turn ackL 2pontaneously )hat *en hope for is more# (nd )hat realistic politician could ever hope to )in on a platfor* that pro*ised less< -he overall drive )as e'pressed in the previously *entioned state*ent that )e *ust dou le our production of ener!y every ten years. But + *ust *ake sure that + donFt !et hooked to that thesis. 0ven if there is such a trend, the fact that *any influential industrialists, econo*ists, and politicians su scri e to it is not per se evidence that it )ill continue. <+ had put it that )ay in an earlier draft, )hen *y title )as: 5+ Want -o :rite a 2atire.5= -his point + e*phasiBed, since the distinction + had in *ind is asic to a distinction et)een our thesis as satire and the correspondin! thesis as & ;0 & s'ien'e# Corinstance, + )rote, the e'haustion of so*ere sources *i!ht interfere )ith the trendG also,econo*ically colonialnations )hose ra) *aterials had een availa le to thet echnolo!ical !iant s*i!ht )ith hold such sources of supply <and that is no), of course, the develop*ent that )e suddenly see* to e facin!, even if a lot of it did happen to e en!ineered y the :estern oil interests in a financially lauda le effort to dou le their profits )hile sellin! ut oneAthird as *uch oil=. .r enou!h of our o)n citiBens *i!ht eco*e so disenchanted )ith the pro*ises of ever *ore and *ore technolo!y that a !reat sur!e in ehalf of less *i!ht find )ays of i*ple*entin! such a critiIue, as cannot e done no) e'cept for aproportionately ne!li!i le percenta!e of our population )ho shift a out happily a*on! the interstices of our vast technolo!ical ureaucracy. /o, the satire )ould not depend upon the $a'tual thesis that the develop*ent of ever *ore and *ore technolo!y is inevita le. .n the contrary, the satiric foretellin! )ould e *otivated devoutly y the hope that, in the )orld of facts, such a trend is not inevita le. (nd the satire )ould e constructed on the assu*ption that, y carryin! such speculations to the end of the line, one keeps the ad*onitions alive. 8ence the satire )ould e so uilt that any do)nturnin! )ould have the accents of !reat pro*ise, as e* odied in the Utopian vision of helhaven. +n this )ay, ideally, satire )ould ena le us to conte*plate a situation to )hich )e *i!ht other)ise close our *inds, y selfAdeception, or y dissipation. -he layout of the place )ould e in !eneral si*ply thin!s here over a!ain, e'cept that technolo!ical artificiality )ould e co*plete. -his is an i*portant point to keep in *ind. Cor underneath the satire *ust e the fact that in )rin'i)le the helhaven situation is 5*orally5 here already. Cor instance, youFre already in 8elhaven insofar as you are, directly or indirectly <and )ho is notL= derivin! a profit fro* so*e enterprise that is responsi le for the pollutin! of so*e area, ut your share in such revenues ena les you to live in an area not thus epla!ued. .r think of the *any places in our country )here the local drinkin! )ater is on the s)ill side, distastefully chlorinated, )ith traces of various industrial conta*inants. +f, instead of puttin! up )ith that, you invest in ottled sprin!)ater, to that e'tent and y the sa*e token you are already infused )ith the spirit of 8elhaven. 0ven no), the kin!do* of 8elhaven is )ithin you. 2o, for our CultureABu le on the >oon, *ake up thin!s alon! those lines as you prefer, as )ith a each, protected fro* the real sun, ut )ith a scientifically desi!ned su stitute. .r add 5the si*ulacru* of an (lpine ca in reached y a skiAto), )ith artificially sno)Acovered slope.5 & ;" &

But + should *ention a Conte*plation ,oo*, fro* )hich one can )atch the ?unar (stronauts on their trips to 0arth, for various kinds of replace*ent. (nd + Iuote fro* *y authoritative article on 8elhaven in the /ewanee 4eview <see pa!e 33 of this volu*e=: +ncreased e'perience in the use of spacecraft )ill *ake sure that the trip itself )ill not e haBardous. But the possi ility of stillAsurvivin! ho*inids )ill add risks to these forays, and !ive the* so*e)hat the Iuality of *araudin! e'peditions. Met the e'pression is o viously un#ustG for any ?unar Paradisiacs of the Cuture )ill e replenishin! their !i!antic )o* like CultureABu le, as it )ere, fro* the placenta of the >otherA0arth fro* )hich their very ody te*perature is derived, and )hich is #ust as *uch our ho*e, ho)ever filthy )e shall have *ade it efore clearin! out, as it is the ho*e of any scurvy anthropoid leftovers that *i!ht still so*eho) contrive to !o on hatchin! their dou tless de!enerate and *isshapen roods ack there a*on! those seven vast oceanic se)ers. -he ori!inal version of this piece !ot *e s)a*ped in *any details that should e included in an actual satiric narrative featurin! as its settin! 8elhaven, the +deal CultureABu le on the >oon. But fortunately, + *ust here *ake haste to discuss the su #ect in !eneral, rather than !ettin! entan!led in a clutter of particulars. (nd that e'i!ency )orks out to the !ood, + dare hope, once you have heard a out -he >aster, )ho e!an as a disciple of :hit*an and !ot into dire trou le until he found a )ay out. Cor )e have located t)o poe*s of his <if you )ill allo) that doctrinally e*otional utterances in the :hit*an *ode are poe*s=G and the pieces are o viously infused )ith the spirit of :hit*an even to the e'tent of includin! so*e lines of his ver ati*, alon! )ith sli!ht *odifications of others. .ur e'hi its are poe*s at least to the e'tent that they can si*ultaneously particulariBe and !eneraliBe. 8ence they serve ideally as a )ay of rin!in! *y talk to a close6and + shall use the* accordin!ly. >ean)hile, you should kno): -he kind of Iuandaries that have to do )ith the very foundations of our hopes for the 8elhaven colony, as a Paradisiac ?unarABu le technolo!ically *ade possi le, forces us to confront a decision as to )here the /e) -echnolo!ic 0den should e placed. -hose )ho have to solve such pro le*s have chosen for this /eoA8o*e the 2ea of -ranIuillity. Cor althou!h our en!ineers na*ed other locations that they dee*ed prefera le, our consultants on >adison (venue )ere e*phatic in assertin! that the 2ea of -ranIuillity )ould e the est address. & ;2 &

I2 !"# P%O! !"IC9#+S

8o) proceed, in keepin! )ith the thesis that a satire on so tireso*e thou!h perhaps fatal a su #ect as technolo!ical pollution *ust contrive to han! on even )hile dod!in!L -hat co*pro*ise, + thou!ht, *i!ht est e contrived if thin!s )ere so set up that, in keepin! )ith the nature of the fiction, any 5indict*ent5 of technolo!yFs e'cesses could e )elco*ed as a *o*entous positive step to)ards the ideal future <or, + should say, the parody of such a step=. +n keepin! )ith our entelechial ideal of !oin! to the end of the line, )e needed so*e t)ists )here y the 5lo!ical conclusion5 <)hich is to say, the reduction to a surdity= of hyperAtechnolo!istic ener!y consu*ption could attain 5perfect5 fulfill*ent in the total pollution of our once handso*e planet. (nd reasons should e invented )hy this entelechially fated cul*ination could e )elco*ed, as *ankindFs final attainin! and transcendin! of our earthly ai*s after lon! and arduous effort. By a t)ist of that sort one *i!ht recapture the stylistics of assertiveness so !reatly needed for our ti*e, and so i*perative, if )e )ere to keep on confrontin!, )ithout the nausea of oredo*, the asic pro le* that persisted in platitudinously pursuin! us. :hen )e are confrontin! so funda*ental a pro le* of sociolo!y, precisely then, in keepin! )ith the

*ethodolo!y of lo!olo!y the first principle of a'iolo!y advises us to look for so*e analo!y of *orpholo!y in the real* of theolo!y.O"P (nd there it )as, as thou!h *ade to order, in the last ook of the /e) -esta*ent, the (pocalypse, that is a su**in! up if there ever )as one, hence *anifestin! to perfection the kind of drive + )ould call entelechial, despite its diver!ence fro* the technolo!ical variety )e have een considerin!. (s in oth ,evelation and -he 3ivine +ome(y, all should co*e to a focus in a crucial distinction et)een -he Chosen and the ,epro ates, e'cept that in the fictive technolo!ical fulfill*ent, the counterpart of those not a*on! -he Chosen )ould not e sinners, ut si*ply out of luck. +t eca*e clear that the desi!n called for the ironic version of an e'alted pro*issory attitude, such as )ould efit the 59ision5 of an ulti*ate peaceful e'istence in a perfectly airAconditioned CultureABu le on the >oon, a transcendent step eyond the radical pollutin! of the 0arth. (nd 5perfection,5 as thus perversely defined, )ould in turn e perfected if, y the conditions of the fiction, thin!s )ere so set up that those a*on! -he Chosen had een lar!ely responsi le for the very conditions on 0arth they )ere escapin!. & ;3 & Cro* no) on, )hatever + say )ith re!ard to possi le )ays of developin! <or, as they put it in the old rhetoric ooks, satirically 5a*plifyin!5= the the*e of technolo!ical pollution, please re!ard such additions <the old rhetoric ooks )ould have called the* 5inventions5= as instances of )hat + *ean )hen + speak of such a pro#ect as a continual effort to 5co*pro*ise5 )ith *y hypothetical readers. -hat is, the ai* )ould e to sustain the the*e of pollution not directly, ut like the drone, the fi'ed continuous note e*itted y a a!pipe, )hile the e*phasis )as upon )hatever *elody )as ein! played a ove it. +n this )ay, ideally, the na!!in! the*e of pollution )ould never let up, yet the develop*ents uilt atop it )ould call for attention in their o)n ri!ht. -he result )ould e a co*pro*ise insofar as the antics of the satire )ould not *ake necessary the a andonin! of the the*e. Cor instance, the CultureABu le on the >oon could still e ut in the plannin! sta!e, and there could e rival pro#ects si*ilarly incipient, all three involvin! Iuite different !roups of developers. -hus, esides the ?unar Paradisiac or!aniBation, there could e the >artian Pro*otion and 2ea otto* >eado)s, and even so*e irresponsi le da*fools )ho o viously needed to e psychoanalyBed, since they )ere ackin! the *anifestly unfeasi le idea of an installation on 9enus. .ur >an, )ho )as ad*inistrative coordinator of the ?unar 0arthlin!s, and )as a!lo) )ith love for those )ho )ere to #oin in efforts to)ards the i*ple*entin! of the 8elhaven vision, could have reason to dou t these rival outfits. 8e could suspect that they )ere plottin! a!ainst hi* in particular and the ?unar Paradisiacs in !eneral, insofar as they could identify the Paradisiac *e* ership <a challen!in! pro le* inas*uch as the infor*ation )as a carefully !uarded secret=. (lso, )hereas the ?unar Paradisiacs )ere )holly peaceAlovin!, .ur >an, the *a#or ad*inistrative coordinator of the )hole 9isionary venture, had turned up *uch evidence to indicate that ehind oth the >artian Pro*otion and 2ea otto* >eado)s there )ere conspirators of decidedly *ilitaristic cast6and so, ho)ever !rud!in!ly, he ca*e to the conclusion that eternal peace )ould e possi le only if and )hen the *e* ers of his peacelovin! and had definitively destroyed these )idely separated )arlike undertakin!s. (nd plans )ere ein! *ade to that idealistic end. -he 2ea otto* >eado)s cliIue )as also spreadin! slanders a out the dura ility of the ?unarABu le if hit y a lar!e *eteor <)hich )ould not e urnt up in the at*osphere as )ould e the case if it had hit on 0arth=. -o this calu*ny, .ur >an had various ans)ers, a*on! )hich + *i!ht cite these: <"= -he ?unarABu le )as to e *ade of an alloy

& ;$ & e'ceptionally resistant to such lo)sG 2= the lo) !ravity on the >oon )ould *ake any collisions far less violent than on the 0arthG <3= there )as no technical risk anyho), since the ?unar Paradisiacs had enlisted the services of so*e e'tre*ely co*petent en!ineers )ho had )orked out the kno)Aho) for detectin! and deflectin! such odies <these e'perts )ere kno)n as the @etectionA@eflection Corps=G <$= and *ost unans)era le of all, unlike the !odless 2ea otto* >eado)s racketeers, the ?unar Paradisiacs elieve devoutly in the po)er of prayer. +n fact, the *ove*ent had een #oined y several influential and hi!hly active *e* ers )ho had already proved their co*petence y their skill as evan!elists preachin! on the po)er of prayer even in earthly enterprises. .ur >an had also done in!enious )ork in )hat he called the (d +nteri* Cield. Cor the ti*e ein!, that is, funds !athered y the sale of 8elhaven stocks )ere not ein! spent on actual eIuip*ent for the *i!hty ?unar @o*e. -hus, te*porarily <e'cept for )ork on the plannin! oard=, all invest*ents )ere ein! pooled in a fastA!ro)in! >utual 8elhaven 2uperA>ultinational Con!lo*eration that )as earnin! hi!h dividends fro* enterprises lar!ely responsi le for the pro!ress of pollution. +n this connection for those of -he Chosen )ho, the *ana!e*ent finds cause to assu*e, are especially trust)orthy and can keep confidential infor*ation to the*selves, so*e of the i! food *erchandisers )ho are interested in that aspect of the undertakin! have put to!ether a secret list of the thin!s they sell )hereas they kno) so *uch a out the contents that they the*selves )ouldnFt touch the stuff. (nd an in!enious piece of (d +nteri* research is ein! )orked out y tests on conta*inant additives used as preservatives, for colorin!, or te'ture. :hereas in @ietetics .ld 2tyle certain $oo(s )ere not thou!ht to !o )ell to!ether, advances of @ietetics /e) 2tyle are discoverin! )hat a((itives donFt !o )ell to!ether. (uthoritatively *onitored la oratory e'peri*ents have een perfor*ed y usin! various co* inations of additives, free of the nutrients )ith )hich they are usually adulterated. (nd even )hen the in!redients are *i'ed )ith the various standard re*edies for indi!estion, there have een so*e Iuite startlin! e'plosions. + should add at least one further refine*ent, as 5the plot thickens.5 2ince .ur >an is deeply involved in the ad*inistrative aspects of the Paradisiac 9ision, + e!an to realiBe that he could not represent the 9ision in its purity. Behind hi* should e -he >aster <letFs call hi* the Pri*e Personalist= of )ho* )e !et ut !li*pses. .ur *an, the 9ice Personalist, thou!h devoted to -he >aster, is decidedly of coarser stuff, as & ;7 & efits his ad*inistrative rather than ideally 9isionary role. But + )as a le to put to!ether these fe) fleetin! details a out the so*e)hat *ysterious shado)y fi!ure, )ho is the !eneratin! spirit of the )hole enterprise. 8e had e!un as a :hit*anite, elated in poetically catalo!uin! the revolutionary environ*ental chan!es that the predatory 0uropean invaders had visited upon this continent. :hen it had !radually da)ned upon hi*, if you could call it a da)nQ <)here did )e hear that eforeL=, that :altFs drea* )as eco*in! a ni!ht*are, he )as desolate. -hen ca*e the fateAladen *o*ent )hen he chanced upon an in!enious principle of transfor*ation in Dia* attista 9icoFs New /'ien'e ofhu*an relations. 9ico had said that the three 5*a#or vices5 of *ankind are cruelty, !reed, and a* ition. But once you add to these the *otivatin! force of Coresi!ht, or 5Providence,5 he said, cruelty eco*es transfor*ed into the arts of (e$ense, !reed turns into 'ommer'e, and a* ition eco*es state'ra$t# +n the case of -he >aster the principle of perfection in his 9ision correspondin! to 9icoFs thou!hts on the transfor*ational function

of Coresi!ht or 5Providence5 )ith re!ard to the nature of evil, )as so*e)hat like )hat + had, + ad*it crudely, su**ed up in *y 5+nvictus5 lines: (dversity shall e *y universe, *akin! *e free to act to *ake thin!s )orse. Co* ine this turn <in su*, the principle of 5the )orse the etter5= )ith the (pocalyptic 9ision of @ivision, and :hit*anFs pro*ises are as !ood as ever. -he ills of technolo!y could e left to soil the 0arth, the virtues of technolo!y could rise transcendently else)here. <+ think of an eIually neat ut less radical variant in Deor! ?ukUcsFs discovery that everythin! )ron! )ith technolo!y is to e identified )ith capitalis*, and everythin! ri!ht )ith it is to e identified )ith socialis*.= + canFt tell you *uch *ore a out -he >aster e'cept that, y a piece of luck, + happened to !et hold of t)o effusions )hich serve at least to reveal the trend, and even the poi!nancy, of his *editations. + shall turn to these for our finale. >ean)hile, in !eneral + should say the underlyin! 5rationale5 <the rationally satiric )ay of heraldin! a reduction to a surdity as thou!h it )ere a pro*isin! lo!ical conclusion= )ould e ased on the search for fictions )here y no data on pollution, no *atter ho) da*nin!, )ould e presented in the accents of indict*ent. -he stress is thus stylistically placed upon an inverted IuasiAidealistic, futuristic, alche*ical device for transfor*in! the ase *etals of pollution into the 9ision of a /e) Herusale* satirically !olden. Behind it all, inspiritin! it all, lies -he >asterFs fir*, & ;3 & devout conviction that, the !reater and *ore thorou!h the pro!ress of technolo!ical pollution <as enshrined in the cult of ever *ountin! ener!y production and ener!y consu*ption= the *ore ur!ent )ill e the yearnin!s and efforts of -he Chosen to uild the :o* A8eaven of the Paradisiac ?unar CultureABu le, an 0denic real* *ade possi le only y the ulti*ate inventions and correspondin! otcheries of the -echnolo!ic -o)er. -o illustrate in su* ho), y the addition of satiric fictions, the pro le*s of pollution can thus e vie)ed throu!h a screen of deflective styliBation rather than headAon <as )ith outri!ht 5indict*ent,5 )hich too often encoura!es inattention or dissipation )ith re!ard to such an unpleasant su #ect= consider so*e thin!s that )ent )ron! )ith the (s)an @a*: -hin!s so turned out that there is a hi!her percenta!e of evaporation fro* the reservoir than the planners had anticipated, hence the flo) of fresh )ater in the river lessened, and salt )ater fro* the >editerranean is pressin! in to *ake up the difference. -he chan!e has destroyed a considera le fishin! industry. (n or!anis* har*ful to the hu*an eye never had it so !ood. (nd )hereas, for countless centuries, those areas had een naturally fertiliBed y the inundations of the /ile, no) it has eco*e increasin!ly necessary that the !ro)ers resort to purely che*ical fertiliBers. By the rules of our satiric fiction, such direct a*assin! of evidence )ould e definitely re#ected. -hus, as re!ards the !ro)in! need to rely upon che*icals )hereas, for countless centuries, the river had annually silted the land )ith a natural deposit of nutrients <)hich are no), incidentally, sinkin! to the otto* of the reservoir ehind the da*=, y our rules, one )ay to deal )ith this pro le* )ould e to chan!e the e*phasis y havin! the ad*inistrative 9iceAPersonalist !lo)in!ly oast that, despite ,ussian influence in 0!yptian affairs, a U.2. che*ical outfit in )hich ?unar Paradisiacs had lar!e (d +nteri* holdin!s )as *akin! considera le inroads into that *arket. (nd )e *i!ht !o a step further, as )ith a hint that *any of the environ*entalist disorders already *anifested on the 9ol!a <)hich catches fire like rivers over here= or in the re!ions threatenin! ?ake Baikal, are due to a nota le revolutionary

factG na*ely: there are *any ?unar Paradisiacs in the 2oviet ureaucracy, secretly )orkin! )ith their opposite nu* ers in this country to help advance the transcendent cause of pollution and thus hasten the day )hen -he Chosen )ill yearn to depart for !ood. +ndeed, the i*provin! relationship et)een ,ussian officialdo* and so*e of our *ultinational con!lo*erates *i!ht e so interpreted. & ;4 & +n the sa*e connection, the 9iceAPersonalistFs releases could Bestfully refer to the fact that, thanks to )ideAspread use of che*ical fertiliBers in our country, the runoff fro* far*lands here is pollutin! the )ater supply )ith !reat efficiency, thus *akin! it a hopeful possi ility that nearly all our lakes )ill soon !et o!!ed do)n in eutrophication. + could !o on, for the evidence is every)here, e'cept that you canFt find the e'act lo)Ado)n on ho) *uch the planes spe) forth hi!h up. But *y point is this: By )hat + conceive of as the co*pro*ise proper to the rules of our !a*e, )e should never let the te't eco*e directly 5efficient.5 -rue, thereFs a truly !rand *o*ent, in GulliverBs -ravels, )hen the !iant Bro din!na!ian kin!, after patiently listenin! to Dulliver e'plainin! thin!s in 0n!land, su*s up: 5By )hat + have !athered fro* your o)n relation, and the ans)ers + have )ith *uch pains )rin!ed and e'torted fro* you, + cannot ut conclude the ulk of your natives to e the *ost pernicious race of little odious ver*in that nature ever suffered to cra)l upon the surface of the earth.5 But the truly satiric t)ist here is in )hat follo)s, )hen Dulliver continues: Met this *uch + *ay e allo)ed to say in *y o)n vindication, that + artfully eluded *any of his Iuestions, and !ave to every point a *ore favora le turn y *any de!rees than the strictness of truth )ould allo). Cor + have al)ays orne that lauda le partiality to *y country )hich @ionysius 8allicarnassus )ith so *uch #ustice reco**ends to an historian: + )ould hide the frailties and defor*ities of *y political *other, and place her virtues and eauties in the *ost advanta!eous li!ht. -his )as *y sincere endeavor in those *any discourses + had )ith that *i!hty *onarch, althou!h it unfortunately failed of success. Conceiva ly, + *i!ht s)in! in so*e)here like that. Met the satire is not in the 5indict*ent,5 ut in the t)ist )here y Dulliver so !ulli ly speaks in his 5 defense.5 -he nearest + can co*e to a so*e)hat si*ilar turn in this piece is y a kind of Ciceronian )raeteritio, in sayin! )hat + )onFt say. But in the satire itself, + fear, such a resource )ould e denied *e. Cor there *y est hope is to a*plify *y thesis y )aterin! it do)n. -he pattern as a )hole *i!ht e su**ed up in these seven steps: ". -he !ro)in! evidence of pollution as the fatal cost of technolo!y had first caused -he >aster, the Personalist 2upre*e, to lose his faith in the :hit*anite ideal of conIuerin! a continent y ecstatic, headlon!, anticonservationist upheaval. 2. But -he >aster turned fro* the threat of a reakdo)n to a reakthrou!h, once he found his principle of transfor*ation, the & ;; & 9ision of @ivision <)ith its 5entelechial5 principle, 5the )orse the etter5= )here y all could a!ain eco*e confident, for)ardlookin!, eschatolo!ically ulti*ate, a perfect road to perfection. 3. 8is ad*inistrative assistant, the 9iceAPersonalist, )ould introduce coarser ele*ents into the 9isionG ut never for one *o*ent )ould he lose the (ffir*ative 2pirit of the ulti*ate ideal, as salva!ed y follo)in! throu!h )ith the lo!ic of the distinction et)een -he Chosen and the

$.

7. 3.

4.

,e!retta ly Unfortunate for )ho* there is no escape fro* the increasin! ecolo!ical disasters. -he pattern !ets its ulti*ate refine*ent in the (d +nteri* principle )here y those very persons )ho are a*on! -he Chosen can accelerate the pace of the decay y te*porarily investin! in the stocks of )hatever corporations are secretly contri utin! to the pro#ect )ith funds derived fro* enterprises that further the ecolo!ical deterioration. -here y is fulfilled the develop*ent that, in -he E(u'ation o$ Henry A(ams, is called the 5la) of the acceleration of history,5 as per )hat is no) called an 5e'ponential curve5 <involvin! a *achine ecolo!y as distinct fro* a iolo!ical ecolo!y=. 8avin! attained an (pocalyptic understandin! of dialectical principles in their role as -he Chosen )ho are to transcend conditions here on 0arth, the ?unar Paradisiacs can s*ile <not *aliciously, ut hopefully= at the evidences that, if ut technolo!y continues to proliferate as it is no) doin!, thin!s can end, not in a reactionary re#ection of technolo!y <)hich is the essence of hu*an rationality=, ut in a superAtechnolo!y that can rise out of the very decay it is producin!. -o ack their thesis that, hu*an nature ein! )hat it is, the entelechial lure of technolo!y has already developed to the point )here it is irreversi le, they cite as an authority the vie)s of that lithe @y*a'ion spirit, Buck*inster Culler, thou!h he *i!ht )ith so*e #ustice o #ect to their interpretation of his vie)s, as :hit*an, if he )ere still a*on! us, *i!ht o #ect to *y discussin! certain poe*s of his in ter*s of vatic real estate pro*otion.

( friend su!!ested that + should add a proper *easure of pornoG ut + de*urred on the !rounds that, y the nature of the su #ect, )e already have pollution enou!h, thou!h + )ill say that porno recycles etter than technolo!y. & ;% &

2 APOCA%$P!IC A&fi')A!IO+ :Effusions of The Master;

2ince + happen to have called the 8elhaven pro#ect a 59ision,5 it )as only a Iuestion of ti*e until + realiBed that, ehind it, i*plicit in it, should e the fi!ure, ho)ever in shado), of a 9isionary. +nas*uch as there could e acco**odations for ut a co*paratively Chosen Ce) in 8elhaven, the 9isionary >aster sa) that the farthest conceiva le perfection of the dialectical desi!n envisionin! an ideal future )ould attain fulfill*ent in an ulti*ate state of a solute eschatolo!ical divisiveness, as the nature of *anFs uni*peded pro!ress to)ards *a'i*u* technolo!ical pollution )ould *ake oth necessary and possi le. (lso, it stands to reason, the *ost spirited *e* ers of *ankind )ill e satisfied )ith nothin! less than uni*peded freedo* and pro!ress in the !randeurs of technolo!ical advance, )hich )ould e hardly etter than a state of onda!e if, at every turn, inventiveness )ere constrained y enslavin! ad*onitions, and each ne) po)er that )as developed y the !enius of applied science )ere in effect ut a further reason for us to tell ourselves, 5:atch outQ 8ereFs one *ore cause for )orryQ5 as thou!h every sin!le ne) )ositive technolo!ic pro*ise )ere ut one *ore negative prophecy of !loo*AandA doo*. By a lucky accident, + happen to have chanced upon t)o selfAstyled 5effusions5 of -he >aster, the Personalist 2upre*e. :hile o viously )ritten under the influence of his >aster, :alt :hit*an, even to the e'tent of outri!ht orro)in!, and so*eti*es transfor*in!, lines fro* ,eaves o$ Grass, they are conceived in the li!ht of su seIuent develop*ents )hich :altFs ecstatic sales*anship, for all its stress upon the future, could not foresee, Iuite as Karl >ar', approachin! technolo!ic enterprise fro* another an!le, did not foresee conditions no) )hen the rationality of technics has so !reatly pro!ressed that,

every)here you turn, it raises pro le*s <thus in effect transfor*in! our !reatest hope for the salvation of *ankind, rationality, into *a#or incentives *akin! for cults of the irrational=. But )e *ust !rant that :hit*an hit upon a !ladso*e )ay of helpin! out: 5+t is provided in the essence of thin!s that fro* any fruition of success, no *atter )hat, shall co*e forth so*ethin! to *ake a !reater stru!!le necessary.5 (nd -he >aster had !one on fro* there. (s )ith *uch of :hit*anFs verse, these t)o 5effusions5 of the Pri*eAPersonalist responsi le for 8elhaven as a technolo!ically transcendin! & %0 & ulti*ate 9ision *ay e too (o'trinaire to pass as the est of poetry. + say so in an a!e, nay *ore, in a very environ*ent, of schoolteachers )ho, dou tless for !ood reasons, stron!ly distrust the (i(a'ti' ele*ent in verse. Met the pieces do serve, + think, to su* up oth the hopes and the poi!nancy of the ?unar Paradisiac 9ision. (nd, + dare trust, youFll a!ree )ith *e that, y addin! the desi!n fro* ,evelations <+ prefer the popular plural=, -he >aster transfor*ed :altFs overAidealistically easyA!oin! pro*ises for all into a *ore realistically apocalyptic 9ision of @ivision. <(nd since thereFs so little ti*e left efore the end, please let *e hurriedly inter#ect a partin! thou!ht to the effect that 8elhaven is not #ust a fantasy poor y the tests of science fiction. (s + )as sayin!, insofar as you use an airport )ithout havin! to live near y, or insofar as you donFt drink the local s)ill typical of *any to)ns and cities in our country, ut uy sprin!)ater, to that e'tent you are in principle already a*on! -he Chosen. ?etFs hope that you and your friends and your descendants can en#oy such discri*inations for !ood, co*e 8elhaven.= But ack to our )indAup, )ith re!ard to the t)o cul*inatin! versifyin!s. -hereFll e a reference to a 5handin!Ado)n/alon! )ith *anA)o*an !er*.5 -he lines refer to an a* i!uity )here y :hit*an could speak of tools as 5)eapons,5 or )e *ay speak oth of s)ords eaten into plo)shares and of eatin! plo)shares into s)ords. -hou!h + canFt speak on this point )ith authority, + assu*e that -he >aster here had in *ind the a* i!uous potentialities of the hand, capa le of use either for )ar* handclasp or for clenchin! to *ake a fist. :here -he >aster refers to )o*an as the co*pensatory inventor of the needle, thou!h + dou t )hether he kne) or kno)s of Creud <+F* not even sure that he is still a*on! us=, he apparently )as )orkin! on the ed!es of )hat so*e of our fe*inists )ould call 5*ale chauvinis*.5 + *ean: +ndications are that, )hen referrin! to the needle as he does, he va!uely had in *ind the needleFs *asculine connotations y reason of its a ility to )ier'e, even )hile he reco!niBed that se)in! is as closely associated )ith )o*anFs )ork as the distaff. (nd finally, in keepin! )ith *y clai* that this presentation has t)o !reat *o*ents, + should point out the fact that -he >asterFs t)oAline flash in his call to 8elhaven sprin!s even fro* Beyond 8elhaven. But *any people are not at ho*e in poetry. (nd + have found that, even a*on! those )ho are, there are candidates <e'plicit or i*plicit= for the >artian Pro*otion or 2ea otto* >eado)s sort of thin!s, or that da*fool 9enus pro#ect <dou tless a psychotic fantasy=. (nd there are the & %" & *any *ore hoi polloi )ho are fated to e left ehind here, a*on! the 2even 9ast .ceanic 2e)ers. 2o, re!retta ly, y the la) of avera!es, it stands to reason that *any of you )ill not e a le to reco!niBe the 'harmisma of -he >aster at his *ost charis*atic. +n any case, )e turn no) to his eIueathin!s.

-he first of the poe*s stresses the e'hilaration of the 9isionFs pro*ise <for -he Chosen=:

O %#SSO+ OPPO'!,+# :!"# )AS!#'<S CA%%;

. 2ons of 2ons of 2ons etc. of Pioneers, have you your super pistols and your super sharpAed!ed a'esL 2in!in! the 2on! of .ccupations, are youL Mou6and the oneAti*e nativesF land is no) your native land. . 2ons etc., even the desert you have no) redee*ed even there you have transfor*ed nature into real estate. (lready + say to you )hat later + )ill say to you. 8itch your ne) kind of covered )a!on to a*on! the stars. :e love our ,ed*an Brothers. 5Co*e, Co*rades,5 )e said, 5shake hands )ith us, *ake treaties )ith us, elieve in us, love us as )e love you. (nd for!ive us if )e reak those treaties. Cor )e )ere ri!ht. -he 8i!hest Court in our land says )e )ere ri!ht, still are, and )ill e. Ci!htin! to the last in sternest realis*. 58o) other)ise could )e have despoiled youL 8o) other)ise e est fitted to despoil the land of )hich )e )ere destined to despoil youL5 (nd yet )e cannot tarry here, . 2ons etc. :e*ust*arch,*ydarlin!s,)e *ust ear the runt of dan!er, as thou!h youthful, as thou!h sine)y races. -he driver sittin! on his )hatever, sin!in! a son! of occupations. 8e drives his car the )hile the traffic drives the driver. & %2 & ?on! lines in lon! array )here they )ind et)i't a parchedA!reen *edian. 8ark to the not so *ystical clank6 stea*Apo)er, the !reat e'press lines, !as, petroleu*, those triu*phs of ti*es then, and sun! in a son! of the e'position. 0very sire, every da*G every he, every >s, all 2ons and 2ons and 2ons etc. of )hich there are no races youn!er or elder. (ll in all they ste* fro* prehistoric pri*e,

then )hen fe*ales, handed do)n successively, increasin!ly the !er*, nurturin! it throu!h the centuries, alon! )ith *anA)o*an !er*, nursin!, handin! do)n the !er* of )arAandA)ork, of handclaspAandAfist, *an *akin! the fist stron!er )ith a clenched stone, thus *an )hile in char*ed envy fro* the first, )o*an6and al)ays )o*an6 to counter alance her deprival, rou!ht forth the piercin! needle, thus at the start, the son!s of occupations y diver!in! could #oin )ith one another. (nd no past left ehind, ut al)ays still there, al)ays pushin! as predestined. -ill no) )e !et the i! )ords. . 2ons etc., let us love the i! )ords, too, )ords like epi!enesis, and psycho!enic, and diethylstil estrol, and,a oveall,thelittle i!A)ords6like iosphere and ecolo!y, and technolo!ical pollution. /o )ord is an island. +n all )ords is every )ord. Co*e, little i!A )ords, Co*e Biosphere, co*e 0colo!y, co*e -echnolo!ical Pollution, co*e let us sin! and dance to!ether the son! of our predestinated end. (nd dance to!ether, little i!A)ords, to)ards the day )hen all the seven seas )ill e vast industryAinfested cesspools, thus preparin! us not to tarry, ut to leave these shores and inlands for a *anA*ade Paradise else)here, & %3 & a ,eal* transcendent, free of our lon! headlon! terrestrial despoilin!. :e pri*eval forests fellin!, )e the rivers ste**in!, ve'in! )e and piercin! deep the *ines )ithin6and stripA*inin!, yes6)e the vir!in soil upheavin!, )e6it6an epic rape. (llonsQ 8ere is the efflu' of the soul. -o the (r*y Corps of 0n!ineers !ive thanks )ho held ack rivers )here rivers flo)ed like freedo*, and !ou!ed out strai!ht channels )here strea*s had )anted to *eander and pro*oters could sell lots on )hat had een floodland and loQ it eco*es an act of Dod )hen thin!s flo) into flood )hile a continent !oes do)n the drain here rises the fluid and attachin! character do)n the drain at a rate ho) possi le ut y !reat technolo!ic pro!ress (llonsQ )e *ust not stop any)here. Colorado, /e raska, (rkansas, >issouri6every)here (ll the hands of co*rades claspin!, all the 2outherns and the /ortherns. Mou )ho )ould eco*e *y follo)er, put your lips upon *ine.

(ll drivin! to )ards a!rand con!lo*erate *uddle of realestate, ( reast achin! )ith tender love for all, :e todayFs procession headin!, )e the route for travel clearin!, . 2ons of 2ons of 2ons etc. of Pioneers. -he *ore traffic, the *ore roadsG the *ore roads, the *ore traffic, and the !reater !ro)s our #oyous thirst to leave and )ith claspin! of hands )e to!ether sin! the 2on! of the .pen, checkedA yAradar, open fourAland ,oad to)ards6for the likes of us a*on! -he Chosen6 to)ards ho*e in <hailQ 8eavenQ= in helhaven, ho*eQ -he second of the poe*s stresses the re!retta le (ivision inherent in the 9ision: 5Car, far off the @ay reak CallQ5 </i!ht -hou!hts of -he >aster= & %$ & +t )ill not e )ithout !uilt to *illions and *illions it )ill e as thou!h you cried out to the* 5+ love you, + )ho could have *ade us co*rades for us to have fared forth to!ether to)ards the pri*al !arden, to)ards first thin!s in last thin!s.5 +t )ill not e )ithout e'ceptional re!ret to *illions and *illions it )ill e as if you had snarled at the*, 5+nto the se)ers )ith you, into the filth of your o)n a*assin! )illyAnilly, until each cell of your ody is soaked in it, you like a spon!e soppy )ith your o)n de!radation in the s)ill of *anFs o)n *anA*ade undoin!.5 +t )ill not e )ithout cruelty to *illions upon *illions it e as if you pro*ul!ed to the*. 5+ leave you to your da*nedness, as )ere you the rottenest of trans!ressors, Met you )ill have done no evil, in your decay there )as no *alice nor ai* to har* a*on! your *any )ondrous doin!s and your o edience to those )ho y their !enius tau!ht you to do their )ondrous doin!s until all )ent loathso*e. /ot for doin! evil are you to e undone.5 +t )ill not e )ithout loathin! yet to *illions and *illions it )ill e as if you sa) in the* the thick of the @espised and @estitute, as if you said to the*, 5(s )e look do)n upon you )retches !aspin!, you survivin! !aspin! as )e -he Chosen, in our ?unar CultureABu le safe and sound and snu! of helhaven, of -he Chosen our Paradisiac ho*e, it is as thou!h, as )ere you each it is, a localiBed collection of thick opaIue, usually yello)ish )hite fluid *atter for*ed in connection )ith an infla**ation due to the invasion of the ody

y an infective *icroor!anis* <as a acteriu*= and co*posed of fluid e'udate containin! de!eneratin! leukocytes, tissue de ris, and livin! or dead *icroor!anis*s <see 2UPPU,(-+./=. & %7 & 0ach of you, alas in rief, the ?eft Behind, is to us as an a scess fro* )hich )e shall have per*anently departed.5 Dive *e the pleasant silent sun as (da* early in the *ornin! N to)ards ho*e in <hailQ 8eavenQ= in helhaven, ho*e *ay + hie *e no) to hide in restrospective prospect a Cuture, Iuintessential of the Past, 0den and -he -o)er in one, . dithyra* ic *o*ent, ?evitation, than )hich ho) *uch the *ore can there e likeQ .n)ards, .ut)ards6and UPQ

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in the 2i'higan Cuarterly 4eview "3 <)inter "%4$=: 304E34 <-he Keniston ?ecture at the University of >ichi!an, "%4$=. ". + have contended that the present essay has t)o !reat sentences. Clearly, this is the first. -he second )ill e uttered in a !rand finale y -he >aster. & %3 &

=. 'ealisms, Occidental Style

19>/
Kenneth Burke prepared this paper for a conference on the use of literary )orks as a relia le source of docu*entary evidence a out their 5conte'ts of situation5 <the sceneAactA a!ent ratio=. -he asic distinction Burke *akes here is et)een realis*, )hich is a literary style, and reality, )hich is not a style at all, ut a rute fact. ,ealis* is ut one of *any possi le styles in :estern literature. +s realis* any *ore real than other kinds of styles6 say, ro*anticis*, neoclassicis*, *odernis*, i*pressionis*L /o, it is not <thou!h it *ay see* so=, ecause everythin! in a literary )ork has een styliBed in the very act of )ritin!. -ryin! to read the real scene <or a!ent= out of a literary act )ith any kind of accuracy and relia ility is a nearly hopeless task ecause there are so *any nonverifia le varia les. (nd realis* as a style is si*ply one perspective fro* a*on! *any availa le to a )riterG and )hether one style is etter a le to depict reality than another is only a *atter of de!ree. -he

*ost fantastic )ork6say, 2)iftFs DulliverFs -ravels6 can e very realisticG and the *ost realistic )ork6say, Ha*es Dould CoBBensFs Casta)ay6can e co*pletely fantastic and densely sy* olic. +n his usual fashion, Burke takes oversi*plified responses to this topic and co*plicates the*. 2ee, for e'a*ple, his tenApoint su**ary at the end of this essay. 8is fa*ous 5it is *ore co*plicated than that5 is the operative analytic techniIue he uses to pro*ote a fuller, *ore adeIuate conception of the pro le*s inherent in the topic. 8e does not necessarily al)ays resolve these pro le*s ecause he is *uch *ore interested in raisin! the Iuestions and then #ust du*pin! the* on the readers in such a )ay that there is no returnin! to si*ple, often si*pleA*inded, )ays of dealin! )ith the topic. 8e re!ards this procedure as a dialectical e'ercise every thinker <critic= should !o throu!h )ith every topic and te't. (fter *akin! his points a out 5realis*s, occidental style,5 Burke then cautions us a out tryin! to use any literary te't fro* any culture or ti*e period as a relia le source of docu*entary evidence a out the sociopolitical scene out of )hich it ca*e, or even a out the a!entAauthor. :riters are notorious 5liars5 <fiction *akers=, and their vie) of thin!s is as *undane and iased as everyone elseFs. +t has eco*e fashiona le these days to 5derive5 :illia* CaulknerFs fictions fro* his life, and the other )ay around, CaulknerFs sy* olic auto io!raphy fro* his novels. ( third procedure is also often practiced, )hich is to dra) an 5accurate5 portrait of the 2outh fro* the novels. 0ither )ay, )e have a kind of a surdity that Burke cautions us a!ainst, )hich results fro* a asic *isconception of fiction, and ho) it transfor*s and relates ack to the real )orld. Caulkner had a rich and varied i*a!inative life and a rather ordinary real life. 8e )as o viously a !enius )ith )ords. 0ven his *ost realistic novels <for e'a*ple, (s + ?ay @yin!= )ere technical )onders that *ade their connection to the & %4 & real )orld pro le*atical. 8e clearly lead a fictional life that )as separate fro* his real life, so *uch so that people )ho kne) hi* in .'ford, >issisippi, did not elieve he )rote his novels. -he topic this conference addressed is relevant here. @o CaulknerFs novels tell us so*ethin! relia le a out the real )orld and life in itL BurkeFs ans)er to this Iuestion is, 5Mes and /o.5 /o, if )e are too literal *inded, and Mes, if )e kno) ho) to read and discount )ords and fictions. ( novel is, after all, nothin! ut )ords no *atter its style. -he reality of a novel derives as *uch fro* the i*a!ination and )ords as it does fro* the real )orld. ( novel does not really depict the real )orld so *uch as it creates verisi*ilitude and convinces us to 5 elieve5 it. Caulkner never fou!ht in the trenches in :orld :ar +, kne) little a out Crance and the Crench, especially a out the Crench ar*y *ilitary la). 8e *ade it all up. Unless )e learn ho) to read this novel in accordance )ith the style in )hich it is )ritten <certainly not a for* of realis*6 ut a style you )rite a fa le in= and adapt to the daBBlin! <if dense= technical virtuosities Caulkner uses in the novel, )e have no )ay to read it adeIuately. Pro a ly the last thin! it is really a out is :orld :ar + as an historical event or Caulkner hi*self. -he novel is a perfect e'a*ple of BurkeFs *ain point: :e *ust approach a novel in its o)n ter*s and not de*and of it thin!s it )as never *eant to do. +ts o)n ter*s are )ords and prose fiction. Burke liked to point out that once you *ake use of the resources of lan!ua!e you enter a real* of 5freedo*5 and you can, Iuite literally, say or )rite anythin! a out anyone or anythin! or any place that you like. +t is all #ust a *atter of rhetoric. 8o), then, do )e avoid

relativis* and ho) do )e kno) )hat is relia le and trueL -hat is the Iuestion this essay addresses as it applies to literature. (s )e kno) fro* current critical practices, every possi le approach to every possi le te't y every possi le kind of critic is fair !a*e, )ith all of the* insistin! on the 5corrective5 function of their approach and the relia ility, truthfulness, correctness of their findin!s. -he end result of this critical and cultural diversity has een the creation of a e)ilderin! ody of critical te'ts that tend to contradict one another and so*eti*es even cancel one another out. .ne yearns a!ain for the old days )hen it still see*ed possi le to have a 5pure5 e'perience of literary te't, one that derived its i*petus and direction fro* the internalities of the te't rather than fro* so*e e'ternal theory laid over the te't like a !rid. :hat defense do )e have a!ainst this see*in!ly unchecked proliferation of critical approachesL /one, really, since the proliferation )ill continue6 ut )e can stop readin! *ost criticis* and try to free CaulknerFs novels fro* the lovin! attention and feedin! frenBy of his *ultitude of critics. Burke does not reco**end this decisive actionG he )as a !reat theoriBer hi*self and *ined te'ts for so*e *i!hty stran!e !old, re*indin! us )ay ack in Philosophy of ?iterary Cor* <"%$"= that )e should use all that there is to use in the analysis of literary te'ts. (nd he did, as his dra*atistic poetics *ake clear. (t the end of this essay, in a typical Burkean ad*onition, he re*inds us, in his ten su**ariBin! points, of so*e asic truths a out the use of literary te'ts as social docu*entationG or, perhaps *ore inclusively, a out the nature of literature itself, and )hat you should and should not <can and cannotL= do to and )ith it. & %; &

I+!'O*,C!IO+
+ should e!in )ith the pro le* of e!innin!s, and say )hy. -he *ain pro le* in discussin! )hat literature has to tell us as docu*entary evidence a out the !eneral conditions of its ori!in involves )hat )e *i!ht call the choice of ter*s for descri in! a !iven )orkFs ack!round. Cor instance, unless + re*e* er incorrectly, in neoclassic Crench tra!edy, thou!h there is *uch talk of death, there is no *ention of pistols. 8o)ever, this o*ission is not docu*entary evidence that there )ere no pistols, in the )ay that the featurin! of !unplay in our conte*porary -9 pro!ra*s clearly reflects the fact that the aristocratic s)ord has !one out of fashion and that )e are in a ti*e )hen all )ho are concerned )ith la) and order6e'cept those of our politicians )ho stress 5la) and order5 as one of their favorite sellin! points6)orry, a out such chu**y pieces as 52aturday ni!ht specials.5 +n discussin! the use of literature as docu*entary evidence, this is a pri*e consideration )ith )hich )e have to deal. Crench neoclassic tra!edy )as in *any o vious respects docu*entary evidence of the circu*stances durin! )hich the dra*as of Corneille and ,acine )ere )ritten and first produced. -here is even an historically authenticated case )here CorneilleFs +inna )as !iven a totally pra!*atic application. ( fi!ure )hose na*e escapes *e )as accused of plottin! a!ainst the kin!. -he su title of +inna is -he +lemen'y o$ Augustus, since the play in!eniously involves a chain of events, )ith a correspondin!ly fittin! set of relationships a*on! the characters, )here y the kin! is *oved to respond )ith the !randeur of the fictive e*peror and pardon the conspirator. 8is *inisters )orked hard to undo the effects that the fiction had upon hi*. +n the end their efforts, and not CorneilleFs dra*a, )on, and the conspirator )as duly e'ecuted. >y point is this: 2urely there )as never an art that *ore clearly reflected the courtly influences

conte*porary )ith its cere*onious postures6and that influence is docu*entary indication of the conditions characteriBin! the theater of the ti*es, as reflected in the neoclassic dra*atur!y. 8o)ever, the fact that there )as no *ention of pistols is docu*entary evidence not that there )ere no pistols then a out, ut that the *ention of so lo)A!rade a )eapon )ould violate the stylistic proprieties of the *ediu*. <+f you find a *ention of pistols in Corneille or ,acine, please donFt tell *e. (nd in any case, even if you did find such a passa!e, surely + have *ade *y point in )rin'i)le.= +n any case, + have no) decided on *y e!innin!, )hich illustrates a & %% & *a#or pro le* esettin! our atte*pts to use )orks of literature as docu*entary evidence a out their 5conte'ts of situation.5 ( ook such as Hack KerouacFs On the 4oa( <"%74=, for e'a*ple, )hich refers to drivin! a out (*erica 5like craBy,5 is at least a fairly relia le indication that it )as a civiliBation, not of sta!ecoaches, canals and river oats <thou!h *any canals and river oats are still )ith us=, ut of *otor cars 5run ra*pant.5 <+ say that (*erican civiliBation was such. Hust )hat i*portant chan!es, if any, result fro* the 5ener!y crisis5 still re*ains to e seen. Up to no), the cars still race y our place in the country, #ust a out as roarin!ly and e*ptyA eerAcan droppin!ly as ever.= >y first introductory e'a*ple )ill deal )ith a fe) pa!es fro* Claude ?VviA2traussFs -he /tory o$ As(iwal <"%$%=. +t )ill e ut a rief su**ary of so*e pa!es that )ere the*selves a su**ary, so + cannot do #ustice to the full state*ent. + use only as *uch as applies to this particular pro le*. .n the asis of )hat ?VviA2trauss can adduce fro* other sources, he notes that certain i*portant aspects of the *yth <*y eIuivalent of )hat + shall call 5conte't5 or 5realis*5 in a Iuite loose use of the ter*= do not have 5anythin! to do )ith the reality of the structure of -si*shian society, ut rather )ith its inherent possi ilities and its latent potentialities.5 -hus he proceeds: 52uch speculations Othe *ythFs speculations a out types of residence to do )ith distinctions et)een patrilocality and *atrilocalityP in the last analysis do not seek to depict )hat is real, ut to #ustify the shortco*in!s of reality, since the e'tre*e positions are only imagine( in order to sho) that they are untena&le.5 -his step, )hich is fittin! for *ythical thou!ht, i*plies an ad*ission < ut in the veiled lan!ua!e of the *yth= that the social facts )hen thus e'a*ined are *arred y an insur*ounta le contradiction6a contradiction )hich, like the hero of the *yth, -si*shian society cannot understand and prefers to for!et. Cro* this aspect of the *yth as he interprets it, ?VviA2trauss concluded: -his conception of the relation of the *yth to reality no dou t li*its our use of the for*er as a docu*entary source. But it opens the )ay for other possi ilitiesG for in a andonin! the search for a constantly accurate picture of ethno!raphic reality in the *yth, )e !ain, on occasions, a *eans of reachin! unconscious cate!ories. . viously, in so far as these are such 5unconscious cate!ories,5 the *yth )ould e docu*entary evidence of the*. But it is not the kind of evidence )e !enerally associate )ith the specifically social conditions & "00 & )hich sociolo!ists, anthropolo!ists or historians )ould interpret the *yth as reflectin!. (nd )hen he concludes 5that for these natives the only positive for* of e'istence is a negation o$ none1isten'e,5 it is not our pro le* no) to decide )hether or not )e a!ree )ith this state*ent of the case <if only ecause *y !reatly truncated report of ?VviA2traussFs characteristically in!enious speculations does not provide even re*otely enou!h infor*ation for us to take a stand on the issue=. >y purpose here is si*ply to

indicate that, to su* up the ulti*ate nature of the *yth alon! ?VviA2traussFs line, the kind of ter*s )e should need )ould not e anthropolo!ical, sociolo!ical, or historical, ut in ter*s of neoA8e!elian dialectic6a for*alistic description in itself as nonte*poral as the *ultiplication ta le. >y other introductory e'a*ple, a favorite )ith *e, is 0uripidesF tra!edy, or tra!ic la*entation, perhaps )hat (ristotle )ould have called a )atheti*@ <.oeti's, 'viii=: -he -ro:an Women# -o Iuote fro* the edition of -he +om)lete Gree* 3rama <edited y :hitney H. .ates and 0u!ene .F/eill, Hr., "%3;=: -he play, produced in the sprin! of $"7 BC, follo)ed closely upon the sie!e and capture of the island of >elos y the (thenians. +n a spirit of cold looded and rutal i*perialis*, (thens had taken the island, *assacred the adult *ale population, and sold the )o*en and children as slaves. >elosF only cri*e had een that she )ished to re*ain neutral. -he )hole episode is treated rilliantly y -hucydides, )ho is un*iti!ated in his conde*nation of the cri*e. +t is not surprisin!, therefore, that 0uripidesF illusion of a !reat and #ust de*ocratic (thens cru* led into nothin!. 0ven at the very *o*ent )hen the play appeared, the sa*e *ilitary faction )hich had deter*ined the action a!ainst >elos )as still in po)er and )as !atherin! its forces to e* ark upon the illAfated e'pedition a!ainst 2icily. +n one nota le respect, this state*ent of the editors is Iuite *isleadin!. -he play y 0uripides is ostensi ly concerned not )ith policies and incidents for )hich the )ar party of (thens at the ti*e of 0uripides )as responsi le, ut )ith rutalities suffered y )o*en victi*iBed in the -ro#an :ar that )as the su #ect of -he 8lia(# 8ere the pathos attains its hei!ht in episodes relatin! to the DreeksF hurlin! of the princely child (styana' to his death lest, if he survived, he *i!ht so*eday aven!e the sackin! of the city. -his is Iuite an i*portant point. 8ad 0uripides )ritten a tra!edy called -he /a'* o$ 2elos, there )ould have een a riot. +t )ould have polariBed the audience. But, as the story !ot told in his ter*s, *e* ers of the peace party and *e* ers of the )ar party could )eep in unison, & "0" & at the fiction of an analo!ous situation ascri ed to the epic <hence, *ystically idealiBed= past. +n fact, another play)ri!ht, )hose )ork is lost, did )rite a tra!edy that dealt e'plicitly )ith the su #ect of >elos, and he fell into considera le trou le for his pains. 8ere )e *i!ht cite an a*usin! contrast )ith 0uripidesF play <)hich, )hile usin! *ythic lore, )as professionally far fro* the kind of ra* lin! tri al *yth discussed y ?VviA2trauss=. +t is )orth noticin! ho) at the ti*e of the Cirst :orld :ar, one Broad)ay hack #o dealt )ith the suscepti ilities of audiences. +t )as a )ar play desi!ned for popular consu*ption in )arti*e. +t therefore used the *ost o vious kind of dra*atic personae6all the !ood !uys ein! on the side of the (llies, all the ad !uys on the side of the Central Po)ers. 8o)ever, the play )as supposedly )ritten y a 5neutral5 o server of the situation, na*ely a @ane. But the dra*a critic Deor!e Hean /athan discovered other)ise. (ctually, the play )as also runnin! in the theaters of the 5ene*y,5 the one *a#or difference ein! that the /e) Mork version had reversed the roles of !ood !uys and ad !uys. 2ince at that ti*e a favorite senti*ental son! )as Carrie Chap*an BondFs 5-he 0nd of a Perfect @ay,5 /athan entitled his article sprin!in! the ne)s a out this delicate tri ute to (*erican )arti*e sensi ilities 5-he 0nd of a Perfect @ane.5 (ll told, as vie)ed fro* the standpoint of our pro le*, )hat considerations do )e confront )hen co*parin! and contrastin! these t)o casesL -he Broad)ay play, like its ori!inal inverted counterpart, )as factional in the si*plest sense. -he conditions of nationalistic )ar readily provide a *arket for )orks that e* ody a crude antithesis et)een attitudes to)ards friends and ene*ies, an antithesis eIually e'e*plified in oth versions of the

play, despite the cynically disin!enuous feat of 5translation.5 But the play y 0uripides )as desi!ned to *eet a *uch *ore co*ple' challen!e. (s + )ould siBe up the dra*atur!ic tactfulness of )hat the editors call his 5tra!ic pa!eant,5 it )as concerned )ith su tleties of this sort: ". Classical Dreek tra!edy ein! a civic cere*ony, it )ould attain *a'i*u* cathartic effect to the e'tent that, )hatever the disputes that pla!ued the city, the audience <)hich )as co*posed of all 'on$li'ting 'lasses a*on! the citiBenry= could e infused )ith a unified attitude. -his )ould e the case if all *e* ers of the audience, despite the conflictin! interests in their daily & "02 & relationships )ith one another, could e rou!ht to )eep in unison at the pathos of an intensely dra*atic fiction. +n his personal role as a *e* er of the peace party, 0uripides had deeply felt the pathos of the indi!nities done to the s*all island of >elos y the cha*pions of (thenian de*ocratic i*perialis*. +t )as indeed a 5ti*ely topic,5 vi rant )ith opportunities for the pur!ative function of pity. (s + have e'plained else)here, + take it that the *ost cathartic pu lic relationship )ould e one of universal love. -o love everyone )ould e identical )ith ein! totally 5cleansed.5 8o)ever, such love )ould have to possess an intensity far !reater than )hat characteriBes a *erely philanthropic attitude of !ood)ill. + interpret an audienceFs sense of )ity as ein! on the slope of love, and thus the dra*atic response that co*es nearest to the intensity needed for catharsis. <+ncidentally, + also interpret it as a civic surro!ate for the pri*itive @ionysian or!y out of )hich the political nature of Dreek dra*a developed. ( )eepin! in unison )ould e the analo!ue of any se'ual pro*iscuity that *i!ht have een ritually associated )ith such rites. 8ere, adaptin! patterns of Creudian psycholo!y, + )ould interpret sy*pathetic )eepin! as a co**unal surro!ate for se'ual or!as*.= But such a 5ti*ely topic5 had to e treated via the 5pathos of distance.5 Cor as thus treated in 5*ythic5 ter*s of the -ro#an :ar <the DreeksF 5essential5 )ar, as esta lished y the traditional 8o*eric epic=, the su #ect could e presented in )ays )here y *e* ers of oth the peace party and the )ar party could )eep to!ether, re!ardless of their vie)s a out the dis!raceful ullyin! done y (thens upon little >elos, thanks to the (thenian de*ocratic i*perialists of the )ar party. <.ne should read -hucydides on the ensuin! ca*pai!ns in 2icily, to see )hat, ecause of the po)ers of the )ar party, )as to happen ne't in the history of (thenian de*ocratic i*perialis*.= -he *ost tellin! touch <and + elieve that thou!hts a out it rin! us close to a !eneratin! principle in the !reatness of Dreek tra!edy= is the dra*atur!ic device )here y the Dreek, )ho rin!s to the youn! princeFs *other the ne)s that her child is to e hurled to death fro* atop -royFs attle*ents, is hi*self unhappy a out the decision of )hich he is the herald. 0ssentially & "03 & the distinction + )ould rin! out is of this sort: +n the hack pattern, the dra*a )as si*ply a *atter of Us a!ainst -he*. +n the !rand tra!ic pattern of 0uripides, the partisan issue )as oth e'pressed and transcended. +ncidentally, + )ould analyBe the appeal of 2ophoclesF Antigone fro* the sa*e point of vie). 2ince Creon had relented, and retracted his harsh decrees, efore the ad ne)s e!an co*in! in, and since his decrees in the first place represented the #ud!*ents of an unfortunately *istaken, ut conscientious, ad*inistrator, )e feel sorry not only for (nti!one, ut also for hi*. 8e too has suffered !rievously for havin! started a seIuence of

2. 3.

$.

7.

events that he could not stop. -o e sure, a ti*ely topic lurks poi!nantly in the ack!round )ith re!ard to circu*stances that )e learn fro* -hucydides <)ho provides the docu*ents no)here to e found in 0uripidesF play, ostensi ly a out 5-roy5=. Met the ulti*ate *otivation involvin! the playFs appeal is !rounded not in local conditions ut in in!eniously diplo*atic dra*atur!y. +t is in its o)n )ay 5ti*eless,5 in the sense that such *odes of appeal )ill have their force so lon! as our )ays )ith sy* olAsyste*s persist6and + assu*e that they )ill persist as lon! as )e are physiolo!ically, hence 5*entally,5 the kind of ani*al )e have een ever since )e eca*e our kind of ani*al. 8o)ever, + a* not tryin! to *ake a special plea for Dreek tra!edy as 5eternal.5 + a* only tryin! to rin! out this ad*onitory proposition: -he study of literature as social docu*ent can lead to an overe*phasis upon *otives that are *erely local in so*e !iven historical periodG )hereas a literary )orkFs appeal does not depend upon *otivational in!redients that appear and disappear )ith the duration of that particular period. Cor instance, a )ork *ay possess, a*on! other thin!s, the appeal of unity, or internal consistency *ay e *ore e'actin! than in othersG its for*al appeal is not local in the sense that so*e particular doctrine or assu*ption *i!ht appeal in an era *arked y the he!e*ony of such a doctrine or assu*ption, itself havin! in effect the appeal local to so*e 5ti*ely topic5 at a ti*e )hen it )as ti*ely. .n the other hand, )e should devoutly su scri e to Benedetto CroceFs concept of )hat he calls a 5pali*psest5 <na*ely, places in a )ork that are *isread si*ply ecause readers )ho only kno) the te't *ay lack the historical kno)led!e needed to !rasp the full i*plication of so*e particular passa!e or style=. -hat consideration could in itself *erit *any pa!es of discussion. But for our purposes it is enou!h to & "0$ & think of places )here a critic assu*es that so*e particular )ord in an earlier )ork *eant )hat it *eans no) )hereas, had the critic ut consulted the history of the )ord as recorded in the O1$or( English 3i'tionary, he )ould kno) that a usa!e current in an earlier century )as involved. Met, alasQ even scholarly caution *ay not solve the case eyond all dou t6for the author *ay have een recollectin! a still earlier usa!e, or anticipatin! a later one.

'#A%IS) A+* '#A%I!$

.ur nature as the typically )ordAusin! ani*al *akes for a kind of dou lin!, )here y thin!s and situations do not see* )holly to e'ist for us until or unless )e have )ords for the*. -he cycle of the seasons *ust e *atched y a lore of the seasons, ran!in! fro* ancient *yths of sky!ods to strictly scientific descriptions and *easure*ents of cos*ic processes. 2prin! calls for a sprin!Ason!G *atin! attains sy* olic fulfill*ent in a loveAson!G *arria!e !ets its cere*ony. Cor our physical or *ental disco*forts )e ai* to list a syndro*e of sy*pto*s. (nd even death is not as co*plete as it could e unless it attains a cul*inative counterpart in so*e for*al leaveAtakin!, for )hich one sociolo!ist <-ho*as @. 0lliott= has proposed the so*e)hat unfeelin!, ut resonant, title 5,itual of ,iddance.5 -hou!h *any conte*porary )riters *ay Iuarrel )ith atte*pts *erely to repeat such traditional duplications, they are y no *eans re#ectin! the )rin'i)le# +ndeed, they are ut strivin! to carry on the sa*e process, e'cept under ne) conditions. +ndeed, their Iuarrels )ith )ords center in their efforts to *ake )ords serve etter than the traditional dou lin!s could as counterparts for e'perience as they kno) it no). :e thus confront the concept of 5conte't5 in t)o senses. -here is the strictly literary conte't, as )hen

an a!!rieved author co*plains that an opponent has *isrepresented hi* y Iuotin! a contested passa!e 5out of conte't.5 -here is also )hat the anthropolo!ist >alino)ski called 5conte't of situation,5 the lar!ely nonver al cluster of circu*stances out of )hich any strictly ver al conte't arises, and to )hich it is necessarily related in so*e )ay or other. 2o*eho), directly or indirectly, it 5reflects5 the historical conditions that prevailed at the ti*e of its creation. <+n this re!ard + )ould feel #ustified in e'a*inin! an historical novel, a*on! other thin!s, for traces of the circu*stances under )hich it )as )ritten.= (s for the title of this paper, + a* usin! the ter* 5realis*5 in a Iuite & "07 & loose sense, referrin! si*ply to the literary )ork considered as itself a conte't. >y use of the ter* 5 reality5 )ould, on the other hand, correspond to the 5conte't of situation5 out of )hich that purely literary conte't co*es to e. +n *y sense of the ter* 5realis*5 <as distin!uished fro* its application to a particular literary school, e it Clau ertFs kind of realis* or the kind that so*e authoritative officeholders )ould de*and of 5socialist realis*5=, even an outAandAout fantasy could e e'a*ined for its traces of realis*, insofar as its conte't ears upon 5 reality5 <its correspondin! 5conte't of situation5= in so*e )ay. -here y, insofar as it succeeds, it possesses a 5verisi*ilitude5 of so*e sort or other, even if the author, )hatever his intentions, is in effect 5realistically5 sayin!: 5+n *y depictions of J,ealityK +F* craBy.5 . viously, our specifications as to )hat is reIuired to *eet the tests of 5realis*5 are not overe'actin! as vie)ed in ter*s of the 5dou lin!5 + spoke of <the need of the sy* olAusin! ani*al to round thin!s out y translatin! its 5conte't of situation5 into sheer conte't=. By 5realis*5 is *eant )hatever sheerly sy* olic reality is desi!ned so*eho) or other to reflect, or refract, or duplicate the nonsy* olic reality out of )hich it so*eho) e*er!ed, )hether such conte't of situation is represented 5o #ectively5 or 5su #ectively.5 8ere )ould e a test case: -he i*itation of victi*iBation in a classical Dreek tra!edy )ould o viously e classified as 5realis*,5 thou!h its hi!hly ritualistic nature radically differentiates it fro* the realistic imitation of sufferin! in a play such as (rthur >illerFs 3eath o$ a /alesman# But victi*iBation in a ,o*an !ladiatorial arena )ould not e 5realis*.5 2uch a happenin! )as a direct &rutal $a't of 5reality5 itself. -o understand the purely sy* olic in!redient in that *otivational recipe, )e )ould have to concern ourselves )ith the nature of vicarious sacrifice in !eneral. Cor even those poor devils )ho )ere not #ust 5realistically5 ut really killed )ere also sy* olic victi*sG the ,o*an pu lic needed the*G the cry for read and circuses 5)anem et 'ir'enses7 )as not #ust local to the ti*es. +n principle <if in such *atters )e *ay speak of 5principle5= it is a universal cry6for tra!ically hi!h a*on! the resources of sy* ol syste*s is the principle of su stitution. .)in! to *y fi'ations a out the pro le*s of )hat + )ould call either 5 technolo!is*5 or the 5technolo!ical psychosis,5 + !ave *uch thou!ht in thinkin! of this su #ect to the fantasies of science fiction and )hat, as social docu*ents, they *i!ht tell future !enerations a out conditions no). 8o)ever, havin! in *ind that our i**ediate concern is )ith the understandin! & "03 & of culture as perceived via literary te'ts, + *ay tentatively list the follo)in!: ". -here is technolo!y as the *ad scientist. 2. -here is technolo!y as the eneficent *a!ician. + have also een tinkerin! around the ed!es of a third possi ility, na*ely, the use of science fiction as an opportunity for satire. 8ence, a ove all, )ith re!ard to the su #ect of *y atte*pt to uild a criticis*

of our conte*porary reality around a lo)ly kind of science fiction, a pro#ect for i*a!inin! a CultureA Bu le on the >oon, an in!enious technolo!ical reduplication of )hat )e have here on 0arth already, e'cept for technolo!yFs side effects, pollution N ut )hy try finishin! that sentenceL Basically, + have in *ind the thou!ht that, )hen *an no) looks in the *irror, he confronts as his counterpart the technolo!ical duplication of hi*self. 8e is y sheer definition the 5rational ani*al.5 -here can e nothin! *ore rational than a rationally desi!ned contrivance y )hich, if you put in the proper thin!s, you !et out e'actly )hat the *achine6 as uilt, in keepin! )ith the rationality )ith )hich you uilt it6)ill deliver accordin! to )hat you asked for. .nly hu*ans are 5rational5 enou!h to construct such perfectly rational replicas of i*ple*ented rationality as our *echanis*s are. +f the accu*ulated clutter of the* and their un)anted yAproducts <or 5side effects5= add up to a clutter of pro le*s that is not rational at all, that is #ust too ad. But in any case, )ith re!ard to literature as social docu*ent, in our day at least )e kno) for sure that all such fantasies testify to the conte*porary he!e*ony of technolo!ical i*ple*ents, )ith their correspondin! clutter and pro le*s. +n su*, + personally take it all to e sayin!: once hu*an rationality attains its ideal perfection in the accu*ulation of fantastically nu*erous *achines <each one of )hich is rationally desi!ned= y such sheer i*ple*entations of rationality6in their *ultitude and the ve'in! pro le*s due to the corruption caused y their un)anted yAproducts or side effects 6the i(eals of rationality, as e* odied in the products of applied science, are transfor*ed into a verita le traffic #a* of )ro&lems# >ankind is in trou le indeed )hen its est principle of !uidance, reason, eco*es so *a#or a source of social distur ance. But )hatever the realis* of science fiction *i!ht tell the future a out the nature of reality as we e'perience it, + a* puBBled ecause + cannot i*a!ine our a!reein! on & "04 & )hat the nature of reality no) actually is. -he only thin! )e can kno) for sure is that there are all kinds of reality no). + )onder )hether that is not al)ays the case. -he ulti*ate Iuestion )ould presu*a ly e: 5:hose kind of reality no) is the type truly representative of our ti*esL5 But let us turn to our *ain pro le*: /a*ely, a listin!, in oneAt)othree order, of so*e of the *a#or pro le*s )e confront in the atte*pt to use the realis*s of literary conte'ts as docu*entary insi!ht into the realities to e found in conte'ts of situation. Cirst, there is the deceptive tendency to overstress the sheer conte't of literary )ork, any for*al considerations ein! dis*issed as *ere 5for*alis*,5 as a purely literary *atter. -he tra!edy y (eschylus, .rometheus %oun(, provides an interestin! instance of this sort. 2helley )as an enthusiastic ad*irer of this play, )hich he took at face value, as the heroiciBin! of Pro*etheus, challen!e to Reus. But it )as the first of a trilo!y, and only a fe) scattered fra!*ents of the second and third plays survive. 8o)ever, in his ook Aes'hylus an( Athens, the British scholar and critic Deor!e -ho*son offers !ood !rounds to interpret the survivin! play not at its face value ut in the li!ht of its place in the trilo!y. :hen it is approached thus for*ally, he interprets this first play as the portrayal of e1'esses on the part of oth Pro*etheus and Reus, e'cesses that, y the end of the third play, had *ello)ed into *oderation. +n keepin! )ith this interpretation <)hich fits perfectly )ith the dra*atur!ic tactics of the Oresteia, the one (eschylus trilo!y that does survive= the furiously challen!in! heroics of the first play )ere, one *i!ht say, ein! put up to !et knocked do)nG ut 2helley idealistically took it all at face value. -here is thus a sense in )hich for*alist considerations *i!ht properly fi!ure, even )hen oneFs interests are )holly concerned )ith the interpretation of te'ts as social docu*ents. +t is a point that )ill turn up

)henever the de*ands of artistic effectiveness do not coincide )ith the de*ands of strictly literal factuality. +n particular, this is the case )ith re!ard to the Iuestion of )ro)ortion# +t is *uch easier to sho), y the e'a*ination of literary te'ts, that a certain *otive or situation )as present at a !iven ti*e than it is to specify the e'act proportion of that ele*ent in the cultural conte't of a situation as a )hole. Cor, o)in! to the entertain*ent value of saliency, literary )orks are desi!ned to spotli!ht their the*es. :hereas the needs of dra*a favor the choice and featurin! of characters that are in so*e nota le respects e'cessive, the dra*atist chan!es & "0; & this technical advanta!e into a kind of cautionary tale. 8e does so since the outco*e of the charactersF e'cesses can e interpreted as a *oral ad*onition a!ainst precisely those sa*e e'cesses )hich, like the villain in *elodra*a <or a !reat e'a*ple, +a!o in 2hakespeareFs Othello7, keep providin! the *otives that in turn !enerate the turns in the plot. +ronically enou!h, the entertain*ent value of ne)s <supposedly on the reality side of our pair= leads to a variant of this sa*e difficulty, )ith re!ard to the proportions of the in!redients in an a!eFs *otivational recipe. Cor the headline is the ne)s*anFs ideal. + *ade up this analo!y, thou!h + )ill not vouch for its authenticity as natural history: Hust as a )oodpecker, if he does not an! his head several hours a day, !ets a headache, so ne)s*en are only happy )hen reportin! disasters of one sort or another. 2ince our ideas of the )orld )e live in are for*ed to an over)hel*in! de!ree not y our i**ediate e'perience ut y the !reater clutter of infor*ation and *isinfor*ation )hich )e receive secondhand, )hat )e kno) directly6throu!h our i**ediate e'perience6is co*paratively *inute. -hus, all told, )hen usin! the fictions of realis* as evidence for the study of reality, )e are lia le to !et cau!ht in a kind of circularity. +t is so*e)hat si*ilar to intelli!ence tests. .ne *ay ar!ue )hether intelli!ence tests adeIuately score hu*an intelli!ence. But at least there is no denyin! that, y and lar!e, they adeIuately score peopleFs relative a ility to pass intelli!ence tests. +n the sa*e sense, thou!h one *ay ar!ue )hether stories that feature cri*e and violence attest to a correspondin! prevalence of cri*e and violence in hu*an relations, or )hether such fictions serve to sti*ulate *ore cri*e and violence, in any case, their sheer popularity is on its face evidence that there is a i! *arket for stories of cri*e and violence. -he entertain*ent value of ne)s is like the entertain*ent value of !ossip6and the kinds of topics )hich the ne)s features are likely to coincide so*e)hat )ith the kinds of !ossip )hich literature features, e'cept that literature can develop in detail a ran!e of porno!raphy that the ne)s can ut hint at. .n the other hand, the ne)s has one advanta!e )ith re!ard to the curative value of victi*iBation. Cor in literary realis*, the scape!oats )ho suffer on ehalf of our entertain*ent are ut fictive, )hereas the ne)s, like the ancient ,o*an !ladiatorial contests and the 2panish ullfi!ht, !ives us real victi*s. -elevision roadcasts of !ruelin! athletic events, particularly priBefi!hts, round thin!s out y havin! the reality of the occasion presented dra*atically as ne)s in the *akin!. (t this point an issue arises )hich + can ut *ention in passin!. Colerid!e & "0% & laid *uch stress upon a distinction et)een an 5i*itation5 and a 5copy.5 .nly an 5i*itation5 )ould *eet his reIuire*ents for an act of the poetic 5i*a!ination.5 ( 5copy5 )ould e as dead as the *ere )a')ork realistic representation of so*e historic fi!ure, clothed in a costu*e e'actly proper to the ti*es. -he *ore + ponder over that distinction, the *ore convinced + eco*e that the develop*ents of

photo!raphy since Colerid!eFs ti*e introduce the need for so*e such inter*ediate ter* as 5record,5 as )ith *odern 5docu*entaries.5 Cor instance, suppose + happened to have *y ca*era trained in e'actly the position to record a *urder that suddenly took place e'actly there. +f + sho)ed it to you, you )ould e )itnessin! a literal record of the occasion. .n the other hand, if + did not have such a record, ut a realistic picturiBin! of that event )ere called for in a fiction, to the est of *y a ility + )ould try to si*ulate the conditions in so lifelike a )ay that there )ould e no nota le difference et)een the docu*entary record and the artificially lifelike reenact*ent. (s a *atter of fact, if + kne) e'actly )here the event had taken place, and if the surroundin! scene )ere still in the sa*e condition as )hen the event did take place, + could co* ine an e'act docu*entary record of the scene )ith a si*ulated act that )ould look e'actly as it )ould have, had + actually photo!raphed the real thin!. :hen + )as youn!, if + had een a !ood oy for the )eek, + )as !iven *oney on 2aturday to attend a loodAandAthunder *elodra*a in a local runAdo)n theater. :hat !oreQ + still re*e* er to this day the la)less Biddle BoysF escape fro* prison, ho) they shot do)n a !uard, and ho) it took hi* at least five *inutes of a!oniBed oratin! efore he died. :hen the curtain for that act ca*e do)n, every ody )as so enthusiastic ecause he had died so )ell that )e de*anded that he take several curtain calls. (nd + still re*e* er ho) in -he +ount o$ 2onte +risto the enor*ous rocks of the dun!eon s)ayed, to an offAsta!e reeBe that )as not called for in the script. ,ealis*, you sayL Mes, ut realis* )ith a difference. /ot the realis* of the record6so docu*entarily e'act that you are )itnessin! so*ethin! no different as a si*ulation fro* )hat it )ould e as the real thin!. People #ustify our fil*ed representation of violence on the !rounds that so *any of 2hakespeareFs plays are rife )ith violence. /o *ention is *ade of the difference that the violence there is e* edded in !reat poetry, )hereas the *odern fil*ed versions of such violence are !iven in lifelike versions )holly devoid of poetry, and )ithout its stylistic artifices. /o), everythin! is done y *achinery. + a* not sure #ust ho) to & ""0 & !au!e such thin!s. But is it not possi le that there is a funda*ental difference of so*e sort et)een realis* of poetic i*itation and realis* of the recordL +n any case, )hen tryin! to discern the reality that is e'plicitly or i*plicitly represented y literatureFs various rands of realis*, )e have one *a#or, purely literary, concern to deal )ith, na*ely, literary )orks are not desi!ned for purely docu*entary purposes. -heir pri*ary source of appeal is not truth ut verisi*ilitude. -he *ere fact that so*ethin! actually happened is no assurance that the reader )ill !o alon! )ith your use of it in a fiction, ho)ever accurate the details. Met sheer fantasies can so*eho) 5rin! true,5 thou!h the story never actually happened, and never )ill happen. -hus, efore )e even e!in, )e can kno) that our enterprise is to e co*plicated y a ter*inistic situation of this sort: 2o*ethin! *ay e there ecause it is 5true5 of the situation. +t *ay e there ecause, althou!h not true, it see*s true. +t *ay e there pri*arily ecause it elon!s to the particular literary tradition of )hich it is a part, and that is the sort of thin! its pu lic e'pects. 0ven if so*ethin! is not o viously there, it *ay e i*plicitly there, !iven the particular ter*inistic screen, or perspective, you )ould e*ploy )hen tryin! to see )hat it is doin!. ( related thou!ht is that a !iven )ork *ay e representative not of thin!s as they prevalently )ere at the ti*e, ut of an emergent develop*ent. 8ence, at the ti*e it could have een at *ost representative of a *inority consciousness or situation. (lso, for findin! the nature of our ti*es variously anticipated in earlier ti*es, the resources of analo!y

are ever present. -he tre*endous a*ount of or!aniBation in a :a!nerian opera, for instance, )hen at fortissi*o *o*ents it lares and lasts and pounds as on a attlefield in o edience to the co**ands of an authoritarian 5leader,5 is enou!h in itself to !ive *e the feel at ti*es that the 8itlerite %lit?*rieg )as ut the transference of the sa*e po)ers fro* one set of ter*s to another <a feelin! )hich 8itler hi*self see*s to have shared=. (nother difficulty )ith re!ard to literature as docu*ent involves the nostal!ic ele*ent in artFs appeal. -hus, there is still Iuite a pu lic for :esterns in the United 2tates. But no *atter ho) accurate the details of the fictive scenes <and in the *ovies the scenes shot 5on location5 can have the factual accuracy of photo!raphic records=, the true 'ultural reality to )hich they ear )itness is their te*pera*ental appeal to readers )hose actual )ay of life is )holly different. -hat is the idealiBed nostal!ic motive now they im)li'itly represent, )hile at their face value they & """ & tell us of a fictive past, the drea* of )hich is in so*e )ay or other *edicinal for their pu lic no). +n rief, the 5realis*5 of nostal!ic literature, in its nature as docu*ent, *ay e e'plicitly referrin! to a 5reality5 )hich is no) a lie. But if )e could di! deeply enou!h, ein! al)ays on the lookAout to 5discount5 any sheer surface <and particularly if )e had e'traneous historical *aterial to aid us in the task= )e *i!ht e a le to crack the code that reveals the docu*entary aspect of this literature. + pause, in passin!, to stress the thou!ht of the aid that historical infor*ation *i!ht contri ute to the docu*entary use of specifically literary )orks6for )hen oth literary and nonliterary kinds of *aterials are availa le, the ideal practice )ould e to )ork )ith oth. But + e'pect that + shall al)ays keep runnin! across variants of the sa*e pro le* if our speculations are confined to literary conte'ts alone, and if )e try to derive fro* the* alone our docu*ents attestin! to conte'ts of situation. -he )ork, vie)ed at its face value, *ay e ut docu*entary evidence that such )ork )as produced <or that a ody of such )ork )as produced at that ti*e6if )e *i!ht consider the 8o*eric poe*s, for instance, as a ody of )ork, for presu*a ly they portrayed not their ti*es, ut the *ythically idealiBed version of a prior ti*e=. Cor )here nostal!ic literature is concerned, the )ork *ay e, not a portrait of the ti*es in )hich it )as produced, ut co*pensatory or antithetic to its actual conte't of situation. .r there arises a related consideration: -he )ork *ay e a portrait of its author, ut the author hi*self *ay not have een representative of his period. -he ve'in! consideration in this case is that, )ithout adeIuate io!raphical data, )e *i!ht not e a le to #ud!e )hether the )ork should e taken as consistent )ith the authorFs te*pera*ent or as antithetical to it. -he philosopher Deor!e 2antayana *ade an ironic o servation a out :alt :hit*an re!ardin! )hat )e *i!ht call the a* i!uities of datin! a *otive. :hit*anFs pro*issory idealiBin! of the future )as constructed around a si*ple sche*e )here y his (*erica )as at the turnin!Apoint et)een the dyin! of feudalis* <)ith all its faults= and the !ro)in! pro*issory triu*ph of de*ocracy. But seiBin! on the fact that :hit*an sa) in the )ays of the pioneer the very essence of the ne) era, 2antayana pointed out that the very settlin! of the nation )ould *ark the end of pioneerin!6and it )ould follo) that :hit*anFs o)n pro*ise of the future )as itself in effect a kind of idealiBed nostal!ia. -here is also the fact that :hit*anFs ideas of de*ocratic rotherhood contained personal 5nonpolitical5 connotations of *anAlove, a source of e* arrass*ent to & ""2 &

so*e, includin! hi*self, and a cause of !reat encoura!e*ent a*on! others of his follo)ers. <(s a *atter of fact, in order to ease his e* arrass*ent, he invented the fiction of si' ille!iti*ate children.= -he political aspects of his de*ocratic !ospel, it see*s to *e, a*ounted to the cele ratin! of such a lifestyle as )as *ade possi le y the kind of *anufactured co**odities that one )ould find listed in a *ailAorder catalo!ue for s*all far*s and on sale in the !eneral stores of to)ns on the *ake. -he ele*ent of e'pansionist hopefulness derived fro* the effects of the frontier. :hite i**i!rants fro* 0urope and their descendants already in (*erica could introduce a )ay of life that )ould !radually take fro* the natives their traditional *eans of livelihood, resettlin! the land in keepin! )ith the ne) technolo!y and its correspondin! s*allAscale capitalis* <s*allAscale certainly as co*pared )ith the kinds of or!aniBations )e confront no), such as *ultinational corporations and national con!lo*erates, or a *i'ture of the t)o=. +t is o vious that such an interpretation of :hit*anFs literary )ork, considered as social docu*ent, )ould o)e *uch to sheerly historical data and theory. Met poe*s such as 52on! of the BroadA('e,5 52on! of the 0'position,5 52on! of the ,ed)oodA-ree,5 5( 2on! for .ccupations,5 and 5PioneersQ . PioneersQ5 clearly ear )itness not only to such a situation, ut also, as the historical docu*ents the*selves could not, uild up the $eel of such ti*es. +n a sense they 5spiritualiBe5 the *aterial conditions of their ti*e, )ith such accents of cele ration and Utopian pro*ise as could readily !o )ith thou!hts of a continent rich in resources to e e'ploited. :hit*anFs !reat stress upon invitation to forei!n freedo*Aseekin! i**i!rants al*ost auto*atically deflected hi* fro* thinkin! of such *ove*ents as an invasion <the vie) necessarily forced upon the natives y the fact that the settlers not only rou!ht a ne) )ay of life, ut y the sa*e token, as + have said, took fro* the +ndian a ori!ines their traditional *eans of livelihood=. 2urely the *ost trou leso*e pro le* in tryin! to use literature as social docu*ent concerns the pro le* of 5proportion.5 :henever + think of this issue + recall a re*ark y a deceased friend and poet, an odd fello), Hohn Brooks :heel)ri!ht, concernin! the nature of ideas. 8e said that )ith people )ho do not have *any ideas, an idea can e like the introduction of ra its into (ustralia. 2ince it has no natural ene*ies, soon it is nearly every)here. +n evaluatin! traces of a *otive, )e *ust also ask of )hat cluster it is a part, since its effect is reinforced or constrained y the presence or a sence and co*parative intensity of other *otives. -hat & ""3 & is to say, a *otive is ut one in!redient of a *otivational recipe. -he other in!redients *ay *odify its i*plications. Consider, for e'a*ple, a )ork such as @anteFs 3ivine +ome(y# :ould it not represent a nota ly different cultural co*ple' if there )ere ut the 8n$erno, the appeal to fear and ven!eance y accounts of eternal sufferin! )ithout hope, as contrasted )ith the pity the*e in the .urgatorio, and the the*e of lessedness in the .ara(iso< .ne pro le* of proportion )ith re!ard to the nature of our society has to do )ith the disparity et)een our po)ers as physical or!anis*s and our po)ers as *a!nified y the resources, oth technical and or!aniBational, of applied science. -he horrors of an (usch)itB derive fro* a fe) instructions !iven y authorities )ho never )ent near the place. (n over)hel*in! a*ount of the da*a!e done y our in!enious, spendthrift, *odern )eaponry in 9ietna* )as *ade possi le y hu* le, orderly, o edient, peacefully ehavin! #o holders, )ho raise their fa*ilies in the Iuiet su ur s, and perhaps do not even spank their children. .ne o* dropped, y the *erest t)itch of a fin!er, upon a tar!et so far elo) as to e unseen, can, )ithout the sli!htest physical effort, do *ore da*a!e than could have een done y a )hole ra!in! hoard of Den!his KhanFs invaders e'ertin! the*selves like craBy. +n such dissociation

)hich, !iven the current state of technolo!ical develop*ent, is all a out us, there is a kind of uiltAin schiBophrenia. +ts disorders also fo*ent !uerrilla *ove*ents, and + suspect sheer ai*less vandalis* a*on! puBBled, spirited youths )hose ener!ies )ould other)ise e une*ployed. +f there survive in later ti*es a people )ho care a out such a *atter or have the *aterial to inIuire into it even if they )ould, let us hope that they can interpret the literature as docu*ents )ith *ore assurance than + can no). (ll + can see, all a out *e, are the ever *ountin! pro le*s of technolo!y and the correspondin! need for so*e kind of 5!lo al5 order, the nearest approaches to )hich at present are *ade y the hi!hly pro le*atic *ultinational corporations. .ur history tells us Iuite a it a out such situations. + a* not )holly sure to )hat e'tent, and y )hat e'plicit or i*plicit routes, our literature is tellin! us the sa*e, or so*ethin! else. -he pro le*s of proportion, as co*plicated y the resources of analo!y, are to e seen fro* another an!le in the case of psycholo!ists )ho discern the linea*ents of cruelty <or ver al sadis*= underlyin! the in!enious distortions in such fantasies as Ali'e in Won(erlan( and -hrough the ,oo*ing Glass# Met the nearest )e co*e to anythin! even re*otely violent in the authorFs actual life )as in the occasional use of & ""$ & his devices as a )ay of teasin!, even to the e'tent of ve'ation, the little !irl )ho* he tried to char*, in as re*ote and recondite and retirin! a kind of courtship as is conceiva le. Possi ly the i*plicit *otivational tan!le *anifests itself y another route in his tendencies to sta**er6 and also !lancin!ly in the fact that, althou!h the pseudony*ous authorship of this *athe*aticianFs 5(lice5 ooks )as )ell kno)n, 5?e)is Carroll5 invaria ly insisted that 5>r. @od!son neither clai*ed nor ac kno)led!ed any connection )ith the ooks not pu lished under his na*e.5 <+ Iuote fro* the En'y'lo)ae(ia %ritanni'a.= (t this point + a* !oin! to risk so*e para!raphs )hich are, + fear, not a little un)ieldy. + offer the* as ut a first rou!h appro'i*ation. -he sa'ri$i'ial *otive can attain dra*atic co*pletion in ideas and i*a!es of the *ill# 8e*in!)ay e'ploited the *ill end of that spectru*. .rthodo' reli!ion stresses the sa'ri$i'ial# /ietBscheFs criticis* of *orals rou!ht out the deviousness )here y ven!eance can e *anifested in the na*e of #ustice, an accountancy that @anteFs rationale of the 8n$erno e*ploys in its )ay. +t is in keepin! )ith the thou!ht that, since Dod is #ust, he )ill sentence to the eternal tortures of da*nation only those )ho deserve such punish*entG since they are receivin! the punish*ent they deserve, they deserve no pity. -hus, /ietBsche Iuotes fro* the -ho*ist /umma -heologi'a: 5(nd the lessed in 8eaven shall look upon the sufferin!s of the da*ned, that they *ay love their lessedness the *ore.5 +n -he 2er'hant o$ Deni'e, 2hakespeare )orks poi!nantly )ith the a* i!uities of #ustice and reven!e, )hen Portia a ides so strictly y the letter of 2hylockFs ond that his cry for #ustice is turned a!ainst hi*. Construction involves destruction. +n the sense that the uildin! of any order involves the undoin! of so*e previous order, and even a *ar le used for sculpture *ust e deprived of the for* it had in nature, dialectically these t)o opposin! ter*s 5construction5 and 5destruction5 are so interrelated that )e *i!ht e'plicitly feature ut one, and leave the other to e only i*plied. Creud )ould say in effect that the stress upon the constructive *e* er of the pair involves a 5su li*ation5 of the 5a!!ressively5 destructive. +n the >arch "%47 issue of .olish .ers)e'tives, a *onthly *a!aBine that + follo) )ith !reat interest, there is an essay on a conte*porary Polish author, director, and desi!ner, HoBef 2Ba#na, )hose concerns see* to ear Iuite radically upon these *otivational puBBles. :e are told:

-he )hole of his )ork is very *uch of a piece in style, the sa*e the*es and o sessions recurrin! co*pulsively. -he *ost po)erful of these o sessions is the horror of the concentration ca*p )hich 2Ba#na e'perienced at first & ""7 & hand. (s a "4AyearAold he passed throu!h the inferno of (usch)itB, ein! saved only y chance fro* a !roup of prisoners ein! taken to their death. (usch)itB has left its i*print on his )hole life and )ork. +n his productions it has !ro)n into a para le of *odern ti*es: the apocalypse of civiliBation, chaos, cleava!e and terror. +n it he searches for truth, hope and faith in *an. +n the article there are t)o places that particularly en!ross *e )ith re!ard to the tan!le + a* no) confrontin!. :ith reference to his !ri* dra*a 4e)li*a, uilt around the the*e of the (usch)itB horrors, it is said of the title that it has t)o *eanin!s: 5 J,e#oinderK6the ans)er of an artist )ho suffered this hell hi*self6and JduplicateK6a reproduction of that )orld of e'ter*ination, artFs renderin! of #ustice to the victi*s and e'ecutioners. +t is a reIuie*6of apotheosis for the one and ra!e for the other.5 -he second passa!e + )ould cite is: 2Ba#naFs supre*e acco*plish*ent so far is 3ante# 8ere he set out to Iuarry fro* -he 3ivine +ome(y all that is of conte*porary relevance, to uild a rid!e6as re!ards style as )ell as content6 et)een a *edieval *asterpiece and the present day. +n a dra*atic pictorial vision, in a frenBy of i*a!es of verita ly infernal e'pression, he sho)s us a true theatre of cruelty, a )orld )hich has een turned into a hell, a *an )ho has descended into the pit, )ho is torn et)een cri*e and sanctity, et)een a!ony and #oy, et)een the )ill to create and to destroy. -he play)ri!htFs testi*ony in 4e)li*a see*s to involve the authorFs co*pulsive need to find a sy* olic duplication of his intensely trau*atic e'perience as a youth alon! )ith a sy* olic ri!htin! of the alance sheet in ter*s of #ustice, so*e co*pensatory, so*e retaliatory. +n the 3ante, the state of ein! 5torn5 et)een creative and destructive *otives see*s to derive its !eneratin! tension fro* )ays of dra*atiBin! in this )ay the interrelationship et)een these contrastin! *otivational slopes. -he *o*ent of confusion et)een the t)o, therefore, is itself *ade the e'plicit )ersonali?e( center of )hat *i!ht e other)ise ut an i*personally conceived inter*ediate *o*ent in a dialectical desi!n. :hat + )as tryin! to su!!est, in those un)ieldy para!raphs, )as the sheerly ter*inistic pro le* involved in the thou!ht that the i*plications of a *otive <and thus one *i!ht even say the nature of a *otive= )ill vary )ith the )ider *otivational co*ple' of )hich it is a part. -hinkin! alon! these lines, + have noted that there is no violence in Caulkner, there are no ullfi!hts in 8e*in!)ay. .r an eIually availa le *ode of e'pression )ould e to say, for instance, that the sa*e intensity of 5a!!ression5 is needed to concentrate on a poe* in praise of peace as on a poe* in praise & ""3 & of )ar, or in actual pacific and *ilitaristic enterprises <5 reality5 itself=. -here is also the trou leso*e fact that a perspective dealin! )ith the *otivational i*plications of a literary )ork necessarily involves the i*plicit or e'plicit choice of a ter*inistic screen. -hat in turn involves its o)n peculiar assu*ptions a out the e'traliterary *otivational 5 reality5 that is the )orkFs 5conte't of situation 5either in ter*s of road historical trends or in io!raphical, psycholo!ical, personalistic ter*s for the characteriBin! of authorship as *a#or causal factor. :e can avoid these pro le*s so*e)hat y uildin! *ethodically around the fact that every literary )ork has its o)n set of 5eIuations,5 its e'plicit and/or i*plicit )ays of sayin! )hat eIuals )hat. .ne

can esta lish these y direct reference to the )ork itself. But even so there is Iuite a ran!e to choose fro*. Cor instance, >ar'ists could deli!ht in BalBacFs novelistically realistic depictions of capitalist 5 reality,5 despite his ,oyalist leanin!s. (nd )e often hear tell of ho) heroic the 2atan of .ara(ise ,ost eca*e. .r the te't itself sho)s us ho) a )ork that started out to satiriBe @on Sui'ote could end as an idealiBation of the *otivational principles i*plied in his nature as a person. But y and lar!e, there is an ulti*ate pro le*: +s it not true that a )ork tries to e as thorou!hly or 5efficiently5 itself as possi leL Cor over half a century, havin! in *ind >atthe) (rnoldFs plea for literature that )ould 5see life steadily and see it )hole,5 + have een )onderin! )hether, !iven the conditions of co*petition as )e kno) it, a )ork of literature can possi ly !ain the attention of the *arket unless it can so*eho) see life unsteadily and in a partial )ay saliently its o)n, thou!h fads *ay e such that )hole herds of artists *ay s)erve in that direction for a ti*e. >odern conditions of production are necessarily unsta le in response to the insta ility due to the still hi!hly partitive and innovative nature of *odern technolo!ical e'pansion and inventiveness. Under these circu*stances, perhaps the nearest )e can co*e to sta ility and )holeness is in historical, io!raphical, and critical 5surveys5 of the literary field. Met eyond all Iuestion, )ithin that considera le clutter, our literature is already tellin! us *ore than the fact that )e are in such a clutter. (lready the future is ein! incipiently sy* oliBed6if )e ut kne) for sure ho) to interpret it as social docu*ent, re!ardin! conditions no), the nostal!ically idealiBed past, the )illin!ly superseded past, and the feared or hoped for future. But a ove all <and here is ho) literature no) *ay co*e closest to 5seein! life steadily and seein! it )hole5=, i*plicit in all literature & ""4 & are the traces of )hat it al)ays has een and al)ays )ill e to e the kind of ani*al )e shall al)ays e prone to ein!, so lon! as our physiolo!y and correspondin! )ays )ith sy* olAsyste*s re*ain a constant. +n the enterprises that have to do )ith tryin! to spy upon ourselves throu!h the *ediu* of our literature, each of us *ust e at least t)o peopleG one a tentative eliever in our speculations, the other an al*ost total skeptic. 2o )e !o on. (t least )e can kno) for sure that literature is vatic, that it is, ho)ever rounda out, al)ays in fictive )ays tellin! us the truth a out ourselves, if )e ut kne) all it is sayin! a out the relation et)een realis* and reality. Diven the opportunity, unless )e o literate ourselves, )e shall continue to ponder on such *atters. :e shall do so not only )ith fear and tre* lin! at the thou!ht of our *any errors <the lia ility to )hich the !reat resources of *odern technolo!y drastically intensify=, ut also )ith pious ad*iration for the lore of *anFs collective !reatness, as *ade possi le y his aptitude for sy* olsyste*s. :hat *ore hu*ane an evidence can )e have of such an aptitude than the )orks, even the lo)liest, of our literatureL -hat )ould e an advisa le place to end, ut perhaps it )ould e est, for purposes of clarity, to su* up y revie)in! *y *ain points, )ith re!ard to the use of literature as social docu*ent: ". ( !iven )ork *ay e consistent )ith the authorFs character or antithetical to it. Cor instance, + kno) an author )ho specialiBes in !ore, yet personally )inces at the thou!ht that any person, or any ani*al, should suffer. 2. 0ven if a )ork does !ive a fairly consistent portrait of an author, the author *ay not e representative of his ti*es. 3. :orks *ay represent not their ti*es, ut the idealistically nostal!ic. $. :orks *ay represent not the typical conditions of their ti*es ut the e*er!ent aspect of later

ti*es. 7. -here are risks of too te*poral an interpretation, since )orks dra) on universal *otives too. 3. -he latitudinal nature of analo!y *akes it possi le to *ake Iuite different ti*es see* alike, since analo!y can feature so*e one ele*ent they have in co**on. 4. ( )ork chan!es its appearance in response to the particular perspective, or fra*e of reference, in ter*s of )hich one vie)s it. & ""; & ;. -he ne!lect of for*al considerations can lead to false interpretations. %. -hou!h the realis* of literature does !ive us the $eel of reality, as nonliterary docu*ents cannot, it can provide no assurance that the verisimilitu(e of a fiction is the sa*e as the truth# "0.-his last point leads into the *ost i*portant and *ost elusive pro le*s of all: the e'tent to )hich a !iven )ork adeIuately represents the )ro)ortion of a !iven *otive, as *odified y the )ro)ortions of other reinforcin! or corrective *otives in the 'onte1t o$ situation ehind the )orkFs literary 'onte1t# /ot only is this the *ost i*portant pro le* in our atte*pt to !o fro* the )orkFs realis* to its correspondin! reality, ut the very nature of literature as a id for the readersF attention invites kinds of e*phasis that are analo!ous to the function of headlines in the ne)s. -hus, even a )ork that *ana!ed to *eet >atthe) (rnoldFs specification co*pletely, to 5see life steadily and see it )hole,5 )ould ut e one *ore fiction, *ore representative of itself as a literary triu*ph than of the overall situation out of )hich it arose.

notes
-his essay ori!inally appeared in Asian an( Western Writers in 3ialogue: New +ultural 8(entities, ed. Duy (*irthana!a* <?ondon: >ac*illan, "%;2=, 23E$4. ,eproduced )ith per*ission of Pal!rave. & ""% &

/. %ogology
& "2" &

6. Arc3ety?e and #ntelec3y

19 /
-his essay is the second of t)o lectures delivered y Kenneth Burke at Clark University in "%4" as the 8einB :arner lecturer. 0ntelechy is an old friend in Burke, !oin! ack, as it does, to the early fifties and his )ork on the dra*atistic poetics and the ori!inal 2y* olic of >otives. Burke orro)ed the ter* fro* (ristotle and *odified it to apply to literary te'ts, especially tra!edy. ?ater, he e'panded its application so that it applied to all sy* olic action and eca*e one of the pri*e functions of lan!ua!e and central concepts of lo!olo!y. ?an!ua!e, or, perhaps, #ust the hu*an *ind, seeks perfection, is co*pelled to !o to the

5end of the line5 in its *any endeavors. Burke calls this the 5entelechial *otive5 and studies it in te't after te't. .ne of the *ain ar!u*ents of his dra*atistic poetics is that literature !oes to the 5end of the line5 *ore often than other kinds of ver al acts and hence is a valua le source of kno)led!e for the study of hu*ans, the sy* olAusin! ani*als. -he *ain ar!u*ent of this essay is that archetypes are !enetic and hence ahistorical. -hey occur over and over a!ain every)here in the hu*an )orld )ithout any evidence any)here that they have een trans*itted fro* one culture to another. But entelechy, or the entelechial *otive, is a function of lan!ua!e and is rooted in history, in a ver al action y a hu*an a!ent in a specific sociopolitical scene. -he entelechial *otive is one of the *ost purely hu*an *otives in Burke. +n his definition of *an, Burke says that )e hu*ans are 5rotten )ith perfection.5 +t is lan!ua!e6sy* olic action6that *akes this *otive availa le to us ecause the hu*an *ind and i*a!ination can freely e'plore possi ilities in the ver al real* that are i*possi le to e'plore in the physical real*. -his is also true of other for*s of sy* olic activity6paintin!, fil*s, *usic, sculpture, -9, dra*a6 in )hich reality is transfor*ed into art to create so*ethin! that never )as, )hich is free of the constraints of rute reality6the la)s of physics, of *atter, of the ti*eAspace continuu*. -o put it differently, lan!ua!e is an archetype that *akes entelechy possi le. :e do not kno) )hether lan!ua!e developed si*ultaneously in different parts of the !lo e or )hether once developed, it )as al)ays trans*itted and *odified as hu*ans coloniBed the !lo e. :hat )e do kno), and )hat Burke *akes a i! point of stressin!, is that all nor*al hu*ans are orn )ith the capacity to learn a lan!ua!e and do learn the lan!ua!e of their tri e in a fa ulous feat of *e*ory, )hich is even *ore fa ulous if they also learn readin! and )ritin!. .nce hu*ans have lan!ua!e they have entelechy and )hat !oes )ith it as part of their inheritance. -his !er*inal, se*inal essay provides Burke )ith *any of the key ter*s and concepts that *ake up his final, lo!olo!ical ody of )ork. & "22 & -he previous talk atte*pted to survey so*e aspects of *y 5dra*atistic5 perspective in !eneral, the particular selection ein! intended to serve as introduction to a Iuite different kind of su**ariBation, in the sense that oth 5archetype5 and 5entelechy5 in the*selves desi!nate su**ariBin! principles.O"P -he lo!ic <or lo!olo!ic= underlyin! the first talk )as this: /o*enclatures are for*ative, or creative, in the sense that they affect the nature of our o servations, y turnin! our attention in this direction rather than that, and y havin! i*plicit in the* )ays of dividin! up a field of inIuiry. +n this respect, one can in effect 5prophesy after the event5 y 5!eneratin!5 the nature of the o servations fro* the nature of the ter*s y )hich those o servations )ere !uided. .n the assu*ption that (ristotleFs no*enclature is hi!hly dra*atistic in its essence, there )as an earlier draft of the first talk )hich eca*e overly involved in the *inutiae of a dra*atistic atte*pt to 5!enerate5 the no*enclature of (ristotleFs .oeti's# 2o + e'cised a lot, thou!h leavin! enou!h <letFs hope= to at least illustrate the proposition that, ho)ever e*pirical (ristotleFs study of literary speci*ens had een, his no*enclature had eIuipped hi* in advance to 5*eet the* half)ay56and in this sense the nature of his o servations could in effect e (e(u'e( fro* the i*plications of his dra*atistic ter*inolo!y in !eneral. But, as dra*atistic as (ristotleFs no*enclature is, it doesnFt e'haust the field <surely no hu*an perspective ever )illQ=. 2u!!estions fro* such varied sources as /ietBsche, >ar', Creud, and a ook y

the anthropolo!ist Deor!e -ho*son, thro)in! further li!ht on the concept of 5catharsis,5 added unruly considerations that involve ulti*ately the distinction et)een 5 ody5 and 5*ind5 <or rather, in the dra*atistic analo!ue, the real*s of sheer physical motion and sy* olic a'tion=. -hen follo)ed a survey of so*e *ethodolo!ical state*ents that + vie) as asic to the study of a te't. (nd this su**ariBation led to the thou!ht, alon! so*e)hat 2pinoBistic lines, that one could assu*e a solute deter*inis* in the real* of physical or iolo!ical *otion, )hile lookin! for the !round of 5freedo*5 in the real* of 5sy* olic action.5O2P + *i!ht revert to one other point as re!ards the first talk, and develop it a it further. :e had considered the 5autono*y5 of the specialiBed sciences. :hat, then, of the 5 interdisciplinary5L (t a ti*e )hen + happened to e )orkin! on precisely that su #ect, + attended a conference at )hich one speaker proposed that a certain kind of *aterial should e & "23 & treated y co* inin! insi!hts derived fro* the sciences of anthropolo!y, psycholo!y, and sociolo!y. But )hich anthropolo!y, )hich psycholo!y, )hich sociolo!yL Cor instance, the speaker reco**ended orro)in!s fro* Creud and Hun!, as thou!h they )ere Iuite the sa*e thin!, and )ithout reference to the fact that often you )ould have to choose et)een the*. 2ince each of these three special sciences is *arked y *uch internal controversy a*on! specialists )ithin that field, on )hat metho(ologi'al !rounds can so*eone outsi(e any such particular field #ustify his choice a*on! rival e'perts within the fieldL Usually, the pro le* is 5solved5 y not even ein! considered. Mou pick fro* different fields ite*s that you like, as thou!h interdisciplinary decisions )ere not *uch different fro* shoppin! at a depart*ent store6and thatFs a out )hat it a*ounts to, so far as the metho(ology of your choice is concerned. + say this Iuite tentatively, ut here is the only *ethodolo!ical approach that a dra*atistic perspective <)ith its stron!ly lo!olo!ical e*phasis= )ould dee* possi le, )hen confrontin! this pro le* of the interdisciplinary: .ne thin! co**on to all the specialiBed sciences is the fact that each specialist uses so*e kind of ter*inolo!y. +f, then, you specifically su scri e to so*e one overall no*enclature, or theory of ter*inolo!y in !eneral, any choice you *ake fro* a*on! co*petin! specialists outside your field can e metho(ologi'ally #ustified in ter*s of your particular overall ter*inistic perspective. -rue, an opponent *ay not su scri e to the particular *odel in ter*s of )hich the !iven decision is rationaliBed. But at least, specific *ethodolo!ical !rounds for that decision have een offered. (nd if he )ould re#ect it y proper *ethodolo!ical procedure, then let hi* propound or su scri e to so*e other perspective, and #ustify his decision in ter*s of that. .nly thus, so far as + can see, is it possi le to #ustify one interdisciplinary co* ination rather than another on a *ethodolo!ical asis. .n the other hand, as re!ards the 5!eneratin!5 of a choice, if one does have an overall no*enclature, and if one #ustifies pickin! a certain aspect of Creud rather than Hun!, or vice versa, the choice is in effect as thou!h oneFs particular perspective had 5!enerated5 that o servation )hich one actually o)es to so*eone else, ut )hich in )rin'i)le is 5derived5 fro* the perspective on the !rounds of )hich the orro)in! took place. -he thou!ht *ay help clarify )hat + *ean y the selfAappointed task of prophesyin! after the event,5 or in principle 5!eneratin!5 a te't, as )ith *y article 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis5 <reprinted in -he & 1E" F

4hetori' o$ 4eligion O"%3"P=, )here in effect + 5derive5 the te't dra*atistically fro* a 5Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of J.rder.K 5 -hese )ere afterthou!hts concerned )ith the previous talk. But letFs turn no) to the topic scheduled for this evenin!, 5(rchetype and 0ntelechy.5 Hu*pin! into the very *iddle of the issue, let us consider the *atter of the 5entelechy5 )ith reference to the 5archetype5 or 5prototype5 of the 5pri*al cri*e5 )hich Creud associates )ith his concept of the .edipus co*ple'. ,ecall in the .oeti's the passa!e )here (ristotle is discussin! the kinds of situation est suited to serve as a the*e for tra!edy. -he tra!ic cala*ity, he says, should involve conflicts a*on! inti*ates. Cor instance, 5:hen rother kills rother, or a son kills his father, or a *other her son, or a son his *other 6either kills, or intends to kill.5 +t is hard to find an e'act translation of the )ord + have translated as 5inti*ates.5 ButcherFs version is 5so*eone near and dear.5 -he ?oe edition uses 5friends.5 -he )ord is ety*olo!ically of the sa*e root as the )ord for 5love5 in the 4hetori', thou!h all the e'a*ples there !iven happen to concern inti*acy a*on! *ales. ,e!retta ly, Creud never <to *y kno)led!e= co**ented on the passa!e + have Iuoted )ith re!ard to (ristotleFs variations on the the*e of tra!ic killin!. (lso, )ith relation to the !reat e*phasis Creud placed upon one of (ristotleFs situations <in )hich son kills father=, it is interestin! to note that (ristotle o*itted fro* his list the the*e of father killin! son. Met the very tra!edies he )as dealin! )ith )ere especially partial to *yths derivin! fro* the curse on the house of (treus, a kind of dynastic 5ori!inal sin5 descendin! fro* a ruse )here y a father unkno)in!ly <5unconsciously5L= ate the hearts of his t)o sons. Cor all CreudFs e*phasis on the fatherkill, itFs )orth re*e* erin! that the pri*e instance of the sacrificial *otive in the .ld -esta*ent is the story of ( raha*Fs pious )illin!ness to sacrifice +saac. (nd the entire lo!ic of the /e) -esta*ent is uilt a out the story of a divine father )ho deli erately sent his son on a *ission to e crucified. -o this e'tent, )hereas the asic lines of :estern thou!ht co*e to a focus in variations on the the*e of son, rather than father, as pri*e sacrificial fi!ure, out of the several co* inations that (ristotle *entions as ideal conditions for tra!ic victi*a!e CreudFs stress upon one 2ophoclean tra!edy, Oe(i)us 4e1 <to )hich (ristotle also )as hi!hly partial, thou!h for Iuite different reasons= deflected our attention fro* oth the sheer poetics of the case and the infanticidal i*plications in other tra!ic recipes. & "27 & +n -he 4hetori' o$ 4eligion + consider reasons )hy the sacrificial principle itself is inte!ral to the social order. -hus )here (ristotle had asked )hat )ould e the perfect kinds of 'hara'ter for tra!edy as a literary *ode, one *i!ht rephrase the Iuestion y askin!, 5:hat )ould e the Jperfect i*itated victi*KL5 -he distinction et)een the tra!ic imitation of victi*a!e as a source of poetic pleasure and the en!ross*ent )ith a'tual victi*a!e )ould e the difference et)een the (thenian theater and the ,o*an !ladiatorial contest. /e)spapers and docu*entary roadcasts appeal in a kind of inter*ediate real* y a record <thus a sym&oli?ing= of real victi*a!e. -he thou!ht su!!ests )hy the poetic i*itation of i*a!inary pitia le situations involves in itself a certain de!ree of 5pur!ation.5 (ll told, )e encounter here so*e tan!led relationships a*on! the actual, the docu*entary copy, and the artistic i*itation. Be that as it *ay, the issue co*es to a focus in Iuestions a out the recipe for )er$e't victi*a!e6and y 5entelechy5 + refer to such use of sy* olic resources that potentialities can e said to attain their )er$e't $ul$illment# :e shall co*e upon this notion y various routes. (ristotleFs .oeti's is a handy

ench*ark for our survey since it proceeds in this spirit, askin! )hat for* of plot )ould est fulfill the tra!ic telos, )hat kind of situation, )hat kind of characters and )hat kind of style. :hereupon, y co*parison and contrast <and here at last +F* #u*pin! in me(ias res9= + )ould Iuote a passa!e fro* *y 5@efinition of >an5 <reprinted in ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, "%33=: +n %eyon( the .leasure .rin'i)le <near the end of Chapter 7= Creud e'plicitly calls upon us 5to a andon our elief that in *an there d)ells an i*pulse to)ards perfection, )hich has rou!ht hi* to his present hei!hts of intellectual pro)ess and su li*ation.5 Met a fe) sentences later in that sa*e closin! para!raph, )e find hi* sayin!, 5-he repressive instinct never ceases to strive after its co*plete satisfaction.5 But are not these t)o sentences *utually contradictoryL Cor )hat could *ore clearly represent an 5i*pulse to perfection5 than a 5strivin!5 after 5co*plete satisfaction5L <"4= -he alternative that Creud offers is his concept of the 5repetition co*pulsion,5 )hich he also calls a 5destiny co*pulsion.5 +t is decidedly not )ithin *y co*petence to dispute CreudFs concept itself, as desi!nation for a psychopathic tendency to relive so*e prior trau*atic situation y so confrontin! a totally different set of later circu*stances that they are interpreted y the sufferer in ter*s of the ori!inal painfully for*ative situation. + a* far fro* disputin! the likelihood of such a tendency. + a* ut proposin! to consider ho) it looks, as vie)ed in the li!ht of an 5entelechial5 principle havin! )ider functions than the *anifestations & "23 & )ith )hich Creud is here concerned. +f + *ay !ive *yself another chance to *ake *y point, please let *e Iuote this further state*ent of the case: +s not the sufferer e'ertin! al*ost superhu*an efforts in the atte*pt to !ive his life a certain $orm, so shapin! his relations to people in later years that they )ill confor* perfectly to an e*otional or psycholo!ical pattern already esta lished in so*e earlier for*ative situationL :hat *ore thorou!h illustration could one )ant, of a drive to *ake oneFs life 5perfect,5 despite the fact that such efforts at perfection *i!ht cause the unconscious striver !reat sufferin!L :ithout castin! the sli!htest dou t upon CreudFs concept of a psychopathic tendency, or te*ptation, to endo) )holly different people )ith i*puted roles correspondin! to the actual roles that other persons had played in the ori!inal inflictin! of the psychic )ound, )e could vie) such a co*pulsion as an 5entelechial5 or 5perfectionist5 *otive if )e ut 5)iden the concept of perfection to the point )here )e can also use the ter* ironi'ally, as )hen )e speak of a Jperfect foolK or a Jperfect villain.K 5 -hus: 5-he /aBi version of the He), as developed in 8itlerFs 2ein Gam)$, is the *ost thorou!hA!oin! instance of such ironic JperfectionK in recent ti*es, thou!h stron!ly si*ilar trends keep *anifestin! the*selves in current controversies et)een J0astK and J:est.K 5 By adoptin! a !eneral lo!olo!ical approach to a 5co*pulsive5 situation )hich Creud confronts fro* his specifically psychoanalytic point of vie), one )ould add considerations of this sort: ( trau*atic e'perience can, as it )ere, endo) a person )ith a key ter*inolo!y, in ter*s of )hich he fra*es his attitude to)ards life6and the ter*inolo!y can shape )hat he co*es to e'pect of people in keepin! )ith the tenor of that attitude. 2i*plest e'a*ple: (n overly trustin! person )ho )as rudely etrayed, and )ho <in line )ith the prover , 5once urned, t)ice shy5= *i!ht thenceforth so e'pect etrayal as in effect to invite etrayal. (nd such an attitude can also function as a kind of 5!eneratin! principle,5 in the sense that a dra*atist, )hen or!aniBin! a play desi!ned to e* ody such an attitude, )ould develop a cast of characters so related to one another that, as these relationships unfolded in the develop*ent of the plot, one particular character )ho ca*e close to standin! for the author hi*self could end in the attitude of e* itter*ent )hich + have called a 5!eneratin! principle5 ehind the relationships a*on!

such a cast of characters. (nd all the *ain characters )ould e )hat )e could call 5key ter*s5 involved in the for*in! of the su**ational attitude. -urn no) to a correspondin! situation in real life. -he cast of characters, in their nature as 5key ter*s,5 )ould act as a 5repetition co*pulsion5 & "24 & insofar as the sufferer e'perienced his e* ittered attitude in terms o$ precisely such fi!ures <)hich had ori!inally )orked to!ether so 5perfectly5 to)ards the trau*atic for*in! of the attitude=. .ne necessarily for*s oneFs e'perience and e'pectations in terms o$ so*ethin! or other, even if one is not )orkin! for*ally or deli erately )ith such structures of interrelated ter*s as is the case )ith philosophers, dra*atists, and the like. ( trau*atic e'perience can serve to select such a set of key ter*s, )hich )ill then act as a asic no*enclature, )ith i*plications correspondin! to their roles in connection )ith the ori!inal <and ori!inatin!= trau*atic e'perience involved in their selection as key ter*s. ( 5repetition co*pulsion5 )ould e *anifest in any su seIuent tendency to vie) ne) circu*stances and persons in ter*s of the ori!inal dra*atic personae <hence assi!nin! roles )here y the sufferer unconsciously so i*a!ines or interprets )holly different people as to *ake the* fit the pattern of his ori!inal and ori!inatin! distress=. -he sa*e process )ould e 5entelechial5 or 5perfectionist5 in the ironic sense of the ter*, insofar as the sufferer )as in effect strivin! to i*pose a 5perfect5 for* y usin! the key ter*s of his for*ative )ound as a paradi!*. 0'actly ho), then, )ould the entelechial principle fi!ure here, )ith re!ard to the Creudian archetype of the 5pri*al cri*e5L Mou are, let us say, tryin! to su* up the nature of the *ono!a*istic, patriarchal fa*ily as you conceive of it. +f you are a Creud your su**ational paradi!* )ill e for*ed in ter*s of the tensions that you consider intrinsic to the fa*ily structure. -hese tensions )ould strike you as ein! of such a nature that they )ould attain perfect representative fruition in a kind of develop*ent and fulfill*ent )here y the sons #oined forces, *urdered their father, and took possession of the )o*en. Creud )ould e the first to reco!niBe that so perfect a pattern of fa*ily out ursts )as never found in any sin!le one of his cases. But if you vie)ed fa*ily tensions in )rin'i)le, this is the kind of cul*ination that )ould e the perfect representative e'pression of the tensions he vie)ed as intrinsic to the fa*ily structure. -his entelechial, su**ational, cul*inative, or paradi!*atic version of )hat is ulti*ately i*plied in the nature of fa*ily tensions is not vie)ed as a state to e fulfilled in ti*e. -here is no atte*pt to postulate that so thorou!h!oin! an outco*e )ill actually happen to fa*ilies. .n the contrary, the cul*inative principle represented in the hypothesis of the fatherkill is transferred to the prehistoric past, alon! )ith su seIuent corrective a* i!uities )here y one is left a it uncertain as to )hether such a convulsion in the 5pri*al horde5 actually did take place, & "2; & there y leavin! 5indestructi le traces upon the history of hu*an descent.5 Cor )hen anthropolo!ists o #ected that they found no evidence of such an event, the for*ulation of this desi!n, perfect in its si*plicity, )as defended y Creud as a 5hypothesis5 )hich *i!ht still e dee*ed 5credita le5 insofar as it 5proves a le to rin! coherence and understandin! into *ore and *ore ne) re!ions.5 +n this respect 5archetypes5 or 5prototypes5 can e *ythic )ays of for*ulatin! entelechial i*plications <or possi le su**in!sAup in principle= y translatin! the* into ter*s of a va!uely hypothetical past.

0ntelechially, you *i!ht say, 5Diven suchAandAsuch a fa*ily structure, you can e'pect to find suchA andAsuch tensions. (nd these tensions )ould so add up that, if they )ere perfectly e'pressed in all si*plicity, they )ould cul*inate in the out urst )hich Creud epito*iBes in his archetype of the Jpri*al cri*e.K 5 -hus, )hat )as really not te*poral at all, ut )as the idealiBin! or the i*a!inative and conceptual perfectin! of a situation that, in its actual te*poral variants as recorded and analyBed in case histories, fell far short of such paradi!*atic clarity, !ot va!uely attri uted to the prehistoric past. 8ere )as an area )here nineteenthAcentury evolutionary historicis* led to IuasiAscientific derivations that )ere in for* *uch like pri*itive creation *yths, as )hen a tri e derives its present nature fro* so*e pri*al, *ythic ancestral past. -his is a process that in *y Grammar o$ 2otives <"%$7= + call the 5te*poriBin! of essence.5 But *y fullest treat*ent of it is in -he 4hetori' o$ 4eligion, the section entitled 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis,5 )here the process operates alon! these lines: By the very fact of settin! up an order, you *ake *en potentially trans!ressors. Cor you !ive orders only to the kind of ein! )ho *i!ht possi ly diso ey the*. -hus, order *akes *an in )rin'i)le su #ect to te*ptation. <.ther)ise put: 2aint Paul said that the la) *ade sin, Here*y Bentha* said that the la) *akes cri*e.= >yth <story= translates state*ents a out principles into archetypal, IuasiAte*poral ter*s, Iuite as the ?atin and Dreek )ords )rin'i)ium and ar'h@, respectively, *ean 5 e!innin!5 in the sense of oth te*poral priority and lo!ical priority <or 5first principles5=. 8ence, the *ythic or narrative or archetypally IuasiAhistorical )ays of sayin! that 5the settin! up of an order *akes *an in )rin'i)le su #ect to te*ptation5 is to tell ho) the first *an said no to the first thouAshaltAnot i*posed upon hi* y the first and fore*ost authority. -his process !ets thin!s reversed, as >ar' says a out 5ideolo!y.5 -hus, mythi'ally, 5,o*ulus5 )as the epony*ous founder of 5,o*e,5 )hereas ety*olo!ically the derivation )as e'actly the reverse. & "2% & -his IuasiAte*poral nature of 5archetypes5 is to e seen in a half)ay sta!e as re!ards the Platonic doctrine of 5ana*nesis.5 >any pri*itive lan!ua!es arose, flourished, and died )ithout ever ein! for*ally reduced to such principles of !ra**ar and synta' as )e e'pect not only in studies of classical idio*s like ?atin and Dreek, ut even of tri al ton!ues that anthropolo!ists codify thou!h the natives the*selves have no such co*pilations. +n actual practice, a *issionary or e'plorer or field)orker )ho for*ulates such a structure e!ins )ith the lan!ua!e as he hears it spoken, then !radually codifies the !ra**atical and syntactical rules that are i*plicit in the conventions of its usa!e. 8o)ever, once he has uilt up such paradi!*s, there is a sense in )hich they are for*ally 5prior5 to their application in particular cases. Cor they are at a level of !eneraliBation, or a straction, )here y each such principle can first e for*ulated as a title or class na*e under )hich endless individual e'a*ples, so*e actually recorded, others possi le, could e included. (lon! those lines, one can readily i*a!ine a Platonic dialo!ue in )hich 2ocrates, y adept Iuestionin!, proves that no *atter ho) naive a *e* er of the tri e *i!ht e, in ut properly a idin! y the conventions of his !iven dialect he is at heart an e'pert !ra**arian )ithout kno)in! it. +nsofar as the ver s of his lan!ua!e )ere reduci le to several con#u!ations, for instance, and the speaker spontaneously e'e*plified the rules to )hich a !ra**arian has reduced all such con#u!ations, *ere Iuestionin! could esta lish the fact that the speaker kne) y )hich paradi!*, or set of rules, a !iven ver )as to e con#u!ated, ho) its for*s should end if active, if passive, ho) it should e *odified if chan!ed fro* past to future, or fro* first person to second person, and so on. :here, then, did this 5innate5 kno)led!e of such !ra**atical 5archetypes5 co*e fro*L +f such principles are lo!ically 5prior5 in the sense that any such classification of rules can e vie)ed

!ra**atically as 5precedin!5 all possi le e'a*ples of usa!es classifia le under that !iven head, and if this purely te'hni'al kind of 5priority5 is stated in te*poral ter*s, then it follo)s that this unconscious !ra**arian, )ho kne) *ore than he kne) he kne), *ust have e'perienced such 5pure5 for*s <or archetypes= in a sta!e of te*porally prior e'istence. (nd y adroit Iuestionin!, 2ocrates is helpin! hi* to 5re*e* er5 )hen he had e'perienced the* in their 5pure5 state <)hich any particular e'a*ples partake of 5i*perfectly5=. (s a current instance of ho) readily an uncritical use of the archetypal can !et thin!s ack)ards, consider this dialectical distortion in /or*an & "30 & .. Bro)nFs ook, ,oveKs %o(y <"%33=: @ialectics involves the t)o principles of co*position and division <unity and plurality, !eneraliBation and specification=. (n instance of division )ould e ter*s for distin!uishin! et)een the se'es, or a distinction et)een earth and sky vie)ed as distinct *otivational real*s. But hereFs ho) Iuickly Bro)n can t)ist that nor*al resource of ter*inolo!y into IuasiAvatic nonsense: @ivision, duality, t)o se'es. N @ual or!aniBation is se'ual or!aniBation. N -he prototype of all opposition or contrariety is se'. -he prototype of the division into t)o se'es is the separation of earth and sky, >other 0arth and Cather 2ky, the pri*al parents. 5Prototype5 here does the trick. Do alon! )ith such *aneuvers, and you let yourself in for total o fuscation. -o say that 5se' is dialectical5 )ould pass )ell enou!h, in the sense that an act of copulation in effect 5unifies5 the duality of the se'ual partners. But !ive Bro)n his )ay )ith the archetypes <or prototypes, he uses oth )ords=, and thin!s !et reversed )here y dialectics is se'ualG specifically, 50very sentence is dialectics, an act of love.5 -hus in effect a Iuite via le proposition, 5se' is dialectical5 !ets archetypally transfor*ed into 5dialectics is se'ual.5 (nd )hereas it )ould e reasona le enou!h to say that se' relations can e discussed in ter*s of unity and division, Bro)nFs ideolo!ical reversal !ives us )hat )ould a*ount to sayin! that the principles of unity and division <applications of )hich are availa le to all lan!ua!e syste*s= are ut special cases of se', earth, and sky. ( related te*ptation is to e seen in CreudFs co**ents on 5condensation5 and 5displace*ent5 as e'e*plified in the sy* olis* of drea*s. Creud sho)s clearly enou!h ho) such operations take place in drea*sy* ols. Met such resources of su stitution are y no *eans confined to the lan!ua!e of drea*s or neurosis. -here is a kind of displace*ent if + use a sy* ol for an eIuation in *athe*atics, or translate a Der*an sentence into Crench. (nd any step to a hi!her level of !eneraliBation involves a kind of condensation, as 5si lin!s5 includes oth 5 rother5 and 5sister,5 and 5parents5 condenses 5*other5 and 5father.5 -here are ti*es )hen such 5nor*al5 resources of sy* oliBation can raise trou le. But )eFd !et thin!s ack)ards if )e derived displace*ent and condensation fro* drea*s, rather than seein! in drea*Asy* ols special applications of these )ider sy* olic resources. +f you ever run across the )inter "%4" issue of /almagun(i, a little *a!aBine pu lished under the ae!is of 2kid*ore Colle!e, please take a !lance at *y article, 5@oin! and 2ayin!,5 concerned )ith a process of & "3" & 5*ythic dou lin!.5 +t e!ins )ith a hypothetical distinction et)een one *an )ho is !oin! throu!h the *aterial operations of harvestin! a crop, and another )ho, ein! an e'pert in the )ays of sy* olic action, provides a ritual counterpart y sin!in! a harvest son!, )ith appropriate choreo!raphy.

+n one sense )e are all *ythA*en, insofar as no i*portant incident in our lives see*s Iuite co*plete <that is, entelechially perfected= unless so*e e'pert in the resources of *ythopoeia has rounded thin!s out )ith a *ythic counterpart. -here )e see the rudi*ents of )hat + *ean y the entelechial principle. -he i*portant consideration is not )here such *ythic co*pletions 'ome $rom !eo!raphically, ut )hat they a(( u) to sy* olically. -rue, since any !iven ritual has developed throu!h ti*e, an account of its historical develop*ent is a )holly proper inIuiry. -hus (ristotleFs early chapters in his .oeti's are concerned )ith the incuna ula of tra!edy prior to the era )hen it attained its 5finished5 for*, as defined in Chapter 3, )here he !ives his definition, and thereafter in effect 5derives5 his analysis y )orkin! out the kind of o servations that )ere i*plicit in that definition. 2i*ilarly, alon! )ith the possi le history of a ritualFs develop*ent, )e *i!ht !enerate it 5 nonte*porally,5 in )rin'i)le, fro* the dra*atistic analysis of *ythopoeia itself, vie)ed as a species of sy* olic action. Cor instance, any recurrent ritual is a narrative prephilosophic *ode of 'lassi$i'ation, insofar as it in effect includes *any different te*poral events under the sa*e head. (nd it eco*es entele'hial, or )er$e'tionist, as in the case of a cere*ony that, in effect classifyin! a )hole !roup of initiates under the sa*e head, there y transcends their nature as individuals. By the cere*ony they are 5perfected5 in the sense that, re!ardless of )hat they variously might e, they are ein! considered fro* the standpoint of one particular a solute principle, na*ely, their identity and correspondin! reidentification, as initiates. +n all likelihood this entelechial aspect of the case )ill sho) up in ter*s of a *yth relatin! the incident to so*e i*puted )rimal past. Perhaps it should also e pointed out that the cul*inative aspect of the entelechial principle is not confined to sy* olic structures that have the Iuality of su**aries and paradi!*s. +t can also co*e to a focus in the sy* oliBin! of an attitude, since attitudes possess a su**ariBin! Iuality. 2i*ilarly an attitude to)ards a situation can e developed in ter*s of a narrative that su*s up a situation not y discussin! the situation as such, ut y depictin! a thorou!h!oin! response to it. .ne can discern this ele*ent y thinkin! of the contrast et)een a discussion of & "32 & fa*ily tensions as such and CreudFs dra*atic anecdote a out the 5pri*al cri*e5 that he proposed as the archetype of fa*ily tension. 2urely the purely for*al, entelechial principle is an i*portant *otivational in!redient in syste*A uildin! types of insanity. -he person )ho has uilt up an ela orate structure of persecution has a kind of psychic treasure )hich could not e renounced )ithout a sense of !reat i*poverish*ent, despite the sufferin! that *ay e connected )ith it. + kno) of one case )here an al*ost 5airAti!ht5 fantasy of deception, involvin! *any *e* ers of a fa*ily, had een )orked out. But one person )ho* the sufferer still inclined to trust roke the perfect sy**etry. -hen, loQ this person died6and i**ediately the sufferer e!an puttin! ne) li!ht on certain thin!s that had een said, re*arks that ca*e to e interpreted as a kind of death ed confession a out the suspected plottin!s of all the others. + told the ardent syste*A uilder: 5+n the first place, + a* sure that your )hole sche*e is all )ron!. +n the second place, on the asis of )hat + kno) a out the deceased + think you *ust e *isre*e* erin!6for + elieve that, even if all this )ere true, the deceased is not the kind of person )ho )ould have told you. 8o)ever, you have uilt up such a case, + realiBe ho) e*pty the )orld )ould see* if you a andoned it. 2o donFt a andon it. (nd since you are a )riter, )rite it up. >ake all the characters involved even *ore e!re!iously a set of *onsters than you no) think the* to e. >odify the details in a fiction that deli erately )er$e'ts the conspiracy.5 + )onFt flatter *yself )ith the assu*ption that *y advice )as taken6 ut there is a vast a*ount of )ritin! that !ets done e'actly thus. (nd *y clai* is, of course,

that CreudFs dra*atic 5archetypal5 fulfill*ent of fa*ily tensions in ter*s of a IuasiAprehistoric cri*inal out urst is so to e entelechially understood. +n one draft of these talks, + e!an y an ironic e'e*plifyin! of the entelechial principle efore the principle itself had een discussed. Borro)in! the title of :illia* 0rnest 8enleyFs 5+nvictus5 <the poe* that rin!s out so challen!in!ly, 5+ a* the *aster of *y fate, / -he captain of *y soul5= + proposed to !ive such thou!hts of invinci ility this turn: +f thin!s are ad, and + canFt *ake the* etter, then all the *ore +Fll e *ine o)n e!etter. (dversity shall e *y universe, *akin! *e free to act to *ake thin!s )orse. +n this re!ard, satire can e'e*plify a stron!ly entelechial ent. :hereas certain ills that eset our society can eco*e so depressin! that )e )ould !ladly close our *inds to the*, satire as a stylistic strate!y can so turn & "33 & thin!s around that )e !et a s*ilin! variant of the essentially !rotesIue perversity e* odied in *y 5+nvictus5 lines. -hat is, )hereas )e *i!ht, )ithout a t)ist, )rite a catalo!ue of our societyFs ills <and the *ore thorou!h it )as, the *ore depressed )eFd e, so that our only choice )ould e et)een )elco*in! despair and seekin! distraction=, satire can so chan!e the rules that )e have a Iuite different out. -he satirist can set up a situation )here y his te't can ironically advocate the very ills that are depressin! us6nay *ore, he can 5perfect5 his presentation y a fantastic rationale that calls for still more of the *alad#ust*ents no) esettin! us. Cor satire can find )ays of *akin! reductions to a surdity look like lo!ical conclusions, surely an entelechial pursuit, and of a sort that allo)s for the sheer a''ent of 5accentuatin! the positive5 atop i*plications Iuite ne!ative. ?ater + shall say a fe) *ore )ords on this point. >ean)hile, let us consider a different, ut related, *ode of su**ariBation. (s re!ards the ulti*ate philosophic pro le*s i*posed upon us y the hi!h develop*ent of technolo!y, they see* no) to cul*inate in so*e kind of confrontation et)een 58u*anis*5 and 5-echnolo!is*.5 (t various ti*es in the history of :estern thou!ht, 58u*anis*5 has een defined y a close relation to different adversaries or partners. 2o*e rands of 8u*anis*, for instance, have een antithetical to 2upernaturalis*, others have contended that hu*an personality *ust e !rounded in a transcendent principle of personality. .r there )as the 8u*anis* of /eoclassicis*, !rounded in ancient Dreek and ?atin te'ts. >ar'ist 8u*anis* is inte!rally associated )ith secular socialis*. -oday, it see*s to *e, our Iuandaries su* up as the need for a kind of 8u*anis* that )ould e defined as antithetical to 5-echnolo!is*.5 5-echnolo!is*5 itself )ould e a ter* provided y its 8u*anistic opponent. (s distinct fro* *ere technolo!y, 5-echnolo!is*5 )ould e uilt upon the assu*ption that the re*edy for the pro le*s arisin! fro* technolo!y is to e sou!ht in the develop*ent of ever *ore and *ore technolo!y. -hat lithe spirit, Buck*inster Culler, )ould e one of its hi!h priests. ?and developers )hose pro)ess as pro*oters is a national disaster )here considerations of ecolo!y are concerned )ould e on the dis*al end of such a hierarchy. +t )ould see* that, until Iuite recently, the (r*y Corps of 0n!ineers has een desolatin!ly -echnolo!istic in its policies and practices6 ut thin!s are chan!in! so*e)hat. Cor instance, after havin! done *uch havoc as re!ards the -ocks +sland pro#ect on the @ela)are, it is no) apparently considerin! an adverse report y an authority that it itself had appointed. 8u*anis*, as so conceived, )ould look especially askance at the typical

& "3$ & pro*oterFs ideal of a constant rapid increase in the consu*ption of 5ener!y5 <thou!h perhaps it is a trend that the )hole 5lo!ic5 of invest*ent co*es close to *akin! i*perative=. (nd an antiA -echnolo!istic 8u*anis* )ould e 5ani*alistic5 in the sense that, far fro* oastin! of so*e privile!ed hu*an status, it )ould never disre!ard our hu* le, and *ay e even hu*iliatin!, place in the totality of the natural order. But + spoke of 5entelechies5 in the satiric sense. +n the )inter "%4" issue of -he /ewanee 4eview + tried an e'ercise of that sort. (nd the idea started fro* the su #ect of 5ener!y.5 .n one of the allAni!ht radio pro!ra*s )ith )hich + so*eti*es )hile a)ay inso*niac hours, + heard an ardent proponent of -echnolo!is* <an anima naturaliter -e'hnologisti'a= ridiculin! reactionary idealists )ho kept askin! )hether it *i!ht e possi le to clear up the pollution in ?ake 0rie. -hey should look for)ard, not ack, he said6and rather than tryin! to clean up ?ake 0rie, they should pollute it ten ti*es as *uch, then find a )ay to e'tract fro* its )astes a ne) kind of ener!y. 8ehadthean!le. 8nvi'tus9 5(dversity shall e *y universe, *akin! *e free to act to *ake thin!s )orse.5 :e no) have the resources to let loose and freely pollute the entire )orld, )hile uildin! a Perfectly (irAConditioned CultureABu le on the >oon. (n ideal :o* A8eaven <+ called it 58elhaven5=, *ade possi le y *anFs *o*entous advances in technolo!y6hence,the Ulti*ate Cul*ination,0denand the -o)erinone. (nd + had *y endin!, too. Mou recall :illia* Hennin!s BryanFs fa*ous speech in ehalf of free silver, )here he ended on a posture efittin! his final, peroratin! )ords: 5Crucified on a Cross of Dold.5 + sa) a )ay of endin! *y e'ercise <)hich + also used in a pu lic talk= on not #ust one posture, ut a succession of three, as )ith *y 5finaliBin!5 lines: ?et there e no turnin! ack of the clock. .r no turnin! in)ard. .ur 9iceAPresident has ri!htly cautioned: /o ne!ativis*. :e )ant (CC+,>(-+./6-.:(,@2 80?8(90/. ./:(,@, .U-:(,@, and UPQ

A. APP#+*I@ A
-o !uard a!ainst a possi le *isunderstandin!, + *i!ht point out: Both (ristotleFs concept of the entelechy and its *odified role in ?ei niBian 5*onadolo!y5 use the ter* in )ays that could e applied to any ein! or 5su stance,5 such as an a*oe a or a tree, or even so*e one particular pe le vie)ed as ein! *oved to fulfill the potentialities peculiar to its kind. & "37 & +n these pa!es no such universal *etaphysical application of the ter* is considered. :e are concerned solely )ith a 5lo!olo!ical5 tendency intrinsic to the resources of sym&oli' a'tion# +f it does fi!ure in the real* of sheer motion, the discussion of it in that respect )ould reIuire Iuite different *odes of o servation and analysis. (lso, )hatever *ay e our o #ections to an uncritical use of the ter* 5archetype,5 it is in its )ay as dra*atistic as the ter* 5entelechy.5 -he ter*s are allies, in their antithetical relation to ehavioristic reductionis*G and in this respect the areas they cover !reatly overlap. (nd as )e *ust e on !uard lest the 5te*poriBin! of essence5 in the ter* 5archetype5 !ets tied up )ith notions of a IuasiAhistorical past, so there are risks that the concept of the entelechy *ay take on

Iuasifuturistic assu*ptions, y reason of the fact that the potentialities of a perfected sy* olAsyste* can e *ade to see* too 5clearly5 like the proclai*in! of a predestined era still to co*e. 2uch 5*illenarian5 possi ilities are e'ploited rhetorically in the urlesIued, Vlitist Utopianis* of the 8elhaven pro#ect, )hich alasQ co*es close to ein! technolo!ically feasi leG and it is already )ith us 5in principle5 )henever pro*oters, y pro#ects that are disastrous to so*e aspect of the )orldFs ecolo!ical alance, can uy the*selves an estate in an area not yet thus rava!ed.

5. APP#+*I@ 5
-he dialectical desi!n underlyin! the entelechial principle <in our strictly 5lo!olo!ical5 sense of the ter*= can e su**ed up thus: ". -here is the thing, read. 2. -here is the correspondin! wor(, 5 read.5 3. ?an!ua!e ein! such as it is, )ith no trou le at all + can *ake up the e'pression, 5perfect read.5 $. :e *ay disa!ree as to )hich read could properly e called 5perfect.5 7. ( *ean *an, or a dyspeptic, or a philosopher *i!ht even deny that in this )orld there can e such a thin! as 5perfect read.5 3. /evertheless, theolo!ians can speak of Dod as the ens )er$e'tissimum, and the e'pression 5perfect read5 is a secular counterpart of such dialectical resources. & "33 & 4. /ay *ore. 0ven if there is no such thin! as perfect read in actuality, + can consider read fro* the standpoint of perfect read 5in principle.5 :hereupon + confront these Iuite different alternatives: ". 58ere is so*e perfect read5G or 2. 5(s co*pared )ith perfect read, this read + a* offerin! you is a dis*al su stitute5G or 3. 5+ can assure you that, hu* le as it is, this read represents perfect read in )rin'i)le.5 <+t 5stands for the s)irit of perfect read.5= +n effect, CreudFs 5HustA2o 2tory5 of the pri*alkill co* ines clauses 3 and "0. +t is the ideally cul*inative e'e*plar of the *ono!a*istic situation he )ould analyBe <or in ter*s of )hich he )ould analyBe his patients=. But he )ould consider any particular case as ut a partial instance of such a pattern, or paradi!*.

C. APP#+*I@ C
:e *i!ht thro) further li!ht on the su #ect y considerin! ho) the issue looks, as re!ards Hoseph ContenroseFs ook .ython, a /tu(y o$ 3el)hi' 2yth an( its Origins <"%7%=. +n an essay, 5>yth, Poetry, and Philosophy5 <reprinted in ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion=, + use this ook as a point of departure for several lines of speculation not directly !er*ane to our present concerns. But it *i!ht e *entioned here ecause of its concern )ith the 5ori!ins5 of )hat the author called the 5co* at *yth.5 Cor the discussion o viously involves t)o Iuite different kinds of ori!in: <"= the possi le transfor*ations of the *yth in the course of ti*e, alon! )ith the likely steps of its !eo!raphic diffusionG <2= a paradi!* su**ariBin! the *ain the*es of the co* at *yth, in its nature as a story )ith e!innin!, *iddle, and end.

>y essay )as desi!ned to sho) ho) this second kind of ori!in has nothin! to do )ith te*poral succession, ut is essentially concerned )ith such purely for*al principles as the first of these t)o talks discussed )ith reference to (ristotleFs .oeti's# +n effect the paradi!* )hich Contenrose sets up, and )hich all the *any versions of the *yth are said to e'e*plify so*e)hat ut not totally, is like (ristotleFs definition of tra!edy. Cor it considers all cases in the su**ariBin! ter*s of a 5perfect5 & "34 & co* at *yth )hich *ust e conceptualiBed, or idealiBed, )ith correspondin! rules, re!ardless of the fact that no one 5perfect5 instance of the pattern need e offered as #ustification for all the clauses and su divisions <a*ountin! to fortyAthree in all= that are included in ContenroseFs allAinclusive list. 8o)ever, a paradi!* of this sort is o viously at a *uch lo)er level of !eneraliBation than the definition of tra!edy in the .oeti's# (lso, esides o servations analo!ous to (ristotleFs concern )ith the perfection of tra!edy as a $orm, a so*e)hat adventitious s'eni' <or 5environ*entalist5= test of 5perfection5 had to e introduced )hen )e consider the fact that the cha*pion of the co* at is said to have 5instituted cult, ritual, festival, and uilt a te*ple for hi*self.5 +n this re!ard, as distinct fro* askin! #ust )hat *i!ht e the principles of a 5perfect5 co* at *yth <in the sense that ContenroseFs paradi!* e* odies (ristotleFs preference for a 5co*ple'5 plot )ith peripety=, + felt the need to introduce a kind of @ar)inian speculation, y askin! e'actly ho) a co* at *yth, )hatever its ori!ins, *i!ht happen to e a 5perfect5 candidate for survival in 'onne'tion with a 'ult# :eFd here confront the difference et)een the co* at *ythFs 5perfection5 sheerly as a for* of story, and its nature as a contri ution to the sanctionin! of the offices perfor*ed y the specific priesthood )ith )hich one version or another of the *yth happened to e identified. Cor instance, a *yth *i!ht have special survival value if it )as associated )ith a cult )hich had perfected rituals for, as it )ere, 5causin!5 sprin! to return in the sprin!ti*e, su**er in the su**erti*e, and so on. -hat is, the est conditions for esta lishin! the authority of a priesthoodFs *a!ic )ould e those involvin! the re!ularities rather than the uncertainties of nature. (nd such conditions )ould e fulfilled insofar as a cult and its correspondin! *yth eca*e associated )ith skyA!ods, and thus )ith the annually repeated cycle of the seasons, and the !radually accu*ulatin! lore a out the recurrent confi!urations of the heavens. ( *yth could e perfectly for*ed as re!ards poetic tests of perfection, )ithout havin! this added 5@ar)inian5 kind of aptitude that happened to endo) it )ith su**ationally cos*ic connotations of authority.

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment <Barr, >ass: Clark University Press, "%42=, 33E32. ". 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment consists of t)o essays. -he title of the first & "3; & is 5Biolo!y, Psycholo!y, :ords.5 -he essay reprinted here is the second of the t)o. 2. +n the Hournal o$ /o'ial 8ssues for .cto er "%32 there is an article, 5-he +*a!e of >an,5 y +sidor Chein, )hich led to a controversy ideal for our purposes. @r. CheinFs overur!ent ai* to cele rate the di!nity of >an as an 5active5 ein! tricks hi* into usin! ut half a dialectic, there y totally overlookin! the states of )assivity to )hich this 5active5 ein! is prone <as per the *any pa!es 5.n 8u*an Bonda!e5 in 2pinoBaFs Ethi's=. -he su #ect is su**ed up in *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion

<"%33=, 7;E32. & "3% &

. :+onsymAolic; )otion B :SymAolic; Action

19 >
-he dualis* of this title provides Kenneth Burke )ith the *ain opposition that or!aniBes *any of his later essays. But the dualis* is not so si*ple nor so stark as it *i!ht see* fro* the title. People actG thin!s *ove. :e can have ody )ithout *ind <lan!ua!e=G ut no *ind )ithout ody. (ll sy* olic action ori!inates in a ody and *ust carry traces of that ody in )hatever for* it is preserved6 say, in a printed te't. +t is y *eans of hu*an action that )e transfor* nature or pure 5*otion5 and the )orld of thin!s. But conversely, the ody po)erfully affects the *ind as does nature and thin!s, and vice versa. 2o )e have a po)erful dualis* ut not a separation, and never a *onis*. >any pri*itive people carried this dualis* into all of their relationships )ith the nonhu*an )orld. (ni*als, trees, places had spirit as )ell as *atter. Burke has insisted on an a solute distinction et)een these t)o real*s ecause he )ants to place such a heavy urden upon lan!ua!e and the real* of sy* olic action. 8e even ar!ues in reverse that thin!s are inspirited )ith lan!ua!e and that there is no such thin! as an un*ediated < y lan!ua!e= e'perience of thin!s and nature. -o na*e so*ethin!, )hich )e have done to everythin! so far discovered on earth and in those parts of the cos*os )hich )e can 5see5 or photo!raph, is to transfor* it into a ter* and insert it into the lo!olo!ical real* )here it can e *anipulated accordin! to the lo!olo!ical principles every)here at )ork in the real* of sy* olic action. BurkeFs pri*e e'a*ple of this is his 5 read5 illustration. 2tartin! )ith actual read, he revie)s )hat )e can do to this *aterial o #ect once it has eco*e the ter* 5 read,5 or the )ord for the thin!. +t finally enters the entelechial real* as 5perfect read56a pure sy* olic real* that can never e defined ecause it does not e'ist, and there could e thousands, perhaps *illions of 5perfect5 reads. -his is the real* of su #ectivity and relativis*6 oth real pro le*s for Burke. +*a!ine tryin! to decide on the 5perfect te't5 or the 5perfect place5 or the 5perfect *ate5 or the 5perfect steak.5 +t is easy enou!h to esta lish a hierarchy )ithin any of these cate!ories, ut unless one is talkin! a out Dod, there see*s to e no)here to stop. Perfection is a *ovea le feast )ith no upper li*it or an opposite otto* li*it. .nly the hierarchy re*ains. (re there de!rees of perfectionL >ay e, ut they )ould chan!e )ith the o server, and unless one posits an a solute ti*eless real*, as in Plato, or an a solute, eternal, all po)erful real*, as in Christianity, there see*s to e no stoppin! point for entelechial speculations, #ust *ore analyses of sy* olic action. (s Burke points out *any ti*es, no t)o thin!s are e'actly alike. -his provides hi* )ith a neat concept of individualiBation, individuality, and uniIueness, ut & "$0 & it terroriBes the entelechial principle, *akin! the application of it al)ays frau!ht )ith irony, a* i!uity, eni!*a, further co*plications )ithin further co*plications.

1.
-his is the asic polarity <like the traditional pair res and ver&a, thin!s and the )ords for thin!s=. +tFs at the root of such distinctions as *indA ody, spiritA*atter, superstructureAsu structure, and @escartesF dualis*, thou!ht and e'tension. + say 5at the root of such distinctions5 thou!h no such ter*s Iuite *atch the *otionAaction pair. -hus )e can e!in y lo!olo!ically seculariBin! the theolo!ical <-ho*ist= vie) of 5*atter5 as the 5principle of individuation.5 -he hu*an ody, in its nature as a sheerly physiolo!ical or!anis*, )ould thus e in the real* of *atter, for )hich our ter* is 5*otion.5 +n that respect it )ould e like a fish or a tree or one of B. C. 2kinnerFs operationally conditioned pi!eons. But the use of such resources as a tri al lan!ua!e )ould e in the real* of 5action.5 (ction, as so defined, )ould involve *odes of ehavior *ade possi le y the acIuirin! of a conventional, ar itrary sy* ol syste*, a definition that )ould apply to *odes of sy* olicity as different as pri*itive speech, styles of *usic, paintin!, sculpture, dance, hi!hly developed *athe*atical no*enclatures, traffic si!nals, road *aps, or *ere drea*s <insofar as a drea* is interpreta le as 5sy* olic5 of the drea*erFs 5psyche,5 or )hatever such ter* a psycholo!ist *i!ht prefer to )ork )ith=. -hus this present use of lan!ua!e is an e'a*ple of sy* olic action in )hich )e variously participate y *eans of a 5conventional, ar itrary sy* ol syste*56this particular rand of 0n!lish. 2ince the overall topic of the conference at )hich the su stance of this talk )as ori!inally !iven )as 52elf and Culture,5 + take it that 52elf5 is *eant to desi!nate in so*e sense )hat has here een referred to as the 5principle of individuation.5 & "$" & + take it that, even if the 52elf5 )ere thou!ht to *er!e into the 5Culture5 as a )hole, each *e* er of the 5Culture5 )ould e thou!ht of as havin! in so*e )ay a 52elf5 different fro* each and every other *e* er. +t )ould e !rounded in the real* of nonsy* olic *otion and )ould *ature into )hat one )ould call a 5person5 in the real* of sy* olic action. 2o far as is kno)n at present, the only typically sy* olAusin! ani*al e'istin! on 0arth is the hu*an or!anis*. -he intuitive si!nalin! syste*s in such social creatures as ees and ants )ould not e classed as e'a*ples of sy* olic action. -hey are not conventional, ar itrary sy* ol syste*s such as hu*an speech, )hich is not in orn ut has to e learned dependin! upon )here the child happens to e 5thro)n,5 an accident of irth that deter*ines )hether the child learns Chinese, or Crench, or )hatever idio* *ay prevail in the !iven locality. 2y* ol syste*s of that sort also differ fro* intuitive si!nalin! syste*s in that they have a secondAlevel <or 5refle'ive5= aspect.

-hat is to say: they can talk a out the*selves. Cicero could oth orate and )rite a treatise on oratory. ( do! can ark ut he canFt ark a tract on arkin!. +f all typically sy* olAusin! ani*als <that is, hu*ans= )ere suddenly o literated, their real* of sy* olic action )ould e correspondin!ly o literated. -he 0arth )ould e ut a real* of planetary, !eolo!ic, *eteorolo!ical *otion, includin! the *otions of )hatever nonhu*an iolo!ic or!anis*s happened to survive. -he real* of nonsy* olic *otion needs no real* of sy* olic actionG ut there could e no sy* olic action unless !rounded in the real* of *otion, the real* of *otion havin! preceded the e*er!ence of our sy* olAusin! ancestorsG and dou tless the ti*e )ill co*e )hen *otions !o on after all our reed )ill have vanished. :ith re!ard to the theory of evolution, o viously critical conditions for the e*er!ence of Culture arose at that sta!e in the prehistoric past )hen our anthropoid ancestors under)ent a *o*entous *utation. & "$2 & +n their odies <as physiolo!ical or!anis*s in the real* of *otion= there developed the a ility to learn the kind of tri al idio* that is here *eant y 5sy* olic action.5 (nd there y e*er!ed )hat )e *i!ht call a 5*echanis*5 for the steps fro* nonsy* olic *otion to sy* olic action. @escartes, in his speculations on a possi le rid!e et)een his polar real*s of 5thou!ht5 and 5e'tension,5 proposed the possi ility that a s*all !land in the rain, the pineal !land, *i!ht provide the *ediu*. But )ith re!ard to the *aterials for an inter*ediate step et)een the real*s of 5*otion5 and 5action5 )e need not look for so recondite a locus. -he necessary *aterials are i*plicit in the physiolo!ical nature of sensation. +n his early essay on 5/ature,5 0*erson descri ed the process transcendentally, tenderA*indedly thus: :ords are si!ns of natural facts. -he use of natural history is to !ive us aid in supernatural historyG the use of the outer creation, to !ive us lan!ua!e for the ein!s and chan!es of the in)ard creation. 0very )ord )hich is used to e'press a *oral or intellectual fact, if traced to its root, is found to e orro)ed fro* so*e *aterial appearance. 4ight *eans straight; wrong *eans twiste(; /)irit pri*arily *eans win(; transgression the crossin! of a line; su)er'ilious, the raising o$ the eye&row# :e say the heart to e'press e*otion, the hea( to denote thou!htG and thought and emotion are )ords orro)ed fro* sensi le thin!s, and no) appropriated to spiritual nature. Here*y Bentha* )ould deal )ith considerations of this sort, perhaps not tou!hA*indedly ut at least *atterAofAfactly thus: (ll our psycholo!ical ideas are derived fro* physical ones6all *ental fro* corporeal ones. +n no other *anner can they e spoken of. N +n the case )here to the o #ect thus spoken of, e'istence is actually an o #ect of one of the five senses, and in particular of the sense of touch or feelin! N here there is no fiction6as this *an, this east, this ird. N -he o #ect spoken of *ay e a real entity. .n the other hand in the case in )hich the o #ect is not a tan!i le one, the o #ect, the

e'istence of )hich is thus asserted, not ein! a real e'istin! one, the o #ect, if it *ust e ter*ed an entity6as on pain of universal and perpetual nonAintercourse et)een *an and *an, it *ust e6it *ay, for distinctionFs sake, e ter*ed a fictitious entity. & "$3 & -o every )ord that has an i**aterial i*port there elon!s, or at least did elon!, a *aterial one. +n a )ord, our ideas co*in!, all of the*, fro* our senses,N fro* )hat other source can our lan!ua!e co*eL -hus, if )e say that a !iven o #ect leans at an in'lination of thirty de!rees, in Bentha*Fs sense )e should not e applyin! a fiction. But a fictitious e'pression enters )hen )e say that a person has an 5inclination5 to do suchAandAsuch. .r a 5corporeal5 reference, such as 5this o #ect is so *any feet (istant fro* that o #ect5 )ould differ fro* a 5fictitious5 reference to the 5!reat (istan'e5 et)een (Fs position and BFs. (nd 5corporeal5 ideas such as 5hot5 or 5cold5 as ter*s for physical sensations eco*e 5fictitiously5 e'tended in )ords like 5hothead5 and 5coldA looded5 as ter*s for personal traits. Bentha*Fs position )as Iuite in line )ith the scholastic for*ula, 5-here is nothin! in the intellect that )as not previously in the senses 5nihil in intelle'tu 6uo( non )rius in sensu7.5 -o )hich ?ei niB had added, 50'cept the intellect itself 5nisi intelle'tus i)se7.5 -hereupon, lo!olo!ically shortcuttin! *etaphysical issues, considerin! the *atter purely fro* the standpoint of no*enclature <sy* olic action=, )e could eIuate intelle'tus i)se )ith the ele*ents of !ra**ar and synta' that are intrinsic to any !iven lan!ua!e and are not directly reduci le to the issue stressed in the Iuotes fro* Bentha* and 0*erson. -hou!h the *utation that *akes speech possi le is itself inherited in our nature as physical odies <in the real* of *otion=, the for*ation of a no*enclature referrin! to sensory e'periences is on the side of sy* olic action. (ll such develop*ents constitute a *ediu* that provides *otives intrinsic to itself. :ith the )ider use of physicalist ter*s as necessary 5fictions5 for reference to supposed nonphysical entities or processes, the real* of specifically sy* olic action is stron!ly involved, and is co*pleted )ith the for*ally stylistic use of *etaphor, or eIuivocation !enerally. -he nature of lan!ua!e is such that it could not possi ly e confined to strictly literal, univocal usa!e. & "$$ & +f )ords did not ad*it of loose application, you couldnFt apply the sa*e ter*s to a variety of o #ects, processes, circu*stances. Cor in its details, every situation is uniIue. +n his ook entitled .oeti' 3i'tion: A /tu(y in 2eanings <?ondon, "%2;=,.)en Barfield )ould )ant to deny that the step fro* ter*s for sensation to their use in referrin! to nonsensory 5entities5 is *etaphorical. 8e )ould hold that the *aterial o #ects <to )hich such ter*s had literally referred= the*selves contain

such a ran!e of )hat 0*erson )ould call 5supernatural5 connotations. -o *eet the *ini*u* conditions of )hat is *eant here y 5sy* olic action5 all that is necessary is the ina ility of )ords to 5stay put,5 as )hen even a proper na*e like 5Caesar,5 referrin! to one particular person in history, !ives irth to such )ords as 5Kaiser5 and 5CBar.5 -he purely physiolo!ical aspect of the 2elf <its !roundin! in the real* of *otion= is characteriBed y the centrality of the nervous syste*. +ts sensations are i**ediately its o)n, not thus felt y any other or!anis*. ?ike or!anis*s presu*a ly have si*ilar pleasures and pains, ut these are imme(iately e'perienced only )ithin the centrality of each one particular or!anis*Fs nervous syste*, as individuated at parturition. -he 2elf as a 5person,5 *e* er of a co**unity <Culture= characteriBed y *otives in the real* of sy* olic action, is not thus differentiated. +n this respect the 2elf eco*es a product of the Culture. :hatever *ay e the !enetic traits differentiatin! one individual fro* another, and )hatever the distinct histories of individuals, the nature of sy* olic action shapes the 2elf lar!ely in *odes of role, of sociality. 8ere fi!ure the individualFs relations to fa*ily, to !roups, to ever )idenin! and partially conflictin! or!aniBations such as church, usiness, political party, nation, 5!lo al5 tentatives. 8ere, in contrast )ith the imme(ia'ies of the ody, )e confront for our overall 5reality5 an indeter*inately inter)oven co*ple'ity of sy* ols, reports a out local, national, and international affairs, a out history, psycholo!y, !eolo!y, astrono*y, e'pectations true or false, pro*issory or for iddin!, and so forth. -hou!h 5reality5 <the 5)orld5= as thus sy* olically conceived, e* races & "$7 & a potential 5universe of discourse5 far eyond the real* of physiolo!ical sensation, the opportunities for such e'ercisin! <via resources in the real* of 5sy* olic action5= depend )holly on the real* of physiolo!ical *otion <the asic conditions that deter*ine )hether the individual or!anis* lives or dies=. +n su*, )hen to the principle of individuation <involvin! the underlyin! physiolo!y of sheer *otion= there is added an or!anis*Fs a ility to parallel the real* of sensations y learnin! to use wor(s for the*, the concept of 2elf *ust necessarily e defined in ter*s of )olarity# +n ter*s of nonsy* olic *otion, the 2elf is a physiolo!ical or!anis*, separated fro* all others of its kind at the *o*ent of parturition. +n ter*s of sy* olic action, it eco*es a person y learnin! the lan!ua!e of its tri e, )ith correspondin! identity and roles < e!innin! )ith the eIuivalent of a proper na*e and e'pandin! variously in keepin! )ith the currently availa le resources of sy* olis* and the institutional structures reciprocally *ade possi le y the*=, the three correspondin! @ra*atistic a'io*s ein!: -here can e *otion )ithout action <as the sea can !o on thrashin! a out )hether or not there are ani*als that have a )ord for it=. -here can e no action )ithout *otion <as )e ani*als could not have )ords for anythin! e'cept for the

*otions of our nervous syste*s and the vi rations that carry our )ords fro* one of us to another throu!h the air or that *ake )ords visi le on the pa!e=. But <and this is the pri*ary a'io* that differentiates @ra*atis* fro* Behavioris*= sy* olic action is not reduci le to ter*s of sheer *otion. <2y* olicity involves not #ust a difference of (egree, ut a *otivational difference in *in(.= Met this difference in kind a*ounts to a pri*ary duplication. -his is due to the fact that the no*enclature of sy* olic place*ent is orro)ed fro* the *aterials of sensory *otion. (nd the ter*s are of such a nature that they are 5fictions5 or analo!ical e'tensions of their e!innin! in reference to physical processes and o #ects. ( CultureFs sy* olically conceived 5)orld,5 or 5universe of discourse,5 is thus uilt fi!uratively of ter*s ori!inally !rounded in reference to the nonsy* olic real* of *otion. & "$3 & .ther)ise put: -he real* of )hat is usually called 5ideas5 is constructed of sy* olic *aterial usually called sensory 5i*a!es.5 -he 2elf, like its correspondin! Culture, thus has t)o sources of reference for its sy* olic identity: its nature as a physiolo!ical or!anis*, and its nature as a sy* olAusin! ani*al responsive to the potentialities of sy* olicity that have a nature of their o)n not reduci le to a sheerly physiolo!ical di*ension. 2y* olicity itself ein! of a nature that can rise to hi!her levels of !eneraliBation until all is headed in so*e allAinclusive title, )e can readily understand )hy psycholo!ists like Hun! are *oved to talk of an overall oneness, an =nus 2un(us# Met in the li!ht of the critical @ra*atistic distinction et)een the *otives of a psycholo!ical or!anis* as such and the *otives of such a 2elf as )ersonali?e( y participation in its particular CultureFs *odes of literal <univocal=, eIuivocal, and analo!ical sy* olAusin!, )e can at least !li*pse )hy Hun! could e e'ercised y such a sy* olically en!endered 5idea5 or 5ideal5 of Ulti*ate Unity. (nd y the sa*e token )e should see )hy the *otionAaction 5polarity5 is un rid!ea le in the sense that, althou!h, in every tri al idio* ho)ever rudi*entary, there is a )holly relia le asic correspondence et)een a thin! and its na*eG never the t)ain shall *eet. -hat *i!ht see* Iuite o vious, as re!ards the kind of 5polarity5 that prevails )ith the correspondence et)een a tree and the wor( 5tree.5 But look ho) far afield fro* such o viousness you !et )hen the distinction shifts fro* the real* of sheer *otion <as )ith the physicality of a tree= to the correspondin! )ord <)hich is in the real* of sy* olic action= and you confront )hat @ra*atis* )ould vie) as inaccurate eIuivalents, such as 5*atter5 and 5spirit,5 5*atter5 and 5*ind,5 or even 5 rain5 and 5*ind.5 -here could e no total unity et)een the real*s e'cept alon! the lines of orthodo' reli!ionFs pro*ise to the faithful that their odies )ill e restored to the* in heaven. (n uncharta le co*ple'ity of ehavin!s a*on! the cells of the ody *ay add up, for instance, to an overall 5unitary5 sense of )ellA ein!G ut no sheer ter* for an ideal unity <such as Hun!Fs e'pression, =nus 2un(us= can *atch that purely physiolo!ical kind of 5attitude.5

Keats, dyin!, *odified a passa!e in 2hakespeare to state it thus, 5Banish & "$4 & *oney6Banish sofas6Banish :ine6Banish >usicG ut ri!ht Hack 8ealth, honest Hack 8ealth, true Hack 8ealth6Banish 8ealth and anish all the )orld.5 -hou!h any attitude, even in purely theoretic *atters, has a su**ariBin!, unifyin! aspect, it *ust prevail only insofar as in so*e )ay it is !rounded in purely physiolo!ical ehavior <as per :illia* Ha*esFs char*in! and often Iuoted state*ent that )eFre sad ecause )e cry=. +n his chapter on 5(ttitudes5 <-he Principles of ?iterary Criticis* O?ondon, "%2$P=, +. (. ,ichards )as presu*a ly speculatin! on a ehavioristic parallelis* of this sort )hen he )rote: 0very perception pro a ly includes a response in the for* of incipient action. :e constantly overlook the e'tent to )hich all the )hile )e are *akin! preli*inary ad#ust*ents, !ettin! ready to act in one )ay or another. ,eadin! Captain 2locu*Fs account of the centipede )hich it hi* on the head )hen alone in the *iddle of the (tlantic, the )riter has een caused to leap ri!ht out of his chair y a leaf )hich fell upon his face fro*, a tree. :hatever the i*plications of an attitu(e, as a kind of incipient or future action, it *ust e y so*e *eans !rounded in the set of the ody no)G and thus, thou!h an attitu(e of kindness *ay e ut the preparation for the doin! of a kind a't <a su seIuent *ode of ehavior=, it is already 5 ehavin!5 physiolo!ically in )ays of its o)n <as a do!Fs i*plicit )ay of 5con#u!atin! the ver Jto eatK 5 is to e!in y salivatin!, a odily *otion that in effect i*plies the future tense, 5+ )ill eat5G the present tense of the ver ein! odily con#u!ated y eatin!, and 5+ have eaten5 is also in its )ay a now, as the do! curls up for a co*forta le, satisfied snooBe=. But )hatever the correspondence et)een purely sy* olic attitudiniBin! and the kind of i**ediacy that poor Keats, )ith his dyin! ody, confronted, his very efforts to endo) his poetic attitudes )ith sensuous i**ediacy *ade hi* all the *ore cruelly a)are of the respects in )hich the poetFs *odes of sy* olic action )ere co*paratively <to use his o)n )ord for his o)n poetry= 5a stract.5 8is 5.de on a Drecian Urn5 sym&oli'ally enacts the 5transcendin!5 of the ody. But that letter he )rote to Canny Bra)ne )hile nearin! death )as concerned )ith a situation in )hich the sheer nonsy* olic real* of *otion <the pli!ht of his diseased ody= )as takin! overG for such in & "$; & essence is the un rid!ea le 5polarity5 et)een the social real* of sy* olic action and *otionFs 5principle of individuation5 )here y the sy*pto*s of his disease )ere the imme(iate sensations of himsel$ and none other. (ll told, in our 2elves sheerly as physiolo!ical or!anis*s, our )orld is *ade of )hat Deor!e 2antayana )ould descri e as ut a sin!le line dra)n throu!h an infinity of possi le 5essences.5 But all of the* are e'perienced imme(iately, as yours and no one elseFs, thou!h you dou tless ri!htly assu*e that others of your kind e'perience si*ilar i**ediate sensations. Beyond that, in polar distinction, is the vast sy* olic real* of tri al sociality, or orientation, as shaped y the influences that you encounter y reason of your ein! a sy* olAusin! ani*al, )hose 5reality,5 at every sta!e, is deter*ined y such ter*s. +n 2antayanaFs 4ealms o$ %eing, his 4ealms o$ 2atter )ould correspond to )hat is here called the

real* of nonsy* olic *otion <for )hich his )ord is so*eti*es 5flu',5 so*eti*es 5action,5 thou!h + *ust here e*ploy a different usa!e=. 8is passionate 4ealm o$ /)irit )ould e *uch )hat + *ean y 5sy* olic action.5 (nd his 4ealm o$ Essen'e )ould deal )ith 5sensation5 as the rid!e et)een the real*s of 5*atter5 and 5spirit,5 thou!h his ter* 5intuitions5 here )ould a* ivalently include oth odily sensations <such as color= and purely sy* olic fictions <such as the character of 8a*let=. -he 2elf as a 5person,5 eyond the individualFs identity as a strictly physiolo!ical or!anis*, confronts )ith varyin! de!rees of co*prehensiveness and profoundness the interrelationships a*on! the *anifold details of 5reality5 <)hatever that 5orientation5 *ay e= as kno)n and interpreted in ter*s of the sy* olic lore current in the Culture of that ti*e. /ecessarily, any individualFs for*al or infor*al version of such lore is selective, in keepin! )ith the li*itations and en!ross*ents esettin! that individual <as oth person and physiolo!ical or!anis*=. -he interrelationships a*on! such a con!lo*erate )ill e related consistently <this there$ore that=, antithetically <this however that=, adventitiously <this an( that=. & "$% & :hen such an a!!re!ate is felt to fall to!ether 5holistically,5 the !ratification of such a purely sy* olic sy**etry rise to an ecstasy of conviction that )e call 5*ystical.5 -he fall fro* such a state <)here y the fullness, )leroma, of purely sy* olic e'ercisin! !ives )ay to a sense of its underlyin! e*ptiness as tested y a si*ilarly structured physiolo!ical counterpart= is called 5accidie,5 acedia, sloth, torpor, drou!ht. .r the sense of such a confluence a*on! *otives can also have the allness of a pande*oniu*, a PandoraFs o' let loose, a :alpur!is /i!ht, a #an!lin! conflict of all the pieces )ith one another, the very fullness ein! felt as a drou!ht. +n the state of conte*porary Culture, + take it, the correspondin! 2elf is likely to *anifest 5in principle5 fra!*entary aspects of all three such sy* olically en!endered 5fulfill*ents.5 -he fra!*entary deli!ht is in puttin! anythin! to!ether. -he drou!ht is usually *et y purchasin! so*e for* of entertain*ent. -he variant of pande*oniac entan!le*ent can even e attenuatively transfor*ed into a it of research on the pro le* itself. 8art Crane is a nota ly pathetic e'a*ple of a poet )hose *ode of *ysticis* ter*inated in a correspondin! drou!ht. :hile he )as )ritin! portions of -he %ri(ge there )ere ti*es )hen everythin! see*ed to fall ecstatically into place, its *any dis#unctions inspirited y one transcendent principle of unity. But the very stren!th of his hopes for the )ork as a )holly organi' solution for his pro le*s as a )ersonal /el$ set the conditions for the drou!ht that )as necessarily i*plicit in his reliance upon sy* olicity alone. -here *ay e drou!ht, not as a co*edo)n fro* the *ystic e'altation of 5holistic5 sy* oliBin!, ut as a kind of sloth i*plicit in the sheer failure to take deli!ht in the )onders of purely sy* olistic enterprise. Cor such a condition there are direct <nonsy* olic= resources availa le to the 2elf6and they are

)idely resorted to. + refer to the *any dru!s that act directly upon the 2elf as a physiolo!ical or!anis* <in the real* of *otion=, thou!h there are attendant difficulties due to the fact that each such physical *eans of !ratifyin! the or!anis* also happens to ta' the health of that or!anis*G and even if it didnFt, there is the pro le* that the very directness and efficiency & "70 & of its appeal to the ody ro s the individual 2elf of the hu*an !ratifications resultin! fro* en!ross*ent )ith the *anifold *anifestations of purely sy* olistic enterprise. But surely, a ove all, in confrontin! the tan!le of 5!lo al5 pro le*s that eset the current state of affairs, )e should pay )an appreciative tri ute to the re*arka le sy* olic resources )here y 5pande*oniu*5 can eco*e 5attenuatively transfor*ed.5 (ll a out us there are our various 2elves, each to varyin! de!rees trackin! do)n the i*plications of his particular no*enclature. Cor + take it that, #ust as each !ood poet speaks an idio* of his o)n, so it is )ith each sy* olAusin! ani*al6and there is a kind of reciprocatin! relationship )here y the 2elf selects its key )ords, and they in turn eco*e for*ative, to shape further develop*ents of the 2elf, alon! )ith countless such uncharta le interactions, includin! reactions ack upon the ehavior of the 2elfFs sheer physiolo!y. -he reference to physiolo!y enters here in connection )ith the concept of 5psycho!enic illness,5 )hich refers to a reverse relationship )here y, #ust as dru!s can produce physical effects recorded as a correspondin! 5attitude5 or 5state of *ind,5 so such attitudes or states of *ind can function su!!estively to induce correspondin! physiolo!ical ehavior <in the sense that, if you received so*e infor*ation you elieved in, and the infor*ation )as hi!hly distur in!, it )ould affect your odily ehavior, your lood pressure, respiration, heart eat and the like Iuite as thou!h the situation )ere actually so, thou!h the infor*ation happened to e in error=. +n this sense there is the 5polar5 relationship )here y an individualFs *ode of sy* olic action <his invest*ent in a particular kind of literary style, for instance= *i!ht attain an or!anic replica in a kind of physical ehavior that happened to e a kind of disease. +n cases of that sort there could e a *utually reinforcin! relationship <a 5feed ack5L= et)een the authorFs sy* olic pro)ess and correspondin! processes of his ody )here y the develop*ent of his skill at his particular *ode of sy* olic action )ould e *akin! hi* sick and keepin! hi* sick, as his sy* olic e'ercisin! )as reinforced y the effects of his physiolo!ical 5*is ehavior.5 .ur attitudes to)ard past or future <re*e* rances or e'pectations= are products of our sy* olicity. & "7" & But their ehavioral counterparts in the real* of physiolo!ical *otion *ust e in the i**ediate present. Cor the only )ay a ody can possi ly ehave is fro* one present *o*ent to the ne't. +n the real* of sy* olicity, there are t)o totally different notions of seIuence the te*porally prior <yesterday/today/to*orro)= and the lo!ically <nonte*porally= prior <as )ith the syllo!is*, first pre*ise/second pre*ise/conclusion=.

>yth, ein! narrative, features the *odes of te*poral priority <as discussed in the section on 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis,5 in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion OBoston, "%3"G reprinted Berkeley, "%40P=. -he sa*e )ork deals 5lo!olo!ically5 )ith respects in )hich even tem)oral ter*s can e treated as in nonte*poral relationships to one another <as per *y 5Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of J.rderK 5=. -he strate!ic inter*ediate ter* here is i*plications. -hus the ter*s 5order5 and 5disorder5 are nonte*porally related in the sense that, ein! 5polar,5 each i*plies the other, re!ardless of )hether )e !o $rom the idea of 5order5 to the idea of 5disorder,5 or vice versa. But narrative <*yth= can set up a te*poral seIuence )here y the story !oes irreversi&ly 5fro*5 one 5to5 the other. +nsofar as i*plications all fall har*oniously into place, any !iven e'ercise in sy* olic action approaches the feel of *ystic unity. +nsofar as they add up to a #an!le <and thou!h 5polar5 ter*s such as 5order5 and 5disorder5 i*ply each other )ithout strife, they i*ply *uch conflict )hen reduced to ter*s of irreversi le story, the i*plications are under the si!n of pande*oniu*. +nsofar as, of a sudden, all such sy* olic enterprise see*s vacuous in co*parison )ith the i**ediacies of physiolo!ical sensation <in the real* of *otion=, )e are on the slope of sloth, of drou!ht, for )hich the alternative 5re*edies5 are either physical 5dissipation5 <as )ith direct recourse to dru!s= or further study <as thus fittin!ly )hen on the su #ect of sloth, @ante su*s up for us the entire rationale of the .urgatorio, in this very canto )here )e are assured that, thou!h rational O(KanimoP love *ay err, 5the natural5 Olo naturalP is al)ays sen?a errore=. Dersho* 2chole*Fs en!rossin! studies of the ka alists ena le us to & "72 & !li*pse a further *arvel )ith re!ard to the vi rancy of i*plications a*on! ter*s. :e see her*eneutic )ays )here y, thou!h the teacher )ould not so *uch as *odify a sin!le letter of the -orah, )hile honorin! the te't as the very si!nature of H898 8i*self, and considerin! the ?a) so asic to Creation that it )as propounded &e$ore Creation<thereKs a5priority5for you=, the disciple )as tau!ht *odes of transfor*ation that ena led hi* to see all such literalnesses dou le, in ter*s of esoteric i*plications. (nd thus so*e of us !oyi* can !li*pse ho) 2aint Paul )as doin! e'actly that, lon! efore the ka alists, )hen scrupulously leavin! the .ld -esta*ent letter of the ?a) intact, he ut introduced /e) -esta*ent interpretations <as )ith the shift fro* a strictly )hysiologi'al ehavior of circu*cision, )hich o viously had its sy* olic aspects, he i*provised a ne) sy* olis*, 5circu*cision of the heart5=. >uch of our en!ross*ent )ith all such interpretations and reinterpretations <as e'e*plified, for instance, in the various schools of psychoanalysis= ste*s fro* the vi rancy of interrelated i*plications that thus su!!est the*selves for the spinnin!. (nd 5case histories5 are, as it )ere, the translation of such lo!ically, doctrinally interrelated ter*s into the correspondin! para les of narrative <the 5*ythic5 parallel=. -hus the catalo!ues, or 5inventories,5 of :hit*anFs poetry are unfoldin!s of ter*s that i*ply one another, their associative interrelationship ein! revealed in a succession of tiny plots.

2ince the principle of duplication e!ins in the polarity of our dual nature as sy* olAusin! ani*als, the split across the t)o real*s of nonsy* olic *otion and sy* olic action )ill necessarily *anifest itself in endless variations on the the*e of duplication. Cor it is the co* ination of odily sensation )ith sy* olic counterparts and correspondin! analo!ical e'tensions that 5keeps ody and soul to!ether5 until the last ti*e. (nd neither real* can e co*plete )ithout the other, nor can they e identical. -hus ulti*ately, )hen properly discounted alon! 5lo!olo!ical5 lines <)here y his 5archetypes5 are seen as 6uasi tem)oral ter*s for ter*s logi'ally )rior=, PlatoFs version of i*itation, as a species of duplication, )ill e seen to !o *uch deeper than (ristotleFs. & "73 & (ristotleFs is !ood co**on sense, inas*uch as there is a nota le difference et)een real victi*a!e <as )ith a ,o*an !ladiatorial contest= and the *ere i*itation of sufferin! <as )ith the pathos of a Dreek tra!edy=. But Plato )as di!!in! into the i*plication that once )e turn fro* the real* of *otion to the real* of sy* olicity and try to envision everythin! in ter*s of that ideal sy* olic universe, then all actual thin!s in nature eco*e in effect ut )artial e'e*plars of )hat they are in essen'e, as no sin!le o #ect can fit the e'act description of the countless other and different o #ects classifia le under that sa*e head. Possi ly the *otionAaction distinction, as conceptualiBed in this state*ent, i*plies that the line of de*arcation et)een 5conscious5 and 5unconscious5 should e *oved farther to the side of sheer *otion. -hat is, drea*s )ould not e on the side of the 5unconscious5 insofar as drea*s, like the *ost *ature )orks of science, philosophy, literature, or the arts !enerally, ad*it of analysis as *odes of sy* olicity. -he 5unconscious5 )ould e rele!ated to such processes as di!estion, *eta olis*, the healin! of a )ound, even if )e study the physiolo!y of such ehavior. -hus in *y chapter on 59arieties of Unconscious5 <,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion OBerkeley, "%33P, pp. 34E42=, + e!in )ith 5the unconscious aspect of sheerly odily processes,5 )hich )ould e in the real* of nonsym&oli' motion# Cro* there + proceed to aspects of the 5unconscious5 in the real* of sym&oli'ity, )ith Creud as *y point of departure. >uch of this could e treated as variants on the ter* 5i*plication,5 as used in this paper. 2i*ilarly, if )e locate the principle of individuation in the ody as a physiolo!ical or!anis* <as per our logologi'al adaptation of a -ho*ist theologi'al principle= it )ould see* to follo) that Claude ?VviA 2trauss dra)s the line et)een 5/ature5 and 5Culture5 at the )ron! place. Cor oth 5/ature5 and 5Culture5 )ould e on the sym&olism side of the line. -hus, in effect, the case for the relation et)een iolo!y and sy* olis* )ould e overanthropolo!iBed, as oth 5/ature5 and 5Culture5 )ould e sta!es of 5Culture,5 )hereas 5/ature5 is the )re'ultural state out o$ whi'h the hu*an infant develops in acIuirin! the Culture of its tri e, ho)ever pri*itive.

& "7$ & :hatever the possi le ran!e of incidental read#ust*ents, duplication is so asic to the relation et)een *otion and sy* olicity, nothin! of *o*ent see*s Iuite co*plete unless )e have rounded thin!s out y translation into sy* ols of so*e sort, either scientific or aesthetic, practical or ritualistic. 2e' is not co*plete )ithout love lyrics, porn, and tracts on se'olo!y. -he nonsy* olic *otions of sprin!ti*e are co*pleted in the sy* olic action of a sprin! son!. -he real*s of nonsy* olic *otion and sy* olicity <)ith its vast ran!e of i*plications= are so related that the acIuirin! of skill )ith sy* olAsyste*s is analo!ous to a kind of 5fall5 into a technical state of 5!race5 that 5perfects5 /ature.

/. SO)# CO))#+!S O+ 1I%%IA) 1I%%#&O'*<S .C,+(<S PO%A'IS!IC !"O,("! I+ I!S "IS!O'ICA% S#!!I+(.
:+??0C.,@: -he historical trends that Hun! re#ected in CreudFs thou!ht can e su**ed up under the na*es *echanis*6seen, for e'a*ple, in CreudFs use of the e'pression Jpsychic apparatusF6and positivis*, the elief e'tolled y (. Co*te, 8. 2pencer and others, that culture )as destined to pass throu!h an evolutionary develop*ent fro* *a!ic throu!h reli!ion to science. (lthou!h Hun! )as profoundly co**itted to the values of e*pirical science, he re!arded the positivistic pro!ra* as an illusion, ecause the reli!ious i*pulse )as for hi* a per*anent reality of the hu*an *ind, not a sta!e of culture that )ould yield to Pro!ress5 O5Hun!Fs Polaristic -hou!ht,5 Analytis'he .sy'hologie 3 <"%47=: 2";E3%P. C.>>0/-: . viously the @ra*atistic Perspective )ould e on Hun!Fs side insofar as ter*s like 5psychic apparatus5 i*plied a reduction of 5sy* olic action5 to 5nonsy* olic *otion.5 But as co*pared )ith Behavioristic psycholo!ies, Creud is far fro* any such reductionis*. +n the @ra*atistic <5lo!olo!ical5= Perspective represented y the present article on the *otionAaction pair, re!ardless of the truth or falsity of reli!ion, >artin Bu erFs 5+A-hou5 relation is here vie)ed as in its )ay the 5perfect5 e'pression of the for* asic to the sentence: speaker/speech/spokenAto. .ne here directly addresses the *ost distin!uished audience conceiva leG and in prayer <petition, in effect sayin!, 5Please5= there is *ost !randly enacted the attitude of su *issiveness to an allApo)erful *a!istrate. >a!ic y co*parison 5co**ands.5 (pplied & "77 & science does neither, it ut 5contrives5 <hence, fittin!ly, our )ord 5*echanis*5 is ety*olo!ically related to Dreek )ords for *eans, e'pedients, contrivances, re*edy. :+??0C.,@: + )ill focus upon Hun!Fs tendency to conceive the )orld as asically consistin! of polarities of various kinds. @ay and ni!ht, sun and *oon, heaven and earth, ri!ht and left, such *ythical t)ins as the 3ios'uri < orn of a sin!le e!!= and 4omulus and 4emus, the dou leheaded Hanus, such orna*ents and cult o #ects as the dou le spiral, t)inin! snakes, the dou leAheaded a'e, the dou leAheaded ea!le, pairs of hornsG the )ealth, antiIuity and )ide distri ution of such sy* ols su!!est an archetypal asis. + )ill e concerned not )ith these ut )ith the atte*pts of certain thinkers to !ive their su #ective sense of polarity a philosophical for*. C.>>0/-: -hou!h lan!ua!e does talk a lot, the very essence of its !enius is in its nature as a&&reviation# ( sentence such as 5-he *an )alks do)n the street5 is in effect a kind of title that su*s up an uncharta le co*ple'ity of details involved in any particular situation to )hich such )ords *i!ht e applied. <-his issue is discussed at so*e len!th in *y essay 5:hat (re the 2i!ns of :hatL ( -heory

of J0ntitle*ent,5 reprinted in *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion.= (nd )hat *ore 5perfect5 a reviations are possi le than the replies 5Mes5 and 5/o5L +n fact, the choice is ideally so perfect, e'cept )ith the kind of Iuestions artificially set up for e'a*ination papers, )e usually have to settle for a *ere >ay e as the ans)er. >ost votin! says Mes or /o to a decision that is at est a >ay e. (ll antitheses e* odied in polarities of the sort listed y :illeford are y co*parison ut )eak attenuations of this 5ideal5 for*. <(n aspect of 5lo!olo!ical5 theory is the stress upon )hat it calls an 5entelechial5 principle underlyin! the trends intrinsic to the nature of sy* olicity as a real* of *otives considered in its o)n ri!ht. (ny strictly )sy'hologi'al *anifestation )ould e classed as ut a special case of such sy* olic resources in !eneral.= But prior to such polarities of antithesis )ithin the nature of sy* olicity, there is the incentive to duplication inherent in the unresolva le polar relationship et)een sy* olicity and the nonsy* olic real* of *otion. :+??0C.,@: Cor Hun! 5consciousness is al)ays su #ect to the unconscious ack!roundG and the e!o, no *atter )hat pride it takes in its po)ers, is al)ays su ordinate to the self, the purposes of )hich the e!o cannot appropriate e'cept y the difficult )ay of individuation.5 & "73 & C.>>0/-: -o Iuote the presu*a ly persuasive -9 co**ercial on the principle of individuationFs !roundin! in the strictly physiolo!ical <the real* of *otion=, itFs 5*y5 acid indi!estion, and 5*y5 !as, for )hich + <*y e!o= take this *edical material# But *y e!o is an aspect of *y 2elf, )hich is developed throu!h *odes of sociality <Culture= *ade possi le y the resources of sy* olis*. + shall reserve until later a discussion of the 5lo!olo!ical5 eIuivalents for the relation et)een 5consciousness5 and the 5unconscious.5 :+??0C.,@: Polaristic thinkin! is even present in Kant, )ho* Doethe <in a letter to 2ch)ei!!er in ";"$= ackno)led!ed as the authority for his o)n tendency to think in polarities. N +n the Far&enlehre 5-he -heory o$ +olors7 he says that, no *atter ho) one tries to think a out a pheno*enon, one cannot escape seein! that it i*plies an ori!inal division capa le of unity, or of an ori!inal unity capa le of division, and he clai*s that to divide )hat is united, to unite )hat is divided, is the life of nature. C.>>0/-: Mes, here is a asic correspondence et)een the real*s of *otion and action. :e can put things to!ether and take things apart. (nd as 2ocrates says in the .hae(rus, the dialectician is skilled in the use of wor(s that can perfor* si*ilarly in the real* of ideas. 8enri ?ouis Ber!son has astutely sho)n ho) this very nature of )ords leads to 5pseudopro le*s,5 as theorists speculate on ho) to 5resolve5 antitheses in nature that )ere already 5resolved5 ecause they didnFt e'ist in the first place and )ere ut the result of sy* olis*Fs failure to for*ally reco!niBe its li*itations as a *ediu* for the discussion of )holly nonsy* olic processes <in the real* of *otion=. Psycholo!ically, )e encounter naivetVs of this sort: accordin! to pri*itive elief, there )ere cere*onies in )hich a sacred ani*al could e torn into its, )ith each *e* er of the tri e eatin! a portion. 8ere certainly )as the principle of division, separation <in early Dreek cere*onies called s)aragmos=. But it )as *atched y a principle of merger inas*uch as all *e* ers of the tri e )ere felt to e *ade consu stantial y eatin! of this sa*e nu*inous su stance. -he difference et)een a 5lo!olo!ical5 treat*ent of such *atters and the vie)s too closely )edded to *ytholo!ical ori!ins of hu*an thinkin! resides in the fact that stress upon the mythi' )ould tend to derive the sheerly dialectical principles fro* their operation in such pri*itive rites, )hereas ?o!olo!y )ould vie) the pri*itive rites as a special case of the *ore !eneral dialectical principles. ( si*ilar risk is to e seen in so*e Creudian thinkin!, )ith re!ard to the processes of 5condensation5 and 5displace*ent5 in the sy* olis* of drea*s. 2y* olis* in its *ost

!eneral sense per*its of these t)o processes, )hich thus are not deriva le fro* such *anifestations of the* & "74 & in drea*s, and are ut special cases of sy* olicityFs resources. + rin! up this point to illustrate )hat + have in *ind )hen sayin! that ?o!olo!y can !o alon! )holly )ith psycholo!y insofar as psycholo!y is vie)ed as a su division of sy* olic processes, rather than as the revelation of their source. -rue, there is a sense in )hich the hu*an a ility to talk at all could e analyBed as a kind of 5 uiltAin alienation,5 separatin! us fro* our 5natural condition5 as an earth)or* presu*a ly is not. But considerations of that sort involve philosophic ironies not strictly reduci le to psycholo!ical ter*s, thou!h such Iuandaries o viously )ould have profound psycholo!ical i*plications <thereFs that )ord a!ainQ=. :+??0C.,@: -hese e'a*ples fro* /ietBsche, Hun!, Doethe, and 2chiller illustrate a tendency, e'tre*ely pronounced in the early part of the nineteenth century, to conceive difference as the result of division, )hich is finally the e'pression of universal anta!onistic principles. -he anta!onis* of these principles, and a contrary tendency to resolve it !ive rise to the for*s and ener!ies of nature <Doethe=, of the hu*an *ind <8e!el, Cichte, 2chellin!=, of art !enerally <2chellin!=, and of poetry specifically <2chiller=. +ndeed, the influence of this polaristic thinkin! is stron!ly present in all of the *a#or for*s of depth psycholo!y, ut it is in so*e )ays especially pronounced in Hun!. C.>>0/-: (dd 8eraclitus <as :illeford does later= and the list )ould have its perfect top. (pparently in his sche*e, all )as strifeG and the strife added up to perfect har*ony. -he theory of the U.2. Constitution vie)ed a 'on$li't of po)ers as a &alan'e of po)ers. :+??0C.,@: -he first source of this polaristic thinkin! is the nature of the hu*an *ind. N Polaristic thou!ht has an archetypal asis in that the hu*an *ind is disposed to structure its e'perience y *akin! distinctions et)een )hat so*ethin! is and )hat it is not, et)een a thin! of one kind and a thin! of another. -his *ay e seen in the ino*ial properties of lan!ua!e6the tendency to pair )ords and concepts in various )ays. C.>>0/-: ?o!olo!ically, the stress )ould e not upon 5the hu*an *ind5 ut upon the nature of sym&olism# 8i!h a*on! *y reasons for this state*ent of the case is *y elief that )e should not take on *ore o li!ations than necessary. :hy ha!!le )ith Behaviorists )hen you donFt need toL -hey canFt deny that our kind of ani*al ehaves y a lot of ver&ali?ing# 2o letFs account for as *uch as )e can in such ter*s. -o *y )ay of thinkin!, in carryin! out the i*plications of that one shift of locus, )e co*pletely invalidate 2kinnerFs attacks upon the concept of )hat he calls 5autono*ous *an5 <)hich + interpret as his o)n addition of a stra) *an=. & "7; & :+??0C.,@: -he individuation process descri ed y Hun! is !overned y the self )hich is a principle of unity and purpose in the unfoldin! of the personality. C.>>0/-: -hou!h + have already 5translated5 Hun!Fs no*enclature into 5lo!olo!ese5 on this point, one further Iualification is here su!!ested. +n the real* of sheer *otion, the individual or!anis* is *otivated y such o vious 5purposes5 as the need for food. But once you turn fro* the need for food to the )ays of uyin! food )ith *oney, youFre in a real* )here 5purpose5 involves *odes of authority, enterprise, and the like not even re*otely reduci le to the sheerly physiolo!ical needs of livin!. (nd, incidentally, the concern )ith a principle of individuation is itself a nota le step in the ri!ht direction. 2ince, in the last analysis, each thin! is ut a part of everythin!, there is far too *uch tendency to

overstress this principle of *er!er at the e'pense of concerns )ith a )rin'i)ium in(ivi(uationis <such as the centrality of the nervous syste* so o viously supplies=. :+??0C.,@: -he 5Panlo!is*5 of 8eraclitus, the idea that all thin!s partake of the logos, )hich reconciles the opposites. N C.>>0/-: ?o!olo!ically, all thin!s partake of the :ord in the sense that all discussion of the* is y the sa*e token in the 5universe of discourse5 <the Dreek )ord logos enco*passin! a ran!e of *eanin!s, such as 5 asic principle,5 that favor such an e'tension=. :e have already noted the *odes of styliBation )here y co*petition can e a for* of cooperation <as co*petin! tea*s on the all field in effect cooperate to *ake a !ood e'pert !a*e=. :+??0C.,@: 2chellin! )as influenced y Boeh*eFs idea of the =ngrun( as part of Dod. C.>>0/-: Ulti*ate 5polarity5 in sy* olis* is *ade possi le y the fact that any ter* of hi!hest !eneraliBation, such as 5!round5 or 5 ein!,5 can have the !ra**atical addition of a ne!ative, as 5unA !round5 or 5nonA ein!,5 for such are the resources 5natural5 to dialectic. -hus, in KantFs dialectic <e'plicitly so na*ed= his overall ter* for the pheno*enal, e*pirical )orld of the 5conditioned5 sets up the purely ter*inistic condition for the ter* 5unconditioned5 as applied to the nou*enal 5!round5 of this )orldFs conditions. :hether it *eans anythin! or not, any synony* for 5everythin!5 can still have ver ally as its ulti*ate 5conte't,5 so*e synony* for 5nothin!.5 8e!el )as Iuite clear on that point. & "7% & :+??0C.,@: -he first sta!e, then, in the develop*ent of *ytholo!y is Oaccordin! to 2chellin!P one of relative 5*onotheis*,5 a *onotheis* that includes the possi ility of polytheistic develop*ent. C.>>0/-: +n *y essay 5>yth, Poetry, and Philosophy5 <,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, pp. $03E%= + discuss the sheerly ter*inistic aspects of this Iuestion. 2uffice it here to say that any concepts of )riority )ith re!ard to *ythic thinkin! center in an a* i!uity )here y the 5lo!ically prior5 eco*es confused )ith the 5te*porally prior,5 since *yth is y its nature a voca ulary that states theoretic 5principles5 in narrative ter*s. -hus the issue eco*es so*e)hat like tryin! to decide )hether the 5divinity5 of !odhead in !eneral is 5prior5 to so*e one !odFs nature as a particular 5person.5 .ne even encounters parado'es )here y a *onotheistic reli!ion can eco*e 5aAtheistic5 in co*parison )ith polytheis*. Cor instance, *any institutions that *onotheis* treats in purely se'ular ter*s <such as Finan'e or Agri'ulture= )ould *erit in pri*itive pa!anis* special te*ples to their correspondin! deities. ?o!olo!y holds that, re!ardless of )hether one elieves or dis elieves in reli!ious no*enclature, one should study theolo!y for the li!ht that 5)ords a out Dod5 thro) upon 5)ords a out )ords.5 :+??0C.,@: Hun! ca*e to re!ard the archetype as 5psychoid,5 as transcendin! the psyche, and as occupyin! an indeter*inate position et)een Geist and /to$$, et)een spirit and *atter. C.>>0/-: -hat )ould e translated into 5lo!olo!ese5 thus: 2ince the archetypes all have a nota le imagisti' feature, they relate to the role that sensation plays in providin! the *aterial for sy* olic actionFs no*enclatures. (nd y the sa*e token they are in an 5inter*ediate position5 et)een the real*s of 5*atter5 <nonsy* olic *otion= and 5spirit5 <sy* olicity in its full develop*ent, via the fictions of analo!ical e'tension=. -heir 5psychoid5 identity )ould reside in the fact that their role as an as)e't of no*enclature could not e treated as enco*passin! the full develop*ent of a hu*an ein! in response to those *anifold resources and influences of sociality )e su* up as Culture. :+??0C.,@: Hun!Fs atte*pt to solve the pro le* of the opposites is concerned )ith the archetype of the unus mun(us, the unity of the cos*os. N Hun! )rites that 5:hile the concept of the unus mun(us is

a *etaphysical speculation, the unconscious can e indirectly e'perienced via its *anifestation. N-he contents of the unconscious N are *utually conta*inated to such a de!ree that they cannot e distin!uished fro* one another and can therefore easily take one anotherFs place, as can e seen & "30 & *ost in drea*s. -he indistin!uisha leness of its contents !ives one the i*pression that everythin! is connected )ith everythin! else, and therefore, despite their *ultifarious *odes of *anifestation, that they are at otto* a unity. N -he psychoid nature of the archetype contains very *uch *ore than can e included in a psycholo!ical e'planation. +t points to the sphere of the unus mun(us, to)ards )hich the psycholo!ist and the ato*ic physicist are conver!in! alon! separate paths, producin! independently of one another, certain analo!ous au'iliary concepts.5 -he concept of the unus mun(us is then, at the furthest reaches of Hun!Fs thou!ht. (nd thou!h he has tried to re*ove the concept fro* the real* of *etaphysics to that of e*pirical science, )e should not overlook the analo!y et)een Hun!Fs unus mun(us, )hich he so*eti*es treats as eIuivalent to the self, and 2chellin!Fs a solute *onotheis*. C.>>0/-: =nus isnFt so clearly an 5archetypal5 ter* as 5i*a!es5 can e. +t fi!ures thus a*on! the trans'en(entals, ter*s or properties )hich the *ediaeval scholastics said !o )ith all thin!s of )hatever sort: 4es, Ens, Derum, %onum, Ali6ui(, =num# +n that sense anythin! )e look at is a one# (nd the o viously summari?ing nature of a title is i*plicit in Hun!Fs usa!e, as )ith our )ishful title, 5=nite( 2tates.5 (nd Iuite as 5Dod5 is the overall title of titles in theolo!y, so ?o!olo!y looks upon any e'pression like =nus 2un(us as hi!h up in the scale of 5!odAter*s,5 if ut in the technical sense of )hat (lfred KorBy ski )ould have called a hi!h level of !eneraliBation. Cor think of ho) vastly *uch is enco*passed y your title 5.ne :orld5 if, )hen you say, 5+ a* talkin! a out everythin!,5 you feel that you really are talkin! a out everythin!. 2ince Hun! eIuates the .ne :orld )ith the 2elf, he is in effect tryin! to deny y idealistic fiat the polarityof Geist and /to$$ tha the e!ins )ith. -he concept of the 5collective unconscious5 )ould see* lo!olo!ically to involve these possi le sources: our responses to the sheer physiolo!y of our odies, in their *eta olistic processes )holly outside our a)areness e'cept for the sensations, pleasures, pains that )e e'perience as kinds of su**ariBin! titles for such !oin! on )ithin us, and *any of )hich function as si!ns that help us find our )ay a out <there y to that e'tent eco*in! 5conscious5=G the vast social lore that eco*es part of us, thou!h *ost of it does not e'plicitly en!a!e our attentionG the portions of this )hich, althou!h they e'plicitly en!a!e us, involve *any i*plications not tracked do)n as )hen )e do develop thou!ht and conduct in so*e particular channelG the i*plications even here, )hen they ut e!in to e*er!e and e'ercise us !reatly until )e have rou!ht the* into orderG the irresolutions involvin! each of us differently y reason of & "3" & his o)n particular historyG and a ove and ehind and )ithin all, the !oads to duplication that are intrinsic to the un rid!ea le polarity et)een the real*s of *otion and action e* edded in the physiolo!ical develop*ents )here y the physical or!anis* eca*e !enetically endo)ed )ith )ays to uild this un rid!ea le !ulf. -hrou!h CreudFs stress upon the for*ative effects of the individualFs early history <the period )hen the physiolo!ical or!anis* is ut &eginning to acIuire the sy* olic rudi*ents of a 2elf=, )e are introduced to a different aspect of the duplication principleG na*ely, the parado' )here y the process of te*poral pro!ression can y the sa*e token set the conditions for a later correspondin! kind of re!ression.

?o!olo!ically, the situation )ould e characteriBed thus: 2ince )ords are a *a#or factor in sharpenin! the nature of attention, the very paucity of a childFs e*er!ent voca ulary causes *any e'periences to escape the clarity that *akes for the kind of o servation *ost conducive to e1)li'it re*e* rance. /evertheless, the childFs e'periences )ith inti*ate fa*ily relationships serve in effect to surround it )ith a 5cast of characters5 and correspondin! 5plot.5 -hese roles < y reason of their te*poral priority in the individualFs history= eco*e as it )ere 5essential,5 and thus 5dra*atically creative5 in settin! up a pattern of relationships )hich the individual later duplicates y unkno)in!ly i*putin! si*ilar roles in situations that, as a *atter of fact, are ut re*otely analo!ical. But essentially Hun!Fs difficulties )ith the pro le* of polarity involve a co*plication of this sort: ". -here is a sense in )hich everythin! *er!es out of and ack into the universal conte'tG and each of us as an individual is ut part of that )hole, as a sin!le ripple is ut a *o*ent on the )ater and Iuickly *er!es ack into it. 2. -he very nature of lan!ua!e is such that )e can have !eneraliBin! titular ter*s <like Hun!Fs =nus 2un(us= for such ideas of overall consu stantiality, there y ein! Iuite handy for su**in! up an attitude of sorts, thou!h not reduci le to a particular. 3. -here is a kind of 5collective unconscious5 )e share in the sense that a co**on lan!ua!e spoken y si*ilar kind of or!anis*s contains a clutter of i*plications )hich its users va!uely share parts of, thou!h )e *ana!e to *ake so*e of it e'plicit and can !o alon! )ith *uch that others of us track do)n, *akin! other aspects of these i*plications e'plicit. & "32 & $. -hou!h our odies are li*e other odies of our species, hence could e e'pected to share variously in this correspondin! lin!uistic real* of i*plications <to e called a 5collective unconscious5=, there is also the principle of individuation )here y the imme(ia'y of sensuous e'periences, pleasures and pains <de*arcated y the centrality of the nervous syste*=, cannot e shared in its i**ediacy. 7. (ccordin!ly the polarity et)een the t)o real*s re*ains un rid!ea le, and )e are thus co*posite creatures, of a nature that can e called either a privile!e or a privation, or a *i'ture of oth.

4. !"# PO%A'I!$ PO#!ICA%%$ .'#SO%2#*.

(t another *eetin! of the conference at )hich + ori!inally presented the su stance of the fore!oin! *aterial there )as a paper y /or*an 8olland, )ho, in developin! a thesis concernin! three sta!es of psychoanalysis <first a stress upon the unconscious, ne't the e!o, and no) an 5identity phase5=, )as especially in!enious in su #ectin! the sa*e poe* to the three *odes of approach. -he poe* he chose )as :ords)orthFs t)o 5?ucy5 Iuatrains e!innin! 5( slu* er did *y spirit seal5 to illustrate the chan!es of approach. -he choice )as a *ost happy one for *y purposes, since it )as al*ost as thou!h deli erately desi!ned to illustrate *y notions a out the 5polar5 relationship et)een the real*s of <nonsy* olic= *otion and <sy* olic= action. + have situated the principle of individuation, )ith re!ard to the 2elfACulture pair, in the physiolo!ical real* of *otion, as circu*scri ed y the 5centrality of the nervous syste*5 <)here y the !iven hu*an individual, as a iolo!ical or!anis*, 5i**ediately5 e'periences only its o)n sensations, as distinct fro* the sensations that any other or!anis*, each in its )ay, i**ediately and e'clusively e'periences=. -he real* of sy* olic action, in contrast, is characteriBed y kinds of ehavior <)ith correspondin! *odes of identification= that are *ade possi le, for e'a*ple, y social relations hi!hly dependent on 5ar itrary, conventional5 sy* ol syste*s, of )hich a tri al lan!ua!e

)ould e the pri*e speci*en. + have said that the only transcendin! of the per*anent 5split et)een the t)o real*s <of sy* ol and nonsy* ol= )ould e as in so*e ulti*ate condition like that )hich orthodo' :estern reli!ions i*a!ine, in pro*isin! & "33 & that the virtuous dead )ill re!ain their 5purified5 odies in heaven. :ords)orthFs poe* su!!ests a different 5solution,5 as per the second Iuatrain: /o *otion has she no), no forceG 2he neither hears nor sees ,olled round in earthFs diurnal course, :ith rocks, and stones, and trees. ?ucy no) has 5no *otion5 in the sense of her *otions as an in(ivi(ual iolo!ic or!anis*. 2he has 5transcended5 this divisive state y *er!in! )holly )ith the *otions of rocks and stones and trees as they *ove in 0arthFs diurnal course. (nd the *er!er )ith 5sy* olic action5 is e* edded in the very constitution of the poetic *ediu* that cele rates her oneness )ith nature as the !round of all physiolo!ic odies. + *ean: -hou!h she has een reduced to ter*s of )ordless *otion, her transfor*ation is ein! perfor*ed in ter*s of poetryG hence all is as ver&al as )ith DodFs creative )ord in Denesis. .ur artAheavens such as KeatsFs 5.de on a Drecian Urn5 and MeatsFs 52ailin! to ByBantiu*5 rid!e the !ap y aesthetic conceits, each in its )ay invitin! the real* of sy* olic action to take over, in ter*s of images that stand for thin!s <*aterials= the*selves sym&oli'# -hus, Meats: .nce out of nature + shall never take >y odily for* fro* any natural thin!, But such a for* as Drecian !olds*iths *ake .f ha**ered !old and !old ena*ellin! -o keep a dro)sy 0*peror a)ake N (nd KeatsFs urn is a viaticu*, )ith its transcendent destiny already i*a!ed in its nature as a sy* olA saturated o #ect. +n su*, in his nature as the typically sy* olAusin! ani*al, *an )ould *ake an =nus 2un(us y *akin! everythin! sy* olic, as )ith BaudelaireFs !reat sonnet +orres)on(en'es, cele ratin! /ature as a 5te*ple5 )here *an passes 5a travers des forets de sy* oles.5 -he special poi!nancy of MeatsFs poe* is his <essentially hystericalL= !allantry in affir*in! his aesthetic 5solution5 in the very *idst of reco!niBin! the tyranny of sheerly physiolo!ical di*ension: 5(n a!ed *an is ut a paltry thin!, / ( tattered coat upon a stick, unless / 2oul clap its hands and sin!.5 +n his 5+nti*ations of +**ortality5 :ords)orth see*s to 5solve5 the pro le* y interpretin! his confused )onderAtin!ed *e*ories of presy* olic infancy as re*e* rances of a still further past <a principle & "3$ & + have called the 5te*poriBin! of essence5 )here y the narrative )ay of tryin! to say ho) thin!s truly are is to say ho) they originally were=. -his sy* olic pressure e'plains )hy Creud felt it necessary to

postulate a place*ent for his 5.edipus co*ple'5 in 5prehistory,5 )hatever that is. -o su* up: -he dialectical relationship et)een 2elf and Culture centers in a nonsy* olic principle of individuation or rudi*entary physiolo!ical identity )hich eco*es *atched <or countered, or e'tended= in the full <social= sense y sy* olic identifications )ith oth personal and i*personal aspects of the /onA2elf. (n o vious e'a*ple of personal identification )ould e the relationships involved in pri*itive kinship syste*s, *e* ership in secular or reli!ious social odies, citiBenship, occupational status, and the like. -he clearest e'a*ple of i*personal sources )ould e ter*inolo!ies developed as per the 5in orn psycholo!y5 of the individual odyFs responses to physical processes, conditions, o #ects, locations y the analo!ical use of )ords like 5sunny5 and 5stor*y,5 or 5distant5 and 5inti*ate,5 as 5fictions5 for referrin! not to cli*ate or e1tensio <@escartesFs ter*= ut to a 5person5 <a )ord that itself ori!inally referred to a thin!, the *aterial *ask )orn y an actor=. +n this sense, as Bentha* and 0*erson a!reed, despite their )idely different )ays of !ettin! there, all ter*s for 5psycholo!ical5 or 5ethical5 su #ect *atter <Iuite like the elieverFs )ords for the real* of heaven= can e traced ack ety*olo!ically to an ori!in in sheerly physicalist reference. -here is a kind of 5synchronic5 relationship et)een the real* of sy* olic action and its !roundin! in the sensations *ade possi le y the physiolo!y of nonsy* olic *otion. 2uch )ould see* to e at the roots of Hun!Fs concern <al*ost nostal!ic concernL= )ith the 5polar5 pro le* inherent in his ideal of an overall no*enclature to e for*ed in the na*e of =nus 2un(us# CreudFs concern )ith the te*porally prior )ould e on the 5diachronic5 side, havin! to do )ith the fact that the hu*an ani*al develops fro* speechlessness <nonsy* olic in$an'y= throu!h successive sta!es in the )ays of sy* olicity <plus correspondin! difficulties in the acIuisition of such aptitudes, difficulties that cannot e )holly sur*ounted, if only ecause the pro le*s do not lend the*selves to a )holly adeIuate solution in sy* olic ter*s, since our e*pirical pro le*s of life and death are ulti*ately !rounded in physiolo!y, not sy* olis*=. +n any case, oth of such concerns <Hun!Fs and CreudFs= reIuire us to track do)n the ulti*ate i*plications of )hat it is to e the kind of ani*al & "37 & )hose relation et)een its 2elf <as an individual= and its Culture <its society= is infused <5inspirited5= )ith the !enius <for etter or )orse= of its sy* ol syste*s, )hich it learns to *anipulate and y )hich it !ets correspondin!ly *anipulated. But this particular paper should end on at least a para!raph or t)o listin! if only at rando* so*e of the *any cultural for*s )hich, )hatever their nature in their o)n ri!ht, can e !li*psed as respondin! <in various and even Iuite contradictory )ays= to the principle of @UP?+C(-+./ i*plicit in the *otionA action ali!n*ent: >ost o vious are the traditional *etaphysical or theolo!ical distinctions et)een ody and *ind <*atter and spirit=. .thers: the *icrocos*A*acrocos* pair, 5eternal recurrence,5 variations on a the*e, dou le plot, cults of the ody <atte*pts to )ill that all e reduced to the i**ediacy of physiolo!ical sensation=, transcendence <atte*pts like Hun!Fs to have the 5polarity5 enco*passed y an ideal unity=, theories of 5i*itation5 <such as PlatoFs and (ristotleFs=, isy**etry, dele!ation of authority, antecedent and conseIuent in *usical phrasin!, identification y association, ritual <)hich sy* olically reenacts so*e supposedly literal event=. +n a case of psycho!enic illness, is not the ody ehavin! <*is ehavin!L= in pro le*atical )ays of a collateral natureL (re not the sy*pto*s that characteriBe its illness contrivin! in spontaneously uncharted )ays to duplicate in ter*s of physiolo!ic *otion certain

distresses i*posed upon an individual socialiBed self that happens to e entan!led in unresolved sym&oli'ally en!endered ve'ationsL (nd is not the physical disease in effect a disastrously 5literal5 translation of the victi*Fs predica*entL +ndeed, *ay not the sy*pto*s e so radical a physical counterpart that they in effect serve to reinforce the sym&oli' urden to )hich they )ere ori!inally ut a responseL + dare ut ask that. 8o)ever, + )ould for sure end on this fa*ily of @UP?+C(-+./2: Suid pro Iuo, le' talionis, Dolden ,ule, cate!orical i*perative, !uilty suspicion <)here y, if >r. ( has *alicious desi!ns on >r. B, he )ill suspect >r. B of havin! *alicious desi!ns on hi*=. +n rief, pro#ection. (nd over all, #ustice, propriety. +f youFre to e )holly hu*an, no sprin!ti*e <*otion= is )holly co*plete )ithout the <sy* olic= action of a sprin! son!. 0ven if )e donFt kno) a thin!Fs na*e, it e'ists for us only as )e think of it as potentially na*ea le. But so*e readers *ay feel that the Behaviorist aspect of these *atters needs further treat*ent, so + shall end on that. & "33 &

7. )O!IO+ A+* AC!IO+ O+ !"# SC'##+

-he si!hts and sounds of a *otion picture are, in the*selves, )holly in the real* of *otion. But as interpreted y the audience they eco*e a dra*a, in the real* of sy* olic action. -hese si!hts and sounds reach the eyes and ears of the audience throu!h the *ediu* of *otion. (nd the audience hears, sees, and interprets the* throu!h the *otions of the odily ehavior under the control of the nervous structure )ithout )hich )e could not see the si!hts, hear the sounds, or interpret the* as a 5story.5 ,ecall our first t)o @ra*atistic a'io*s. -here can e *otion )ithout action. <+f the fil* )ere ein! played in an e*pty house, there )ould e no dra*a, that is, no sy* olic action.= -here can e no action )ithout *otion. <(n audience could not see, hear, and interpret it as a 5sy* ol syste*5 )ithout the aid of the nervous syste* and its physiolo!ical *otions.= But such purely physiolo!ical ehavior on the part of the audience can fi!ure in a totally different kind of 5co**unication.5 Cor instance consider the operations of airAconditionin! eIuip*ent in a *ovie house. + have read that if a thriller is ein! played, this *echanis* *ust )ork *uch harder than if the plot is of a *ilder sort ecause of the effects )hich the e'cite*ent of the audience has upon the conditions of the at*osphere in the theatre. 2uch odily responses as increased )ar*th and accelerated respiration place a !reater urden upon the airAconditionin! device, )hich is eIuipped )ith *echanical 5sensors5 that re!ister the chan!e in conditions and 5 ehave5 accordin!ly. . viously, its 5sensitivity5 is not to the *otions on the screen as a dra*a <hence a process in the real* of sy* olic action= ut purely to physical conditions produced y the sheer &o(ies of the audience in their responses to the *otions of the fil* as a dra*a <hence in the real* of sy* olic action, for )hich the classic )ord in this connection )ould e 5i*itation5=. . viously, the airAconditionin! eIuip*ent is not concerned at all )ith the dra*a as a for* of sy* olic act, an 5i*itation.5 ,ather it is respondin! to a situation purely in the real* of *otion, the state of the at*osphere produced y the physiolo!ical *otions of the audience. +ts *otions )ould proceed in the sa*e )ay even if there )ere no dra*a or audience at all ut there )ere so*e other such condition in the real* of *otion that )as 5co**unicated5 to it y its 5sensors.5 + stress this distinction ecause it so clearly indicates t)o different real*s of 5 ehavior5 here, the one involvin! the interpretation of the

& "34 & fil* as a sy* olic act, the other )holly in the real* of nonsy* olic *otion <the hu*an odies ein! 5co*posite5 entities that 5 ehave5 in oth )ays, )hereas the fil* sheerly as visi le shapes and sounds and the airconditionin! syste* )ith its *echanical 5sensors5 ehave in ut one=. -he audience possesses such duality y *eetin! these t)o conditions: first, its *e* ers are iolo!ical or!anis*sG second, they are endo)ed )ith the a ility <and correspondin! need, y our tests= to learn an ar itrary conventional sy* ol syste*, such as a tri al lan!ua!e, )hich also has the a ility to discuss itself. -here is an ad*ira le article *uch to our purposes, thou!h )e *ay apply it so*e)hat differently than the author intended: 50'planation, -eleolo!y, and .perant Behavioris*,5 y Hon @. ,in!en <.hiloso)hy o$ /'ien'e $3 O"%43P=. + )ould like to *ention it in connection )ith the para!raph y +. (. ,ichards that + previously Iuoted on the su #ect of 5attitudes.5 :hen ,ichards )as readin! of a *an ein! itten y a centipede, a leaf fell a!ainst his face, causin! hi* 5to leap ri!ht out of his chair.5 ,ichards cites the incident as an indication that 5every perception pro a ly includes a response in the for* of incipient action. :e constantly overlook the e'tent to )hich all the )hile )e are *akin! preli*inary ad#ust*ents, !ettin! ready to act in one )ay or another.5 ,ecall that in connection )ith ,in!enFs discussion of the difference et)een 5respondent5 ehavior and 2kinnerFs in!enious e'peri*ents )ith 5operant5 ehavior. +n a typical e'peri*ent of PavlovFs, the e'peri*ental ani*al res)on(s y salivatin! )hen you !ive it a sniff of *eat. +ts response is checked Iuantitatively y a device that can *easure the flo) of saliva. -hen e!in rin!in! a ell at the sa*e ti*e as you !ive the sniff of *eat. (nd after havin! y repetition esta lished the association et)een the sniff of *eat and the rin!in! of a ell, rin! the ell )ithout the sniff of *eat, and check on the a*ount of salivation as a response thus conditioned. 2kinnerFs 5operant5 conditionin! proceeds Iuite differently. 8e !ives his ani*al a !oal y settin! up so*e condition )here y, if it pecks at a certain for* <or color= or presses a lever, it operates a *echanis* that releases a it of food. 8avin! een syste*atically starved to a out fourfifths of its nor*al )ei!ht, it does )hatever it can in its need for food. -he la oratory conditions are so set up that there are fe) thin!s it can do. (s the result of its rando* *otions, it learns to repeat the pressin! or peckin! operation that is oth con!ruent )ith its 5natural endo)*ent5 and releases the food. By !radually co*plicatin! the conditions 2kinner can !et his pi!eon to *ake a *uch *ore a!ile series of discri*inations than & "3; & he could perfor*, )ithout enefit of trainin! inside his 2kinner o'. -he ani*al is thus induced not *erely to 5respond5 to a sti*ulus ut to learn a set of operations that have a 5purpose,5 as per the ter* 5teleolo!y5 in ,in!enFs title. But note that ,ichardsFs anecdote is *ore in line )ith the earlier Behavioris* that stressed 5response.5 (nd as + interpret it, his reference to 5a response in the for* of incipient action5 concerns a &o(ily state that is collateral )ith )hat + )ould call the 5sy* olic action5 of his readin!. -he situation is *ade still clearer y ,in!enFs reference to a distinction et)een 5*olar5 ehavior and 5*olecular5 ehavior. 2kinnerFs e'peri*ental ani*als )ould e studied for their 5*olar5 ehavior <as, for instance, )hen they learn the order of keyApecks or leverApresses needed to procure the* their food=. + )ould say that PavlovFs *easurin! of salivation )as rather on the side of the ani*alFs 5*olecular5 ehavior, as )as ,ichardsF ehavior )hen the leaf startled hi*. . viously, in that sense,

lau!hter, tears, or prurient responses )ould e on the slope of the 5*olecular,5 alon! )ith the su!!estion, as ,ichardsF anecdote indicates, that there are *any su tler such responses in the ody of the reader )ho is 5sy* olically reenactin!5 a te't. 2uch is *y reply to Behavioristic *onis*. /o ar!u*ents a out 5*entalis*5 need fi!ure. -he test is the purely e*pirical distinction et)een ehavior via sy* ol syste*s and the ehavior of ani*als not characteriBed y hu*an )ays )ith 5sy* olicity.5 -hatFsit, ut let *e end )ith as ection )hich su*s it up and adds a it.

=. A&!#' '#A*I+( !"# #SSA$ 5$ CO+ *. 'I+(#+

-he !reat i*prove*ent that 2kinnerFs concern )ith 5operant5 ehavior has over the earlier dispensationFs study of 5respondent5 ehavior deflects attention fro* the sheer )hysiology of an individual or!anis*Fs response to a sti*ulus. >y earlier reference to ,ichards indicates at a !lance the (i$$erent kind of o servation that !ets lost )hen the e*phasis is upon 5operant5 conditionin!. -he pi!eonsF conduct is descri ed in sociolo!ical ter*s, not in ter*s of sheer *otion. >y @ra*atistic position re ukes .perant Behavioris* for not ein! ehavioristic enou!h. -hrou!h confusin! action and *otion, it deflects attention fro* the study of the )hysiologi'al motions involved in the ehavior of conditioned su #ect. +tFs too 5*olar,5 there y ne!lectin! the 5*olecular5 aspects of a physiolo!ical or!anis*Fs ehavior. +ronically, the 5*olar5 as so conceived in effect *akes .perant Behavioris* far too 5spiritual.5 & "3% & PavlovFs study of salivation reduced ehavior to 6uanti$ia&le )hysi'al (es'ri)tion <the real* of physiolo!ical *otion=. 2kinner in effect is a puritan )ho !ives his pi!eons a #o . ,ichardsF anecdote !ives !li*pses into the )ays )here y even so sym&oli'ally a'tive a perfor*ance as rea(ing a &oo* is so*eho) under!oin! collateral operations in the real* of sheer )hysiologi'al motion# (nd the instance he !ives su!!ests pretty clearly )hy there )ould e )hysiologi'al correlatives of )hat, 5*entalistically,5 is called an 5attitude.5 Before readin! ,in!enFs e'cellent essay, + had approached the *atter fro* a different an!leG na*ely, *y conviction that 5sy* olic acts5 can e perfor*ed differently in the real* of *otion. 2o*e peopleFs 5sy* olicity5 *akes their odies feel !oodG others )ill turn up )ith peptic ulcers, hi!h lood pressure, secretions of adrenalin, and so forth. <(lon! those lines, + incline to assu*e that >ar'Fs )ritin! of 3as Ga)ital helped !ive hi* liver trou le.= +f 5psycho!enic illness5 isnFt a 5*olecular5 aspect of so*e peopleFs 5ver al ehavior,5 then )hat is itL -rue, one can e'peri*entally drive ani*als craBy. But not )ith 5ideasQ5 + *ust )ork on the assu*ption that there is a funda*ental difference et)een a device that re*oves food fro* a hun!ry ani*al each ti*e <in keepin! )ith its 5!enetic endo)*ent5= it reaches for the food and the pli!ht of a sy* olAusin! ani*al )ho, if he !ets drunk, al)ays says e'actly )hat he kno)s he shouldnFt say. (lso, the sy* olAusin! ani*al has *any 5!radations5 of response. Cor instance, if he is a )riter and is so inclined, he *i!ht )rite a ook in )hich he 5idealiBes5 his o)n )ay)ardness, and turns out a estAseller. By 5!radations5 the sort of thin! + have in *ind is dealt )ith in the *iddle para!raph, pa!e ";4, of *y article 5-o)ards ?ookin! Back5 <Hournal o$ General E(u'ation Ofall "%43P=. + refer to the fact that, !iven the resources of 5sy* olicity,5 our kind of ani*al can *ake a livin! y other )ays than y solvin! the pro le*. 8e can play variations on the theme o$ trying to solve the )ro&lem# +n rief, y dancin! various attitu(es# +f such )ere not the case, )here )ould peda!o!y eL (nd artL <-ra!edy can entertain us y transfor*in! the the*e of sufferin! into a *arketa le source of pleasure.= -he

ehavioristFs ani*al either solves the pro le* or doesnFt. But the real* of purely sy* olic action allo)s for a !raded series of attitu(es such that )e can co**unicate )ith one another y a deflective variety of )ays in )hich )e touch upon the need for a solution. -hen, conversely, often our )ays of talkin! a out it can involve correlative *odes of physiolo!ical <5*olecular5= *otion that cul*inate in trick ail*ents. & "40 & 2kinnerFs si*ple )sy'hology of operant conditionin! deflects attention fro* the possi le distinctions et)een odily *otion and sy* olic action. 8is concerns are )ith 5*olar5 <pu licL= ehavior. +tFs a Iuite le!iti*ate field of inIuiry, and he has done )ell y it. But it accidentally o scures the true i*port of the distinction et)een 5ver&al ehavior5 <sy* olic action= and 5&o(ily ehavior5 <physiolo!ical *otion=. +f a physicist sets up an e'peri*ent y notin! ho) rays ehave )hen refracted throu!h a pris*, there is a 6ualitative (i$$eren'e et)een the ehavior of those rays and the ehavior of the physicist )ho planned, set up, and interprets the e'peri*ent. -he physicist )ould persuade his collea!ues. +f he tried to ar!ue )ith his rays, youFd kno) heFs craBy. -hus *y @ra*atistic Iuestion is: +s .perational Behavioris* physiolo!ical enou!hL 8as it not confined itself to o servations that are ut analo!ues of sociolo!yL But if one treats the physiolo!ical or!anis* as the principle of individuation, then one has the conditions for a distinction et)een *otion and so*e such ter* as 5personality5 or 2elf in its role as a social product, developed via the hu*an e'perience )ith the resources of sy* ol syste*s, alon! )ith the correspondin! vast, co*plicated structure of identifications )hich constitute 5reality5 <includin! the lore of the sciences, history, *athe*atics, hu*an relations, even 5!ossip,5 a *otivational real* that *ust e different not #ust in de!ree ut in kind fro* that of nonhu*an ani*als=. (s + )ould read and apply the ,in!en essay, it confir*s and sharpens *y position. -he distinctions et)een 5operant5 and 5respondent,5 coupled )ith the distinctions et)een 5*olar5 and 5*olecular,5 help !reatly to clarify *y clai* that there is a asic distinction et)een ver al ehavior <)hich + call 5sy* olic action5= and nonver al processes <)hich + call 5nonsy* olic *otion5=. -he ter*s are not i*portant, ut the distinction is, )hatever e the ter*s one chooses. -he odily ehavior correlative to the 5speech act5 is Iuite different fro* the )ay 5)ords ehave,5 )ith a correspondin! need that one accentuate the difference rather than o literate it, as is in effect the case )hen e'peri*ents in the operant conditionin! of 5du* 5 ani*als are interpreted as adeIuately representative of *atters to do )ith induce*ent in the specific real* of hu*an relations. -he ironically parado'ical fact is 2kinner is a le to set up so essentially 5rational5 a pro le* <5push that lever, peck that key, or starve5= that his ani*als can in effect ehave *uch *ore 5rationally5 than is the case in *ost hu*an situations havin! to do )ith )elfare, & "4" & co*plicated as they are y a vast tan!le of sy* olically, culturally en!endered 5reality5 a ove or eyond our e'periences as hun!ry ani*als confrontin! a device for !ettin! food. -he very directness of the issue as so set up is in itself enou!h to *ake it unrepresentative of the indirectness that is typical of hu*an discri*inations.

+otes
-his essay ori!inally appeared in +riti'al 8n6uiry $ <su**er "%4;=: ;0%E3;. ,eprinted )ith per*ission of the University of Chica!o Press. & "42 &

>. !3eology and %ogology

19 9
-he *ain purpose of this lon! essay is to define, illustrate, apply, and defend lo!olo!y 6 pretty *uch a!ainst all co*ers. -heolo!y is used as a co*parison and contrast to lo!olo!y and is the central concern of the essay, as it )as, say, in -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion <"%3"=. -his essay is pro a ly the *ost co*plete on the su #ect of lo!olo!y, ho) it )orks, )hat its asic assu*ptions are, and )hy it should e taken seriously as a )ay of dealin! )ith )ords <sy* olic action= and the hu*an condition <)hich includes the real* of *otion=. +t is a su**in!Aup essay, )hich *eans that there is Iuite a lot of repetition of *aterial that appears in other essays efore and after this one. Burke had finished this essay y the fall of "%44 )hen he ca*e to Chica!o for talks at the /ational 8u*anities +nstitute at the University of Chica!o, )here + )as a fello). -he institute typed the essay for hi*, and he had *ade all of his corrections y the sprin! of "%4;, )hen he returned to Chica!o to !ive a series of talks at /orth)estern University that )as arran!ed y ?ee Driffin, and featured BurkeFs latest definition of hu*ans as 5 odies that learn lan!ua!e.5 /othin! is *ore asic to late <post "%40= lo!olo!y than this definition, )hich replaces his old one, 5sy* olAusin! ani*als.5 (s Burke liked to say, you can 5spin5 everythin! else fro* it, and he did. ( distinctive hu*an trait no) eco*es the intrinsic inherited species trait: the a ility to learn a lan!ua!e, any lan!ua!e fro* the thousands that are spoken )orld)ide. (ll 5nor*al5 hu*an ein!s have this a ility to understand and speak a lan!ua!e, and, )ith trainin!, to read and )rite it. .ne learns the lan!ua!e of the tri e *ore or less auto*atically if one is socialiBed and !ro)s up )here the lan!ua!e is spoken. /o other livin! species that )e kno) of has this a ility, perhaps ecause no others have a neural net)ork co*ple' enou!h to acco*plish the feats of *e*ory reIuired to learn, and learn ho) to use, thousands upon thousand of )ords in hearin!, speakin!, readin!, and )ritin!. Prodi!ious feats of *e*ory are characteristic of hu*ans in their relationship to lan!ua!e. Burke is not really so interested in these feats of *e*ory as he is in the fact that the a ility to learn and use a lan!ua!e is u iIuitous in hu*ans and that lan!ua!e <sy* olic action= has a lo!ic <lo!olo!icL= of its o)n that affects every part of our lives, the *ore so since the advent of the a!e of print technolo!y and, later, of radio, television, and co*puters. ?o!olo!y is the study of )ords, and )ords a out )ords. Burke likes to point out that even 5reality5 is not real, rather than, say, nature or so*e other nonver al su #ect until it has een turned into )ords, and *a#or events <sprin!, love, *arria!e= are not co*plete until )e have a son! or poe* to !o )ith the*. :e literally see )ith )ords and na*e everythin! )e see to incorporate it into the ver al real* so that )e can refer to it )hen it is not present and *ake appropriate use of it. -he 5illiterate5 +ndians of the (*aBon #un!le have na*ed and learned

ho) to use hundreds of natural su stances for & "43 & *edicinal and other purposes. -he 0ski*os have a hu!e nu* er of )ords for every kind of sno). -he Plains +ndians had a lan!ua!e *ore co*ple' than Dreek. Print technolo!y !ave us the )orld of ooks, )hich *any of us still inha it. :e *ay yearn for an un*ediated e'perience of the natural )orld <BurkeFs real* of *otion= ut it is i*possi le, no *atter )hat the ecocritics and ecolo!ists tell us. :e have no i*a!es that are not tainted )ith )ords. @o!s *ay s*ell their )ay throu!h the )orld, ut )e talk our )ay throu!h it6and eyond it. +n these *atters, Burke is a solutely correct in his relentless insistence that the )ay to kno)led!e and understandin! of )hat it *eans to e hu*an is throu!h )ords, in all of their *any for*s and per*utations. +n and throu!h )ordsG eyond )ords he once )rote. But eyond )ords there is nothin!. Dod after all is nothin! ut a )ord in lo!olo!y. +t is hard to i*a!ine )hat could e eyond )ords in lo!olo!y, e'cept nothin!. >ay e a pure, po)erful *usical e'perience, such as BeethovenFs last piano concerto *i!ht !ive us an e'perience eyond )ords, thou!h the second *usic critics or conductors or players e!in to discuss it, they have rou!ht it into the real* of )ords ecause they have no other )ay to !et it out of the pure *usical state it is in )hen )e hear it. + see* to e far afield, ut +F* not. BurkeFs e'a*ple of the air conditioner in the *ovie theater is *eant to illustrate ho) *ind affects ody, or )hat the rhetorical properties of a fil* can do. -he ody that learns lan!ua!e is also the ody that suffers fro* it6)hat you see in the theater is nothin! ut i*a!esG )hat you hear is nothin! ut )ords and )hatever sound effects and *usic are part of the *ovie. -here is nothin! real a out it e'cept that it is happenin! to you as you internaliBe )hat is on the screen and )hat is co*in! fro* the speakers. (s Burke points out, no one is really ein! killed, tortured, urned, uried alive, raped, or havin! an or!as* up there. -here are no real ullfi!hts in 8e*in!)ayFs novels, nor is there any actual violence in CaulknerFs novels. 8o)ever, the po)er of )ords <and of i*a!es on the screen= is so !reat, and the connection et)een )ords outside the head and )ords inside the head is so e'tensive and the neural net)ork is so co*ple' that the )hole ody is affected y )hat it sees and hears. +n spite of the fact that )e kno) it is not real, )hat )e read and see on the screen can *ake us shout, )eep, lau!h, close our eyes, even leave the theater or -9 to avoid any *ore of that e'perience. -his interactive relationship is the field of lo!olo!y: the nature of )ords <sy* olic action=, )hat )ords can do to us, ho) )ords ehave, )hat )e can do to and )ith )ords as odies that learn lan!ua!e. 5/o *ind )ithout ody,5 Burke says over and over a!ain in discussin! the real* of sy* olic action. 0ven inside the head, lan!ua!e is an e* odi*ent and the rain is a clutter of )ords. -here *ay e 70,000 to "00,000 in there. -he only escape see*s to occur )hen )e drea*, )hich is often )ordless. -his is BurkeFs real*. +f + !o on, +Fll !et lost in it, lost in )ords a out )ords, lost in the lo!olo!ical trap. .nce in there <say, in a te't= ho) can you ever !et ack out e'cept y usin! *ore )ords a out )ordsL (rtists painted a stract pictures and left the* untitled to escape the tyranny of )ords. But even to call it 5Untitled5 is to rely on )ords a!ain. & "4$ &

&O'#1O'*
-here is the possi ility of confusion, in connection )ith *y use of the ter* 5lo!olo!y.5 -hou!h + shall constantly e encounterin! occasions )here theolo!y <as 5)ords a out Dod5= and lo!olo!y <as 5)ords a out )ords5= overlap, particularly as )hen lo!olo!y )as taken literally to *ean 5the @octrine of the ?o!os5 <the reference to Christ as the :ord in the Dospel of Hohn=, in *y discussion + shall e stressin! the secular *eanin! of the ter*. -echnically, each ter* could treat the other as of narro)er scope. Cor lo!olo!y in the secular sense could class all sorts of 5is*s5 and 5olo!ies5 and *any other kinds of utterance, includin! itself, as *odes of 5ver al ehavior.5 (nd theolo!y )ould certainly look upon any such theoriBin! as far less co*prehensive in scope than theolo!yFs concern )ith the relations et)een the hu*an, )ordAusin! ani*al and the real* of the supernatural. Professor H. 8illis >iller, *ost nota ly in his essay on 5-he ?in!uistic >o*ent in J-he :reck of the @eutschlandK 5 <-he New +riti'ism an( A$ter, edited y -ho*as @aniel Moun! OCharlottesville: University Press of 9ir!inia, "%43P, pp. $4E30=, has e'pertly discussed 8opkinsFs )ay of fusin! a fascination )ith )ords in !eneral and a devotion to Christ as the creative ?o!os. (nd )hen else)here he refers to 5the peculiarly precarious Ceuer achian pose )hich says, in effect, J(ll the affir*ations of Christianity are true, ut not as the elievers elieve,K 5 + thou!ht of the ka alists )ho said that i lical references to Dod as thou!h he had a hu*an ody are not fi!urativeG they are literal. But only Dod kno)s ho) to interpret their literal *eanin!6and the nearest )e can co*e is y understandin! the* as fi!ures of speech. .ur odies are !estated and orn in )ordlessness6and out of such a state !ro)s the doctrinal <that is, the ver al, the scriptural even=. -he*selves speechless, they help us learn to speak.

I
:e have heard *uch talk of a 5 irth trau*a,5 the shock of a fetus in ein! e'iled fro* an 0denic real* in )hich it had flourished ut )hich its o)n sta!e of !ro)th had e!un to transfor* fro* a circle of protection into a circle of confine*ent. :ith its first outcry after parturition it is started on its pil!ri*a!e as a separate or!anis*, its sensations, its feelin!s of pleasure and pain, ein! i**ediately its o)n and none otherFs. & "47 & :e assu*e that such i**ediate e'periences of a particular physiolo!ical or!anis* are li*e the e'periences of si*ilar other or!anis*s. But at least they are far fro* i(enti'al in the sense that your pleasures and pains are e'clusively yours, and no one elseFs. :hether or not the or!anis*Fs radical chan!e of condition at irth is a 5trau*a,5 a )ound that leaves a deep scar, )e do kno) that under ordinary favora le conditions the or!anis* e!ins to flourish, and even so *uch so that in later life the va!ue *e*ories of its early years can assu*e an 0denic Iuality, presu*a ly the *aterial out of )hich *yths a out a pri*al Dolden (!e can take for*. (nd this is the sta!e of life durin! )hich the infant <that is, literally the 5speechless5 hu*an or!anis*= learns the rudi*ents of an aptitude )hich, to our kno)led!e, distin!uishes us fro* all other earthly ein!s: na*ely, lan!ua!e <or, *ore roadly, fa*iliarity )ith ar itrary, conventional sy* olAsyste*s in !eneral 6insofar as traditions of dance, *usic, sculpture, paintin!, and so on are also *odes of such 5sy* olic action5=. But the kind of ar itrary conventional sy* olAsyste* that infants acIuire in learnin! a tri al lan!ua!e

differs fro* the other *edia in at least this nota le respect: +t is the one est eIuipped to talk a out itself, a out other *edia, and even a out the vast )orld of *otion that is )holly outside all sy* olA syste*s, that )as !oin! on lon! efore our particular kind of sy* olAusin! ani*al ever ca*e into e'istence, that is the necessary !round of our ani*al e'istence, and that can !o on eternally )ithout us. ,ousseau tells us that our kind )as orn free. But that for*ula can e *isleadin! in its i*plications. 0very infant e*er!es fro* or!anic infancy <speechlessness= into lan!ua!e durin! a period of total su&:e'tion6su #ection to the *inistrations of 5hi!her po)ers,5 the fa*ilial adults )ith )ho* it co*es to e in )hat >artin Bu er )ould call an 5+A-hou5 relationship. Under favora le conditions these po)ers are eni!nG so*eti*es they are *ali!nG or there is an a* i!uous area, inas*uch as *inistrations that the po)ers conceive of as )ellAintentioned *ay e interpreted other)ise y the *aturin! infant, since its condition does not ena le it to clearly reco!niBe the li*itations i*posed upon the hi!her po)ers )hich the infant conceives of as allApo)erful. -he first cry of the infant had een a purely refle' action. But as the aptitude for sy* olic action develops, the child acIuires a )ay of transfor*in! this purely refle' response into the rudi*ents of 'ommuni'ation# +n effect, the cry eco*es a 'all, a )ay of su**onin! the hi!her po)ers y su))li'ation# +n outAandAout lan!ua!e, it eco*es a )ay of & "43 & sayin! 5Please.5 -here )e see e*er!in! the profound relationship et)een reli!ion and prayer. -he :ailin! :all is not a cry of despair. -he :ailin! :all is a cry of ho)e# +t is not the cry of 8ell, as )ith @anteFs line, 5( andon all hope, ye )ho enter here.5 -he cries of 8ell are eternally hopeless. But the prayers of reli!ion are in their essence as )ith the infantFs cries, )hich had eco*e transfor*ed fro* a condition of sheerly refle' e'pression into a plea, the very essence of prayer. + )ould consider these para!raphs a logologi'al o servation a out the 5cradle5 of theology# -heolo!y is )ords a out DodG lo!olo!y is )ords a out )ords. ?o!olo!y canFt talk a out Dod. +t can only talk a out wor(s for 5Dod.5 ?o!olo!y can *ake no state*ent at all a out the 5afterlife5 and the related concept of the 5supernatural.5 ?o!olo!y canFt either affir* or deny the e'istence of Dod. (theis* is as far fro* the real* of lo!olo!y as is the *ost orthodo' of funda*entalist reli!ions. (ll lo!olo!y is eIuipped to do is discuss hu*an relations in ter*s of our nature as the typically sy* olAusin! ani*al. +n that re!ard, )ithout pronouncin! a out either the truth or falsity of theolo!ical doctrine, lo!olo!y does lay !reat e*phasis upon the thou!ht that theolo!y, in purely for*al respects, serves as a kind of ver al 5!race5 that 5perfects5 nature. +t 5rounds thin!s out,5 even if such fulfill*ent happened to e ut the ver al or doctrinal co*pletin! of the pattern that the infant 5naturally5 e'periences )hen first learnin! lan!ua!e, and its *odes of supplication in an 5+A-hou5 <fa*ilial= relationship )ith 5hi!her po)ers.5 ?o!olo!y involves only em)iri'al considerations a out our nature as the sy* olAusin! ani*al. But for that very reason it is fascinated y the !enius of theolo!yG and all the *ore so ecause, throu!h so *uch of our past, theolo!ians have een a*on! the profoundest of our inventors in the )ays of sy* olic action. (lso, every)here lo!olo!y turns, it finds *ore evidences of the close connection et)een speech and theolo!ic doctrine. 2aint Paul tells us, for instance, that 5faith co*es fro* hearin! Oe1 au(ituP,5 )hich in the last analysis a*ounts to sayin! that theolo!y is e'actly )hat it calls itself ety*olo!ically, an 5olo!y.5 -he story of Creation in Denesis is an account of successive ver al $iats <5and Dod said5=. (nd in the /e) -esta*ent the Dospel of Hohn tells us that in the e!innin! )as the ,ogos# But these issues donFt stop )ith such o vious cases as that. +n *y essay on 5-er*inistic 2creens5 <,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion OBerkeley: University of California Press, "%43P, pp. $$E$4=, after

havin! noted ho) the nature of our ter*s affects the nature of our o servations, y directin! our attention in one )ay rather than another <hence 5many o$ the Io&servationsB & 177 F are &ut im)li'ations o$ the )arti'ular terminology in terms o$ whi'h the o&servations are ma(e5 O$3P=, + turned to the for*ula )hich (nsel* had developed at !reat len!th fro* +saiah 4:% <nisi 're(i(eritis, non intelligetis=: 5Believe, that you *ay understand5 <'re(e, ut intelligas=. +t is *y clai* that the in#unction 5Believe, that you *ay understand,5 has a funda*ental application to the purely secular pro le* of 5ter*inistic screens.5 -he 5lo!olo!ical,5 or 5ter*inistic5 counterpart of 5Believe5 in the for*ula )ould e: 5.i'* some )arti'ular nomen'lature, some one terministi' s'reen.5 (nd for 5-hat you *ay understand,5 the counterpart )ould e: 5-hat you may )ro'ee( to tra'* (own the *in(s o$ o&servation im)li'it in the terminology you have 'hosen, whether your 'hoi'e o$ terms was (eli&erate or s)ontaneous.5 <$4= .r, in *y -he 4hetori' o$ 4eligion <5.n :ords and the :ord: 2i'th (nalo!y5 O"%3"G reprint edition, Berkeley and ?os (n!eles: University of California Press, "%40P, pp. 2%ff= + have tried to sho) ho) 5the relation et)een the na*e and the thin! na*ed )ould e the Po)er <eIuals the Cather=G the na*e )ould e the :isdo* <eIuals the 2on, )hich the Cather 5!enerates5 in the sense that the thin! na*ed calls for its na*e=G and the t)o to!ether 5spirate5 ?ove <eIuals the 8oly 2pirit, in the sense that there is the perfect correspondence et)een the thin! and its na*e, and the perfect ter* for such correspondence or 5co**union5 et)een the ter*s )ould e ?ove=. (nd as for 5Perfection5 itself, the theolo!ical idea of Dod as the ens )er$e'tissimum has a strikin! lo!olo!ical analo!ue in the astoundin!ly *any )ays in )hich ter*inolo!ies set up particular conditions for the trackin! do)n of i*plications. -he )hole >ar'ist dialectic, for instance, is so desi!ned as to foretell fulfill*ent in )hat lo!olo!y )ould class as a Utopian perfection, a dialectic so 5perfect5 that it is to inevita ly cul*inate in the a olition of itself <)ith the 5)itherin! a)ay of the state,5 a state of the political state that *ay e Iuite du ious, ut that can *ake clai*s to inevita ility if )e su stitute for the state of the ody politic the analo!ous state of the hu*an ody=. +n *ore restricted )ays, the trackin! do)n of i*plications towar(s various perfections *anifests itself in our *any technolo!ical no*enclatures, each of )hich su!!ests to its particular votaries further steps in that sa*e direction. 2uch e'pansionist a* itions are nearAinfinite in their purely visionary scopeG ut thou!h they have no inner principle of selfAli*itation, their ran!e of ideal develop*ent is restricted y the )ays in )hich they interfere )ith one another, includin! acade*ic & "4; & pro le*s to do )ith the allocation of funds a*on! the various depart*ents. -his lo!olo!ical principle of perfection <)hich + )ould call 5entelechial,5 restrictin! the (ristotelian concept of the 5entelechy5 to the real* of no*enclature, 5sy* olicity5= can also e seen to operate in areas )hich )e do not ordinarily associate )ith the idea of perfection, e'cept in such loose usa!es as 5perfect fool5 or 5perfect villain.5 But its po)ers alon! that line are terrifyin!. +t sho)ed up repeatedly in theolo!ical char!es of heresy, in )hich the heretics )ere nearly al)ays saddled )ith the sa*e list of hateful vices. (nd in our day the /aBis did the *ost outra!eous #o )ith 5perfection5 in that sense y the thorou!hness of their char!es a!ainst the He). +t takes very little induce*ent for us to e!in 5perfectin!5 the characters of our opponents y the !ratuitous i*putation of unsee*ly *otives. -hus, all told, in *y lo!olo!ical definition of hu*ankind, + put a hi!h ratin! on *y clause 5rotten )ith

perfection.5 2atan )as as perfect an entelechy in one sense as Christ )as in another. @ou tless >achiavelli )as thinkin! alon! those lines )hen he told his prince that, )hereas one should e )ary of hirin! *ercenaries, the )ay to !et the est fi!hters is *ake the )ar a holy )ar. ?an!ua!e is one vast *ena!erie of i*plications6and )ith each channel of such there are the *akin!s of a correspondin! fulfill*ent proper to its kind, a perfection in !er*. Cor the lo!olo!ical study of dialectic teaches us that there are t)o Iuite different )ays of introducin! the 5entelechial principle of perfection,5 thus: ". -here is the thing, read. 2. -here is the correspondin! wor(, 5 read.5 3. ?an!ua!e ein! such as it is, )ith no trou le at all + can *ake up the e'pression, 5perfect read.5 $. :e *ay disa!ree as to )hich read could properly e called 5perfect.5 7. ( *ean *an, or a dyspeptic, or a philosopher *i!ht even deny that in this )orld there can e such a thin! as 5perfect read.5 3. /evertheless, theolo!ians can speak of Dod as the ens )er$e'tissimum6and the e'pression 5perfect read5 is a secular counterpart of such dialectical resources. 4. /ay *ore. 0ven if there is no such thin! as perfect read in actuality, + can consider read fro* the standpoint of perfect read 5in principle.5 & "4% & ;. 58ere is so*e perfect read5G or %. 5(s co*pared )ith perfect read, this read + a* offerin! you is a dis*al su stitute5G or "0.5+ can assure you that, hu* le as it is, this read represents perfect read in )rin'i)le.5 <+t 5stands for the spirit of perfect read.5= <Kenneth Burke, 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment OBarre, >assachusetts: Clark University Press, "%42P, p. 7%G appendi' to essay on 5(rchetype and 0ntelechy.5= But the Iuestion of the relation et)een lo!olo!y and theolo!y also reIuires that )e look in another direction, na*ely, the Iuestion of the relation et)een lo!olo!y and ehavioris*. ( handy )ay to introduce this issue is y reference to a passa!e in *y revie) of @enis @ono!hueFs recently pu lished ad*ira le collection of essays, -he /overeign Ghost: /tu(ies in 8magination <Berkeley: University of California Press, "%43=: .n !oin! ack over Colerid!eFs %iogra)hia ,iteraria, + ran across a footnote in )hich )ith re!ard to the 5desynony*iBin!5 of the ter*s 5i*a!ination5 and 5fancy,5 he says: insofar as any such distinctions eco*e accepted, 5lan!ua!e itself does as it )ere thin* for us.5 +t is a chance re*ark )hich the structuralists )ould *ake *uch *ore of than )ould either Colerid!e or @ono!hue. <5-he /overeign Ghost y @enis @ono!hue,5 -he New 4e)u&li' "44 O2epte* er "0, "%44P: 30E3"= +n effect Colerid!e is sayin! that wor(s are doin! )hat the theolo!ian )ould say that the 5*ind5 is doin!, an interestin! t)ist inas*uch as Colerid!e, in his day, )as kno)n *uch etter for )orks like his theolo!ical Ai(s to 4e$le1ion than as a literary critic, thou!h his )orks !enerally had a theolo!ical cast. Met in passin!, Colerid!e there hit upon a Iuite strate!ic su stitution, since the i**ediate conte't of situation in )hich wor(s are learned is the real* of nonsy* olic *otion, )hereas 5*ind5 is *ore readily associated )ith an ulti*ate supernatural !round eyond the real* of physical and physiolo!ical *otion. ?o!olo!y here is in an inter*ediate position et)een theolo!y and ehavioris* <)hich *onistically ackno)led!es no Iualitative difference et)een a hu*an or!anis*Fs ver al and nonver al ehavior=.

?o!olo!y is as dualistic in its )ay as theolo!y is, since the lo!olo!ical distinction et)een sy* olic action and nonsy* olic *otion is as 5polar5 as theolo!yFs distinctions et)een *ind and ody, or spirit and *atter. ?o!olo!y holds that 5persons5 a't, )hereas 5thin!s5 ut move, or are move(# (nd 5personality5 in the hu*an sense depends upon the a ility & ";0 & and opportunity to acIuire an ar itrary, conventional sy* olAsyste* such as a tri al, fa*ilial lan!ua!e. 8o)ever, lo!olo!y need not e driven to a 5*entalist5 position )hen in controversy )ith a ehaviorist. +ndeed, seiBin! upon a ehaviorist ter*, lo!olo!y needs ut point to the em)iri'al distinction et)een ver al ehavior <)hich lo!olo!y )ould call 5sy* olic action5= and 5*olecular5 ehavior <)hich lo!olo!y )ould call 5nonsy* olic physiolo!ic *otion5=. -o adapt so*e co**ents fro* Western /)ee'h <su**er "%3;=, + read so*e)here that, )hen thrillers are sho)n in *ovie houses, the airconditionin! plant *ust e accelerated, o)in! to the audienceFs increased rate of respiration, and so forth, in response to the e'cite*ent of the fiction. -he $i'tion is in the real* of 5sy* olic action,5 )ith )hich the airAconditionin! plant has no relation )hatever. -he air 'on(itionerKs 5 ehavior5 is in the real* of nonsy* olic *otion, )hich relates directly to the physical conditions produced in the theater y the odyFs nonsy* olic *olecular *otions correlative )ith the sy* olAusin! or!anis*Fs responses to the story <)hich as a story is )holly in the real* of sy* olis*, thou!h the si!hts and sounds of the story, in their role as *ere uninterpreted vi rations, are ut in the real* of *otion=. Cor in the e*pirical real*, no sy* olic action is possi le )ithout a !roundin! in *otion, as )ords on the screen canFt even e )ords unless they can e seen or heard. But lo!olo!y )ould hold that their sy* olic di*ension cannot e *onistically reduced to the order of physical *otion alone. :hatever the *utation )here y our prehistoric ancestors acIuired their aptitude )ith sy* olicity, fro* then on the hu*an ani*al )as a 'om)osite or!anis*, e the duality conceived in theolo!ical ter*s of *ind and ody, or in lo!olo!ical ter*s of sy* olic action and nonsy* olic physiolo!ical *otion. -he principle of individuation )as in the ody, )ith the i**ediacy of its sensations. -he real* of sy* olis*, )ith its *any *odes of identification <fa*ily relationships, !eolo!y, history, politics, reli!ious doctrine, and so on=, shaped the )u&li' aspects of hu*an a)areness and personality.

II
:ith Colerid!eFs passin! re*ark that, if a ne) distinction eco*es !enerally esta lished, in effect the correspondin! )ords thin* for us, )e are at the very center of lo!olo!ical inIuiry: the close ut indeter*inate relationship & ";" & et)een su&stitution and (u)li'ation# -here is o vious duplication in the very fact that )e have ver al parallels for nonver al thin!s, processes, and relationships. -here is su stitution inas*uch as, !iven the thing read and the wor( 5 read,5 the person )ho asked for read )ith the proper sy* ol <the )ord for read in that particular lan!ua!e= *i!ht e !iven instead another sy* ol, the *oney )ith )hich to uy it. .ne could spend a lifeti*e doin! nothin! *ore than trackin! do)n the intricately inter)oven *anifestations of these t)o principles, )hich are perhaps *ore accurately discussed not #ust as aspects, ut as the very essence, of lan!ua!e. Cor present purposes, let us cite a fe) such aspects at rando*: Cirst, there are the e'tensions of lan!ua!e y analo!y, )hat Here*y Bentha* called 5fictions,5 a ter*

that itself is pro a ly a *etaphorical e'tension of the e'pression 5le!al fictions.5 -er*s that have a Iuite literal *eanin! as applied to physical conditions can e adapted fi!uratively to su #ect *atter that does not ad*it of such usa!e. Cor instance, if )e speak of one o #ect as ein! at a certain 5distance5 fro* another, our state*ent can e strictly literal, capa le of verification y *easurin! the distance. But if )e speak of one personFs vie)s as ein! 5distant5 fro* anotherFs, )e are e*ployin! a 5fiction5 )hich ad*its of no such literal physical test. .r, in sayin! that a certain leanin! o #ect has an 5inclination5 of thirty de!rees, )e are usin! the ter* literally, in contrast )ith the state*ent that a person has an 5inclination5 to do suchAandsuch. +n this connection Bentha* o serves that our entire voca ularies of psycholo!y and ethics are *ade up of such 5fictive5 duplicates, )ithout )hich )e could not talk a out such *atters at all. Do to the ety*olo!ical ori!ins of all such ter*s, and you )ill spot the literal i*a!es i*plicit in such ideas. -he relation et)een our sensory e'perience as individual speechless physical or!anis*s and the vast pu lic conte't of sy* olicity )e acIuire as social ein!s sets up the endlessly co*ple' conditions for such duplication as is revealed in the spontaneous use of ter*s for the )eather as a no*enclature for 5states of *ind,5 or 5attitudes.5 (nd one can !li*pse ho) a )hole *a!ic )orld of hu*an relations *i!ht develop fro* that *ode of duplication )here y, as one pious person fearso*ely plants a crop, another <an e'pert in the lore of *ythic counterparts= 5colla orates5 y contri utin! his skill to the process, in scrupulously perfor*in! the 5necessary5 attendant ritual of a plantin! son! <5necessary5 ecause, *an ein! the sy* olAusin! ani*al, the real* of nonsy* olic natural *otion is not co*pletely hu*aniBed until reduced to ter*s of & ";2 & sy* olicityG hence sprin! calls for a sprin! son!, harvest for a harvest son!G *arria!e, death, chan!es of status, and so on si*ilarly attain their 5co*pletion5 )hen thus ritually paralleled=. -he resources of duplication and su stitution are revealed *ost clearly of all in such *athe*atical operations as the use of the sy* ol p, instead of 3."$"3, or the internal relationships )here y 2 plus 2 can e the sa*e as $ ti*es ". (nd surely *athe*atics e!an )ith that pri*al su stitution )here y, in *akin! three *arks to stand for three apples, one also had a si!n that )ould stand for three of anythin!, )hereupon oneFs sy* ol had advanced to a 5hi!her level of !eneraliBation5 )here y the nu* er itself could e operated on in its o)n ri!ht, )ithout reference to any particular nu* ered thin!s. .n inspectin! *ore closely this aspect of )hat )e *i!ht call the 5duplicationAsu stitution co*ple',5 )e co*e upon a si*ilar usa!e that, at first !lance, *i!ht see* of a Iuite different sort. +nsofar as so*e particular ritual is cere*onially repeated in identical fashion on different occasions <)hich )ould also include annual seasonal occurrences, since no t)o situations are identical= in effect the ritual acts as a *ode of 'lassi$i'ation that a&stra'ts fro* any particular occasion, #ust as nu* ers eco*e a stracted fro* any one particular instance of their use. -hus, a *arria!e rite is an institution )here y all sorts of couples are 5processed5 in identical fashion. +t is not like a situation )here Hohn and >ary are consultin! a *arria!e counselor a out their particular pro le*s. ,ather, it is individualiBed only insofar as there is a lank space to e filled )ith )hatever proper na*es are to e included under that head this ti*e. -he u iIuitous resources of su stitution pro a ly attain their profoundest theolo!ical e* odi*ent in the doctrines and rites of vicarious sacrifice. + plan to discuss later the distinctions et)een theolo!ical and lo!olo!ical concerns )ith the principle of sacrifice. But let us no) consider the astoundin! thorou!hness <even to the ed!e of parado'= )ith )hich Christian theolo!y developed the lo!olo!ical principle of su stitution. .f all victi*s that )ere ever offered as rede*ption for the !uilt of others, surely Christ )as conceived as the *ost perfect such su stitute, even to the e'tent of ein! perfectly

a horrent, as earer of the )orldFs sinfulness. -hus ?uther said: (ll the prophets sa) that Christ )ould e the !reatest ri!and of all, the !reatest adulterer, thief, profaner of te*ples, lasphe*er, and so on, that there )ould never e a !reater in all the )orld. N Dod sent his only e!otten 2on into the )orld, and laid all sins upon hi*, sayin!: 5Mou are to & ";3 & e Peter the denier, Paul the persecutor, lasphe*er, and )ild east, @avid the adulterer, you are to e the sinner )ho ate the apple in the Darden of 0den, you are to e the crucified thief, you are to e the person )ho co**its all the sins in the )orld.5 <+ translate fro* ?eon Chestov, Gier*egaar( et la )hiloso)hie e1istentielle OParis: 9rin, "%$;P.= -hus, in ter*s of the specifically 5Christian lo!olo!y,5 the *ost perfect divine ?o!os also eca*e the perfect fiend, in servin! as the su stitute vessel for the !uilt of all. :ith re!ard to the ve'in! issue of the relation et)een wor(s and 5*ind5 <)here y so*e no*enclatures )ould su stitute 5)ords5 for 5*ind,5 as per the tan!ential re*ark )e have cited fro* Colerid!e=, efore *ovin! on too the raspects of our su #ect )e should consider H.8illis >illerFsin!enious and penetratin! essay5-he ?in!uistic >o*ent inF -he :reck of the @eutschland.K 5 -his essay is particularly relevant since 8opkinsFs e'ceptional involve*ent in strictly lo!olo!ical concerns is so strikin!ly inter)oven )ith the *ost poi!nant of theolo!ical devotions. >iller here notes 5three apparently inco*pati le theories of poetry N each rilliantly )orked out in theory and e'e*plified in practice5: Poetry *ay e the representation of the interlocked chi*in! of created thin!s in their relation to the Creation. -his chi*in! *akes the pied eauty of nature. Poetry *ay e'plore or e'press the solitary adventures of the self in its )restles )ith Dod or in its fall into the a yss outside Dod. Poetry *ay e'plore the intricate relationships a*on! )ords. -hese three see*in!ly diverse theories of poetry are har*oniBed y the application to the* all of a lin!uistic *odel. -his *odel is ased on the idea that all )ords rhy*e ecause they are ulti*ately derived fro* the sa*e ?o!os. /ature is 5)ords, e'pression, ne)s of Dod5 </ermons, "2%=, and Dod has inscri ed hi*self in nature. -he structure of nature in its relation to Dod is like the structure of lan!ua!e in relation to the ?o!os, the divine :ordG and Christ is the ?o!os of nature, as of )ords. <$4E$;= Colerid!e, )hen co**entin! on ho) )ords can think for us, and notin! that the t)o )ords 5i*a!ination5 and 5fancy5 <the one fro* the ?atin, the other fro* the Dreek= )ere often used synony*ously, proposed to 5desynony*iBe5 the*, so that they )ould have different *eanin!s. But 8opkins proceeded in the other directionG he let the )ord 5?o!os5 think for hi* y refusin! to distin!uish et)een its se'ular *eanin! as a )ord for 5)ord5 and its *eanin! in +hristian theology, )here the /e) -esta*ent )ord for Christ )as the 5:ord.5 8opkinsFs thinkin! could not possi ly have een as it )as had those early sectaries, the 5(lo!ians,5 succeeded in their atte*pts to e'clude the Dospel of Hohn and & ";$ & ,evelations fro* the Christian canon ecause in oth te'ts Christ )as referred to as the ?o!os. 2aint (u!ustine had in effect desynony*iBed the t)o usa!es y e'plicitly referrin! to his conversion fro* his career as a pa!an rhetorician <a 5peddler of )ords,5 ven(itor ver&orum= to a preacher of the Christian :ord. But he had also ChristianiBed the very e!innin! of the .ld -esta*ent y notin! that DodFs successive acts of Creation had een done throu!h the :ord <)hen he had said, 5?et there e

N5=6and thus in effect the Creation )as done y the CatherFs Wor(, )hich )as the 2on. >iller e!ins his essay: 5By lin!uistic *o*ent + *ean the *o*ent )hen lan!ua!e as such, the *eans of representation in literature, eco*es a *atter to e interro!ated, e'plored, the*atiBed in itself5 <$4=. :hile his en!rossin! study of )hat B. C. 2kinner *i!ht call 8opkinsFs 5ver al ehavior5 is essentially logologi'al, the very fact of 8opkinsFs refusal to 5desynony*iBe5 the t)o usa!es keeps the study of the 5lin!uistic *o*ent5 constantly infused )ith the theologi'al i*plications of 8opkinsFs poetics. (s *i!ht e e'pected, variations on the the*e of 5duplication5 and 5repetition5 are plentifulG even talk of a 5pri*al ifurcation5 is a si!nal to look for )ays of tyin! the issue in )ith the distinction et)een speechless nonsy* olic physiolo!ical *otion <analo!ous to the traditional ter*s, 5*atter5 or 5 ody5= and the pu licly infused real* of sy* olic action <analo!ous to the traditional ter*s, 5spirit5 or 5*ind5=. +n this connection >iller has a footnote )hich succinctly ears upon 5polar5 aspects of the hu*an ein! as a dualistic, 5co*posite5 individual, in contrast )ith the *onistic assu*ptions of ehavioris*, )hich denies any 6ualitative distinction et)een ver al ehavior and nonver al ehavior <in rief, it 5thinks5 y re$using to 5desynony*iBe5 the ter* 5 ehavior5=. ,eferrin! to an 5ad*ira le passa!e in 8opkinsFs co**entary on -he /)iritual E1er'ises of 2aint +!natius,5 >iller Iuotes: (nd this O*y isolationP is *uch *ore true )hen )e consider the *indG )hen + consider *y self ein!, *y consciousness and feelin! of *yself, that taste of *yself, of + and *e a ove and in all thin!s, )hich is *ore distinctive than the taste of ale or alu*, *ore distinctive than the s*ell of )alnutleaf or ca*phor, and is inco**unica le y any *eans to another *an. <$4= +n *y vie) of lo!olo!ical dualis* <)hich 8opkins co*es close to replacin! )ith a *onis* e'actly the reverse of the ehavioristsF, insofar as 8opkins )ould reduce everything to ter*s of the universal ?o!os= the & ";7 & 5lin!uistic *o*ent5 proclai*ed y that resonant sentence i*plicitly pronounces the principle of 5inscape5 in )hat are essentially 5pro le*atical5 ter*s. -he 5selfhood5 of a Catholic priest *ust o viously e !rounded in Catholic doctrine, )hich is necessarily 5spiritual,5 on the side of )hat lo!olo!y )ould call pu lic 5sy* olicity.5 But he e'presses the sense of his separate identity in ter*s of i**ediate sensation, )hich is in the real* of the individualFs sheer physiolo!y. -rue, poets have traditionally used the ter*inolo!y of sensation to !ive the $eel of the internal i**ediacy that 8opkins ai*s to su!!est. (nd there is no !ood reason for denyin! poets such a ti*eA honored rhetorical device. + a* ut pointin! out that the essential polarity or duality of the hu*an condition is not actually rid!ed <it canFt e= ut is stylistically denied. -he *ode of e'pression is thus in effect a 5lin!uistic ele*ent5 that represses an e'plicit state*ent of the case. :hereupon the 5return of the repressed5 reveals itself in the person of 8opkins hi*self as the 5)reck5 )ith )hich the poe* starts out <si!nificant ti*in!Q= y ein! e'plicitly and e'clusively concerned. -he first five stanBas are in the for* of an 5+A-hou5 prayer. Corty lines in all, there are nineteen co!nates of the firstAperson pronoun, fourteen of the second. -he second half of the first part is transitional, in that the pronouns *ove farther off <firstAperson plural and thirdAperson sin!ular=. -he second part, t)oAthirds of the poe*, is uilt e'plicitly around the )reck of the 3euts'hlan(, a 5pied5 na*e if there ever )as one <5. @eutschland, dou le a desperate na*eQ56as the ho*e of oth the nun Dertrude, 5ChristFs lily,5 and the 5 east,5 ?uther=. :ith re!ard to the poe* as a structure, )e could say that it transfor*s the 5pied5 nature of the poetFs personal pro le*s into the !rander inter)oven a* ivalences of sinkin! and salvation. (t the end of the essay >iller adds a footnote:

Kenneth Burke, in re*arks a out this paper after its presentation at the ,anso* 2y*posiu* at Kenyon Colle!e in (pril of "%47, ar!ued that + should add so*ethin! a out the *ultiple *eanin! of the )ord wre'* in the title. -he poe*, he said, is a out 8opkinsFs )reck. -his )as a po)erful plea to relate the lin!uistic co*ple'ities, or tensions, ack to their su #ective counterparts. >uch is at stake here. -hat the poe* is a deeply personal docu*ent there can e no dou t. +ts lin!uistic tensions are 5lived,5 not *ere 5ver al play5 in the ne!ative sense. N +n 5-he :reck of the @eutschland5 8opkins is speakin! of his o)n )reck. N -he dan!er in BurkeFs su!!estion, ho)ever, is, as al)ays, the possi ility of a psycholo!iBin! reduction, the *akin! of literature into no *ore than a reflection or representation of so*ethin! psychic )hich precedes it and )hich could e'ist )ithout it. N & ";3 & 2u #ectivity, + a* ar!uin!, )ith all its intensities, is *ore a result than an ori!in. -o set it first, to *ake an e'planatory principle of it, is, as /ietBsche says, a *etalepsis, puttin! late efore early, effect efore cause. <7%E30n= + )rote >iller, callin! attention to the closin! para!raph of an essay y *e concernin! KeatsFs 5.de on a Drecian Urn5 <52y* olic (ction in a Poe* y Keats,5 A Grammar o$ 2otives O"%$7G reprint edition, Berkeley and ?os (n!eles: University of California Press, "%3%P, pp. $$4E33=. +n that essay + had noted respects in )hich traces of the sy*pto*s of the disease he )as to die of *anifested the*selves. But + added this Iualification: :e *ay contrast this discussion )ith e'planations such as a *aterialist of the Kretsch*er school *i!ht offer. + refer to accounts of *otivation that *i!ht treat disease as cause and poe* as effect. +n such accounts, the disease )ould not e 5passive,5 ut )holly activeG and )hat )e have called the *ental action )ould e )holly passive, hardly *ore than an epipheno*enon, a *ere sy*pto* of the disease Iuite as are the fever and the chill the*selves. 2uch accounts )ould !ive us no conception of the essential *atter here, the intense lin!uistic activity. <$32E3;= +n that last para!raph, + )rote >iller, 5(t least + say 8Km not doin! e'actly )hat you say + am doin!.5 -hen + added: 58o)ever, +Fll *eet you half)ay. + think the relation et)een the physiolo!y of disease and the sy* olic action of poetry can e of the Jvicious circleK sort. .neFs poetiBin!, in the very act of trans'en(ing hints !ot fro* the odyFs passions, can rounda out reinforce the rava!es of such sufferin!s.5 + had in *ind here such a 5refle'ive5 process <+ !uess current cant )ould call it 5feed ack5= as the role of 5psycho!enic5 asth*a in ProustFs search for essence y the 5re*e* rance of thin!s past.5O"P

III
?et us no) list so*e cases the discussion of )hich *i!ht *ost directly help us inIuire, y co*parison and contrast, into )ords a out the divine, the supernatural <theolo!y=, and )ords a out )ords <lo!olo!y=, includin! wor(s for the divine and supernatural, )hether or not there e such a real*, )hich theolo!ies have )ords for. 2ince theolo!y in our tradition is so clearly !rounded in the relation et)een the .ld -esta*ent and the /e), letFs e!in lo!olo!ically fro* there. -he for*ula of the Christian theolo!ians )as stated thus: Novum -estamentum in Detere latet, Detus in Novo )atet# 8o) translate it e'actlyL 5-he /e) -esta*ent )as latent in the .ld -esta*ent. -he .ld & ";4 &

-esta*ent eco*es patent in the /e) -esta*ent.5 .r 5-he i*plications of the .ld -esta*ent eca*e e'plicitly *anifest in the /e) -esta*ent.5 +t )as a )ay of oth lettin! the He)s in and keepin! the* out, unless they eca*e converted or, like an old -esta*ent patriarch, each had een an anima naturaliter +hristiana; + for!et )hether 2ocrates )as ad#ud!ed such, ut his association )ith the sy* olic action of Platonis* *i!ht )ell include hi*, for his 8ellenic contri ution to the cult of ?o!os that the early (lo!ian Christians )anted to rule out. +n any case, the Christian theolo!y, )ith re!ard to the relation et)een .ld -esta*ent and /e) -esta*ent, )ould see in the .ld -esta*ent *any stories a out characters that )ere conceived as )hat they )ere only insofar as they )ere 5types of Christ.5 +ndeed, the He)ish tri e itself, in its 0'odus fro* 0!ypt, )as ut a type of Christ. -hus its He)ish identity )as, in effect <in principle=, ein! vie)ed not as that of a tri e in its o)n ri!ht, ut as an e*er!ent sta!e of the Christian future. 0'actly, then, )hat does lo!olo!y, as a purely se'ular cult of the ?o!os, do )ith that particular localiBation of dialectical resourcesL . viously, the .ld -esta*ent story of ( raha* and +saac <tellin! of ho) the father, in o edience to DodFs ?a), )ould consent to sacrifice even his *ost eloved person, hisson= can e conceived of asincipiently, prophetically a type of the /e) -esta*ent story of an allA po)erful Cather, the very soul of #ustice, )ho actually does fulfill the pattern, in co*pletin! the sacrifice of his *ost precious person, his only e!otten 2on. (nd lo!olo!y looks upon &oth stories as variations on the the*e of sa'ri$i'e# +n *y early scattered readin!s a*on! *ediaeval te'ts, + found a sentence that fascinated *e. +t )as pro a ly a rule of so*e *onastic order, + donFt kno) )hich. (nd thou!h + have lost track of the ori!inal, + still incline to !o on repeatin! *y translation, )hich is as resonant as + could *ake it: 5+f any one have any thin! of )hich he is especially fond, let it e taken fro* hi*.5 -here is even the ironic possi ility that + !ot the ?atin so*e)here fro* ,e*y de Dour*ont, a non eliever if there ever )as oneG and he tau!ht *e to appreciate, in a kind of t)isted nostal!ia, the forlorn fra!*entary eauty of such accents. -he fantastically 5*aterialistic5 Deor!e 2antayanaFs !allant 4ealm o$ /)irit is also in that !roove. But the *ain consideration, fro* the standpoint of lo!olo!y, is the fact that, ho)ever variously theolo!ians *ay treat of the relation et)een the .ld -esta*ent and the /e) -esta*ent, they have in co**on the theolo!ical stress upon the principle of sa'ri$i'e# (s vie)ed fro* the standpoint of lo!olo!y, even the *ost pri*itive offerin! of ani*als on & ";; & the altar can e eIuated )ith the Crucifi'ion of Christ insofar as any and all such rites e* ody the principle of sacrifice <)hich, !iven the u iIuitous lo!olo!ical resources of su stitution, turns out to e synony*ous )ith vi'arious sacrifice=. (s vie)ed lo!olo!ically, the theolo!ical story of the Creation and the Call <in the openin! chapter of Denesis= )ould e su**ed up thus: -he story of Creation, in representin! the principle of Or(er, necessarily introduced a principle of 3ivision, classifyin! so*e thin!s as (istin't $rom other things# +n this purely technical sense, Creation itself )as a kind of 5Call,5 inas*uch as it divided the principle of Unity into )arts, each of )hich has a nature of its o)n, re!ardless of ho) they *i!ht in principle e 5unified.5 <(s seen fro* this point of vie), even a pro#ect for 5unification5 i*plies a grammati'al !erundive, a 5toA eAunified.5= -hus, vie)ed fro* the other side, the orderly principle of 3ivision isseen to contain i*plicitly the possi ility of 3ivisiveness# -he possi ility of @ivisiveness calls for a ,aw a!ainst @ivisiveness. <+n a )orld set up y the creative

wor(, ho) keep @ivision fro* eco*in! @ivisive e'cept y a wor(, a ?a), that says, 53onKt do )hatever )ould disrupt the .rder5L= 2o the story includes a 5donFt5 that, stories of that sort ein! )hat they are, stands for the sheer principle of ?a), as the ne!ative aspect of .rder. But i*plicit in the idea of 5@onFt5 there is the possi ility of 3iso&e(ien'e# .ne says, 5@o5 or 5@onFt5 only to such kinds of entities as can e a le to respond <that is, can have the responsi ility= y in effect sayin!, 5Mes5 or 5/o5 <that is, ein! o edient or diso edient=. But 2aint PaulFs theolo!y )as Iuite in keepin! )ith lo!olo!y )hen he said that the ?a) *ade sin, as Bentha* )as to say that the ?a) *akes cri*e. 8o)ever, note that, in introducin!, via ?a), the possi ility of 3iso&e(ien'e, one has y i*plication introduced the principle of -e*ptation <the incentive, ho)ever ori!inatin!, to fall afoul of the ?a)=. :here, then, lo'ate the 5ori!in5 of that -e*ptation, as efits the nature of narrative <story, *yth=L (t this point, the im)li'ations of ter*s for ?a) and .rder surface y translation into ter*s of role. -hese are t)o kinds of 5priority.5 -here is lo!ical priority in the sense of first pre*ise, second pre*ise, conclusion. .r in the sense that the na*e for a 'lass of particulars is 5prior5 to any particular included under that head, Iuite as the ter* 5ta le5 already 5anticipates5 the inclusion of countless particular o #ects that donFt even yet e'ist. .r there is tem)oral priority in the seIuence yesterdayAtodayA to*orro). & ";% & (s a result of this dou lin!, one can state *atters of principle <that is, firsts or e!innin!s= in ter*s of either lo!ical or te*poral priority. <8ence in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion + put *a#or e*phasis upon the ety*olo!ical fact that oth the Dreek and ?atin )ords for 5principle5 Oar'h@ and )rin'i)iumP refer to priority in oth the lo!ical and te*poral senses of the ter*.= + said so*e)here <+ think in *y Grammar o$ 2otives, ut + canFt locate it= that a 2pinoBistic translation of the first )ords in the 9ul!ate Bi le, 58n )rin'i)io 3eus 'reavit,5 )ould e not 5in the &eginning Dod created,5 ut 5in )rin'i)le Dod created5 Cor his asic eIuation, 3eus sive Natura, a*ounts e'actly to that, since he )ould never associate the )ords 5Dod5 and 5 nature5 in ter*s of a tem)oral priority )here y Dod 5ca*e first5 in ti*e. -hou!h such eIuatin! of Dod and nature )as pantheistic, hence anathe*a, in its sheer (esign it rese* led the thinkin! of those .rthodo' Christians )ho attacked (rianis* y insistin! that the 5priority5 of Cather to 2on )as not in any sense tem)oral# :e here confront a purely logologi'al kind of 5priority,5 as )e *i!ht )ell say that the nu* er " is 5prior5 to any other nu* er, ut only 5in principle5G for no nu* er in time is 5prior5 to any other, since an internal relationship a*on! nu* ers is nonte*poral. 5Before nu* ers )ere,5 3 )as less than $ and *ore than 2, thou!h )e can 5!o fro*5 one such to another. (nd lo!olo!ically )e confront an analo!ous situation )ith re!ard to the narrative or 5*ythic5 translation of 5nonte*poral5 i*plications a*on! ter*s into ter*s of story, as )ith the narrative )ays of statin! the )rin'i)les of .rder in the first three chapters of Denesis, under 5pri*al5 conditions involvin! an audience for )ho* the poetic )ays of story ca*e firstG ho)ever, such e'pressions )ere later to e sophisticated y the 5trau*atic5 step fro* poetry and *ytholo!y to criticis* and critically *ature theolo!y. -he .ld -esta*ent e!ins in its )ay Iuite as the /e) -esta*ent Dospel of Hohn e!ins in its, )ith pronounce*ents that overlap upon these t)o kinds of priority. Denesis 5tells the story5 of the divine )ordFs infor*ative po)er. Hohn tells the story of the ?o!os, a 8ellenistic stress upon the )ord that a 5HudaiBin!5 sect a*on! the e*er!ent Christian doctrinarians had unsuccessfully atte*pted to e'clude fro* the canon. 8ence, thou!h the ter* in 0n!lish see*s to have e!un y reference to the ?o!os in the Dospel of Hohn <a usa!e that is a* i!uously i*plicit in these present shuttlin!s et)een theolo!y and lo!olo!y=, oth the Book of Denesis and the Dospel of Hohn present their cases in ter*s of story.

(nd )e no) take on fro* there. ?o!olo!ically, )e confront the fact that, !iven the fluid relation et)een & "%0 & lo!ical and te*poral priority, the lo!ical 5firstness5 of principles, )hen stated in the )ays of story <mythos=, as )ith the openin! chapters of Denesis, calls for translation into ter*s of tem)oral priority. -hus the narrative )ay of sayin! )hat 2aint Paul had in *ind )hen sayin! that the ?a) *ade sin and Bentha* )hen he said that the ?a) *ade cri*e )as to say that the first hu*an ein! sinned a!ainst the first ?a) decreed y the first and fore*ost ?a)A!iver. -he principle of the ?a), i*plicit in the principle of .rder, is identical )ith an astoundin! seien(es =n(ing that hu*an lan!ua!e has added to nature, the ne!ative <a purely lin!uistic invention unkno)n to the )orld of sheer )ordless *otion, )hich can e ut )hat it positively is=. -hus, i*plicit in the le!al ne!ative, the 5thou shalt not5 of the ?a) <)hich, the story of Be!innin!s tell us, )as orn )ith the creation of )orldly order= is the possi ility that its ne!ativity can e e'tended to the ne!atin! of ne!ativity. -here is thus the 5responsi ility5 of ein! a le to say no to a thouAshaltAnot. But the tactics of narrative personaliBin! <in effect a kind of su stitution that represents a )rin'i)le in ter*s of a )rin'e= raise a pro le* local to that particular *ode of representation itself. +f this kind of 5first5 is to represent the possi ility of diso edience that is i*plicit in the decreein! of a ?a), )here did the 5te*ptation5 to diso edience 5co*e fro*5L Up to this point, )e have een tryin! to sho) that a lo!olo!ical analysis of the case )ould coincide )ith a theolo!ical presentation, in that theolo!y has said i*plicitly )hat lo!olo!y says e'plicitlyG na*ely, the conditions of the Call )ere inherent in the conditions of the Creation, since the @ivisiveness of .rder )as reinforced y the divisive possi ility of sayin! either Mes or /o to the pri*al ?a) of that .rder. 8o)ever, the sheer )sy'hology of personality is such that an a't of diso edience is ut the cul*inatin! sta!e of an in'lination to diso ey, a !uilty diso edient attitu(e# (nd )here did that prior step, the e*er!ent tem)tation to diso ey, ori!inateL 8ere theolo!yFs concern )ith the sources of such an attitude introduces a causal chain that turns out to involve a Iuite different provenance. 0ve )as the i**ediate te*ptress. But she had een te*pted y the serpent. But the serpent )as not 5entelechially perfect5 enou!h to e the startin! place for so co*prehensive, so universal <so 5catholic5= a theolo!ical su**ation. -he principle of su stitution !ets 5perfect5 e* odi*ent here in that the serpent eco*es in turn the surro!ate for 2atan, the supernatural te*pter eyond )hich no further personal source of te*ptation need e i*a!ined, since his personality and his role as ulti*ate & "%" & te*pter )ere identical, in such total consistency that this supre*e 5li!htA earin!5 an!el )as the *ost thorou!h victi* of his o)n vocation.

I2
+n his epic, .ara(ise ,ost, >ilton turns that story into a further story. Be!innin! )ith theolo!yFs search for the !randest personaliBed source of te*ptation, >ilton reverses the *ode of derivation as )e have traced it lo!olo!ically. -hus, )hereas lo!olo!ically the story of the revolt in 8eaven )ould e derived fro* *otivational a* i!uities )here y the eventuality of the Call )as i*plicit in the conditions of the Creation, >iltonFs theolo!ical route )ould proceed $rom the revolt in 8eaven to the Call, and conseIuent e'pulsion fro* the Darden.

(lthou!h there are *any respects in )hich lo!olo!y and theolo!y are analo!ous <respects in )hich the t)o usa!es, )ords a out )ords and )ords a out the ?o!os, can !o alon! in parallel= there are also the *any occasions )hen, as )e have here een notin!, they )ill unfold a series of interrelated ter*s in e'actly the reverse order. ( !ood e'a*ple is a creation *yth that + learned of fro* >alino)ski <co*pare ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, pp. 33$E37n=. (ccordin! to this *yth, the tri e is descended fro* a race of supernatural ancestors <in this case, su terranean ancestors, since their ori!inal ancestors )ere thou!ht to have lived under!round=. -hese *ythic ancestors had a social order identical )ith the social order of the tri e no). :hen they ca*e to the surface, they preserved the sa*e social order, )hich has een handed do)n fro* then to no). +n this case, o viously, )hereas conditions no) are *ytholo!ically 5derived5 fro* i*puted pri*al conditions 5then,5 lo!olo!ically the *ythic i*putin! of such pri*al conditions 5then5 )ould e derived fro* the nature of conditions no). <+ hope later to discuss respects in )hich )e *i!ht distin!uish et)een *ytholo!y and theolo!yG ut in a case of this sort they are analo!ous )ith re!ard to their difference fro* lo!olo!ical derivation. (nd they have the advanta!e of providin! *uch si*pler e'a*ples, at least as usually reported. (lso, their polytheistic aspect *akes the* *uch easier to 5rationaliBe5 than the )ays of the sin!le allApo)erful personal Dod of *onotheistic theolo!y, )ho tolerates so *uch that see*s to us intolera le. 2ince lo!olo!y *akes no #ud!*ent at all a out the truth or falsity of theolo!ic doctrine, its only task is to study ho), !iven the nature of sy* olis*, such *odes of place*ent are lo!olo!ically deriva le fro* the nature of 5sy* olic action.5= ?o!olo!ically considered, the issue *ay e reduced to the *atter of & "%2 & the ne!ative, another aspect of the condition that arose in the story of the Creation )hen Dod introduced the 5thou shalt not5 of the ?a). +*plicit in the ne!ative is the possi ility of polar ter*s )hich ear a timeless relationship to each other. -his relationship is 5ti*eless5 in the sense that althou!h, )ith polar ter*s like 5order5 and 5disorder,5 each im)lies the other, their relationship doesnFt involve a te*poral step $rom one to the other. But the supernatural real* of eternity is ti*eless. (nd 8eaven )as the real* of ti*eless perfect order. But inas*uch as the !enius of the ne!ative *akes such ter*s as 5order5 and 5perfection5 )olar, so far as such terms )ere concerned they contained the ti*eless i*plication of their contrastin! ter*. (lso, there are t)o kinds of polar ne!ative: the propositional <5is, isnFt5=, the hortatory <5do, donFt5=. (nd they tend to lose their initial distinctness. >yth, story, narrative *akes it possi le to transfor* this ti*eless relation et)een polar ter*s into a te*poral seIuence. -hat is, *yth can tell of a step $rom either one to the other. -hus, )ith re!ard to the perfection of 8eaven outside of ti*e, the resources of narrative *ade it possi le to carry out the i*plications of polar ter*s such as 5order5 and 5perfection5 y such stories as the revolt of ?ucifer in 8eaven. (nd the ti*eless nature of such polarity is *aintained eternally in the unendin! esta lish*ent of 8eaven and 8ell, the one all Mes, the other all /o. Polytheistic *yths didnFt have the acute pro le*s )ith this ter*inistic situation that *onistic theolo!y has. Hoseph ContenroseFs volu*e .ython: A /tu(y o$ 3el)hi' 2yth an( 8ts Origins </e) Mork: Bi lo W -annen, "%7%G )hich + use as the asis of *y essay 5>yth, Poetry, and Philosophy,5 reprinted in *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion=, takes as its point of departure the *yth of the co* at et)een (pollo and Python, then e'tends the discussion to t)o *ain types in !eneral. -here is a late type, concernin! a stru!!le et)een an 5older5 !od and a 5ne)5 !od, )ith the ne) !od triu*phin! and foundin! a cult. But this is said to e derived fro* an earlier type, concernin! a stru!!le et)een a dra!on and a skyA !od, )ith the skyA!od triu*phin!.

+n such cases, the principle of ne!ation in polar ter*s can acco**odate itself easily to such stories of personal co* at. (lso, the ti*eless nature of the ne!ative in such ter*s can e preserved, since the vanIuished co* atant, thou!h 5slain,5 is yet so*eho) still survivin!, like -yphon uried y Reus eneath 2icily and fu*in! throu!h (etna, )ith the constant threat that he *ay a!ain rise in revolt. .r the t)o *ay rei!n in succession, the vanIuished principle takin! over periodically, for a season. .r under certain conditions the opposition can e translated into ter*s & "%3 & *ore like cooperation, )ith oth po)ers or principles ein! necessary to *ake a )orld, )here y the principle eco*es itself a species of order, too. 0ven the kin!do* of @arkness is not #ust a re ellion a!ainst ?i!ht, ut has its o)n *odes of or!aniBation. Polytheistic *ytholo!y could thus readily acco**odate te*ples to rival !ods, for there )as !eneral a!ree*ent that all such po)ers should e propitiated. (nd the *eaner they )ere, the *ore reason there )as to appease the* )ith cult. +n transfor*in! these resources of polytheistic *yth, *onistic theolo!y encounters *any serious e* arrass*ents. (nd so*e years ack, )hen + happened to e dealin! )ith so*e of *y lo!olo!ical speculations in a se*inar at @re) University, :illia* 0*psonFs pole*ical volu*e 2iltonKs Go( <?ondon: Chatto W :indus, "%37= ca*e alon!. . viously, 0*pson had decided to play the role of a very ad oy. But )hat interested *e in the ook )as the fact that its Iuarrels )ith >iltonFs theolo!y )ould serve so )ell to help point up *y 5neutral5 concerns )ith lo!olo!y. (s #ud!ed fro* the lo!olo!ical point of vie), there is no 5co* at5 a*on! ter*s. +n *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion, the 5Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of J.rderK 5 is a set of *utually interrelated ter*s )hich si*ply i*ply one another. -hou!h ter*s can confront each other as antithetically as 5re)ard5 and 5punish*ent,5 nothin! 5happens5 until they are !iven functions in an irreversi le, personaliBed narrative# -er*s like 5disorder,5 5te*ptation,5 5diso edience5 co*e to life )hen (da* is assi!ned the role of personally representin! the principle of sin, and 2atan is assi!ned the role of ulti*ate te*pter. Dod has the role of settin! up the .rder and !ivin! the critical ne!ative order, so ter*inistically necessary efore a Call can even e possi le. -here is no one strict )ay to select the 5cycle of ter*s5 for such a chart. +n !eneral, the ones + su!!est are Iuite characteristic of the theolo!ical tradition for the discussion of )hich + a* offerin! a pra!*atically desi!ned pattern <)ith, ehind it or )ithin it, thou!hts on the strate!ic inter)oven difference et)een te*poral priority and lo!ical priority, the distinction itself ein! lo!olo!ical=. -he interestin! t)ist involves the )ay in )hich 5supernatural5 ti*elessness parallels lo!olo!ical ti*elessness, )ith oth eco*in! 5*ytholo!iBed5 <that is, translated into ter*s of a te*porally irreversi le story, alon! )ith an a* i!uity )here y history can e vie)ed as oth in time and in )rin'i)le, for instance )hen ChristFs Crucifi'ion is oth said to have happened historically once, and to e !oin! on still, in principle=. -hus, Iuite as .rthodo' Christian theolo!y )ould conde*n (rianis* ecause it treated the 2onFs co*in! a$ter the Cather in a tem)oral seIuence, & "%$ & )hereas the CatherFs priority )as ut such in principle, so lo!olo!y )ould point out that there can e no te*poral priority et)een t)o such ter*s. -he very relationship that *akes a son a son is, y the sa*e token, the relationship that *akes a father a father. -hus, in effect, the Cather can ut 5!enerate5 the 2on in )rin'i)le# ?ookin! upon oth *ytholo!y and theolo!y as involved in the pro le* of translatin! supernatural

5ti*eless5 relationships into ter*s of te*poral seIuence, lo!olo!y tentatively vie)s *onotheis* as in various )ays stru!!lin! to 5perfect5 the si*pler rationales of polytheis* )hile still deeply involved in the sa*e ulti*ate *otivational Iuandaries. But lo!olo!y approaches the *atter this )ay: +f you talk a out lo'al or tri al divinities, you are on the slope of polytheis*. +f, instead, you talk a out 5the divine5 in general, loQ you are on the slope of *onotheis*. <.n pp. $03E% of *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, in the article + have *entioned on 5>yth, Poetry, and Philosophy,5 + list several )ays in )hich polytheis* 5ver ally ehaved5 in this situation. (nd + do think that on pa!e $0;, )ith re!ard to *y point a out 5the divine,5 + stu* led into a real surprise, thou!h *y inadeIuacies as a scholar *ake *e fear that so*ethin! *ay have !one )ron! )ith *y Dreek.= +n any case, lo!olo!y Iuotes this passa!e fro* a letter of 2aint (* rose: -he devil had reduced the hu*an race to a perpetual captivity, a cruel usury laid on a !uilty inheritance )hose de tA urdened pro!enitor had trans*itted it to his posterity y a succession drained y usury. -he ?ord Hesus ca*eG 8e offered 8is o)n death as a ranso* for the death of allG 8e shed 8is o)n Blood for the lood of all. <@ra)n up y 8is 0*inence Peter Cardinal Dasparri, -he +atholi' +ate'hism, translated y ,everend 8u!h Pope O/e) Mork: P. H. Kennedy W 2onsP, p. 2%"= ?o!olo!y tends to see in such state*ents vesti!es of the transitional sta!e fro* polytheis* to *onotheis* )hen the pa!an !ods )ere vie)ed not as *ere fi!*ents of the i*a!ination ut as actually e'istent de*ons. Mou pay such hi!h ranso* only to so*eone )ho has terrific po)er over you, not to so*eone to )ho* you needed ut to say, 5Be !one for !ood,5 and heFd e !one for !ood. ?o!olo!y leaves it for the scruples of theolo!y to )ork out e'actly )hy that da*ned nuisance has to e put up )ith, y an allApo)erful .rdainer of all .rder. ?o!olo!yFs only contri ution to the cause is the re*inder that, to our kno)led!e, the ?a), e it 2aint PaulFs kind or Bentha*Fs, is the flo)erin! of that hu*anly, hu*anely, hu*anistically, and rutally inhu*anely in!enious addition to )ordless nature, the negative, )ithout )hich a fi!ure like 2atan )ould & "%7 & e lo!olo!ically i*possi le, as also it )ould e i*possi le to put ne't to a live )ire a si!n sayin!: 5@an!er, donFt touch.5 Could even 8eaven e possi le, if not defined y reference to its polar contradictory, 8ellL + have Iuoted fro* CritB >authnerFs WJrter&u'h (er .hiloso)hie: 53ie %e:ahung ist erst (ie Derneinung einer Derneinung5<,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion, 5( @ra*atistic 9ie) of the .ri!ins of ?an!ua!e and Postscripts on the /e!ative,5 p. $"%=. .n the sa*e pa!e, fro* 3i'tionnaire (es /'ien'es .hiloso)hi6ues: 5,e n@ant nKest 6uKun mot,5 ut think )hat it has looked like, )ith 5 ein!5 !rounded in 5nonA ein!.5 But letFs sa*ple a fe) of the pro le*s that turn up )ith >iltonFs theolo!ical treat*ent of so*e lo!olo!ical situations: Praise is a asic 5freedo* of speech.5 -here is !reat e'hilaration in ein! a le to praise, since praise is on the sa*e slope as love. But )hat of Dod, as the au!ust recipient of praiseL +s 8e to e a verita le !lutton for flattery, )ith #ealous si!ns of a Hehovah co*ple'L 8o)ever, the principle of hierarchy so intrinsic to .rder, and for*ally perfected in the orders of -hrones, @o*inations, Princedo*s, 9irtues, Po)ers, could )ork )ell in one nota le respect. Cor thus 2atanFs revolt could e treated as *otivation for the o&e(ient revolt of the an!els i**ediately under hi*. -hey )ere loyal to their local leader. +f Dod in 8is o*nipotence lets the attle ra!e indecisively for Iuite so*e ti*e )hereas 8e could have stopped it the *o*ent it e!an, there arises the Iuestion )hether 8e is as po)erful as 8e is supposed to e, or is cruel. Met if >ilton disposed of the pro le* fro* the start, )here )ould the epic eL Under

the conditions of polytheis* the fi!ht can !o onG Contenrose codifies the sta!es that can e protracted a( li&itum; for oth co* atants are *i!hty po)ers in conflict. But under *onotheis* there is ut one po)er )hose )ord is po)er in the a solute, e'cept for the one lo!olo!ical e* arrass*ent that, i*plicit in polar ter*s, there is a ti*eless principle of ne!ativity )hich not only warns against the wiles o$ /atan, &ut 'reates the nee( $or /atan# -he (ragging out of the attle is not a theologi'al *atter. (s -he 8lia( sho)s, thatFs the only )ay you can )rite an epic. 0*pson seiBes upon the notion of the 5Cortunate Call5 as a )ay of indictin! the Cather on the !round that it proves (da*Fs Call to have een in the cards fro* the start and thus to have involved the collusion of Dod. But as re!ards the lo!olo!y of the case, (da*Fs fall )as in the cards fro* the start in the sense that his task, as the 5first5 *an, )as to represent the )rin'i)le of diso edience that )as i*plicit in the possi ility of sayin! no to the first 5thou shalt not.5 -he only )ay for the story aspect & "%3 & of theolo!y to say that the ?a) *ade sin is y translatin! the state*ent of such 5principles5 into tem)oral ter*s. -heologi'ally, as a private person, (da* didnFt have to sin. But logologi'ally, if he hadnFt, the )hole rationale of the Bi le )ould have een in ruins. By the lo!olo!ic of the case, he had a task to perfor* that only the first *an could e 5principled5 enou!h to perfor*. 0ve couldnFt do it. 2he could ut serve as a te*ptress. Cor it )as a patriarchal culture, and such ori!inal sin could only e esta lished throu!h the *ale line. -here )as a Patripassian heresy that thou!ht of the one Dod as offerin! hi*self for the rede*ption of *ankind. But the -rinitarian relation et)een Cather and 2on allo)s for a divine selfAsacrifice )ithout Patripassianis*. 0*pson considers the sa*e !ra**ar )ithout enefit of lo!olo!y ut in his adA oy *ethod thus: 5:hat >ilton is thinkin! has to e: JDod couldnFt have een satisfied y torturin! hi*self to death, not if + kno) DodG you could never have ou!ht hi* off )ith that *oneyG he could only have een satisfied y torturin! so*eone else to death.K 5 -here is Iuite a it *ore of such discussion in the pa!es 5:ords (nent ?o!olo!y5 + sent to the *e* ers of the class y )ay of a )ost mortem on our se*inar, later pu lished in .ers)e'tives in ,iterary /ym&olism, edited y Hoseph 2trelka <University Park: Pennsylvania 2tate University Press, "%3;, pp. 42E;2=. But this should e enou!h to indicate the relation et)een theolo!y and lo!olo!y as revealed y 0*psonFs so*e)hat naively nonlo!olo!ical treat*ent of >iltonFs theolo!ical narrative.

2
( so*e)hat oversi*plified pattern *i!ht serve est to indicate the drift of these speculations. +deally postulate a tri e of pronouncedly ho*o!eneous nature. +ts cultural identity has developed under relatively autono*ous conditions. -hat is, its contacts )ith other tri es have een *ini*al, so that its institutions have taken shape predo*inantly in response to the local *aterial circu*stances on )hich it depends for its livelihood. -he tri eFs poetry and *yths )ould thus e*er!e out of situations )ith )hich the *e* ers of the tri e had eco*e fa*iliar in their !radual transfor*ation fro* )holly dependent speechless or!anis*s, throu!h successive institutionally influenced sta!es alon! the )ay to *aturity and death, a *a#or aspect of such institutions ein! the role of the tri al lan!ua!e in shapin! the sense of individual and !roup identity. +n this connection + )ould place !reat stress upon the notion that, thou!h the tri eFs & "%4 &

lan!ua!e and *yths )ere lar!ely the )ork of adult e'periences, usa!es, and i*a!inin!s, they retained the vesti!es of their 5*a!ical5 ori!ins. +*portant a*on! these )ould e the childFs e'periences as livin! a*on! 5hi!her po)ers.5 -he proportion of child to adult )ould thus e *ytholo!ically duplicated in the proportion of adult to 5supernatural5 ein!s, in a real* also associated )ith the idea of death <a freIuent synony* for )hich, thanks to the !enius of the ne!ative, is 5i**ortality5=. -he closeness of the relation et)een poetry and *ytholo!y is clearly attested y the lon! tradition of :estern 5literary5 interest in *yths of the Dreeks. >yths are !rounded in eliefs. (nd eliefs are 5*yths5 to )hoever doesnFt elieve the*. (nd the step fro* poetry to criticis* takes over to the e'tent that the conditions under )hich our hypothetical tri eFs ody of poetry and *ytholo!y took for* have eco*e nota ly altered. .ne can i*a!ine various such induce*ents. -he tri eFs internal develop*ent *ay have introduced ne) pro le*s <as )ith the hei!htenin! of social ineIuities=. Cli*atic chan!es or invasion *ay cause *i!ration. -he tri e *ay eco*e *uch *ore closely associated )ith so*e other tri e < y eco*in! a colony of so*e i*perial po)er, for instance, or y eco*in! an i*perial po)er itself=. (nd insofar as the voice of criticis* replaces the era of poetry, there is a correspondin! step fro* *ytholo!y to theolo!y. (t least such is the o vious case )ith re!ard to oth He)ish and Christian theolo!y, )hich developed controversially <as *onotheis* versus pa!an polytheis*=, and )ith tense involve*ent in pro le*s of e*pire that radically *odified the possi ilities of purely internal 5tri al5 develop*ent. But theolo!y as + )ould place it still does tie in closely )ith the aspect of *ytholo!y that shared the poetic sense of ori!ins in the e'periences of childhood, even to the sta!e )hen the speechless hu*an or!anis* )as ut !ettin! the first inklin!s of the )ays )ith ver al utterance. (lso, itFs Iuite likely that a develop*ent purely internal to the *ediu* can favor a !reat stress upon criticis*. -he incentives to criticis* increase )ith the invention of )ritin!, and itFs dou tful )hether criticis* could ever realiBe its fullest potentialities )ithout the acutely anato*ical kind of o servation that the )ritten version of a )ork *akes possi le. (t least, after our lon! reliance on the )ritten or printed te't, our reliance on the record has pro a ly ho led our *e*ory to the point that, )hereas a !roundin! in pri*itive illiteracy is in all likelihood the est condition for poetry, criticis* *ust )rite thin!s do)n, the etter to check on all the su tleties of interrelationships a*on! the parts of a te't. Met, althou!h in & "%; & that respect lo!olo!y is al)ays *uch *ore at ho*e )ith a te't than not, it *ust constantly ad*onish itself re!ardin! the li*itations of a te't as the adeIuate presentation of a sy* olic act, and as instructions for the reader to reenact it. +n co*parison )ith a )ellAedited *usical score, for instance, the literary te't )hen considered as instructions for perfor*ance is seen to e Iuite deficient. (nd think ho) i*poverished the te't of a dra*a is, )hen vie)ed as instructions for the reader to reenact it in his i*a!ination. But )hat then, in su*, is 5lo!olo!y,5 in relation to poetry, criticis*, *ytholo!y, theolo!y, and the possi le relation that they all have to the real* of nonsy* olic *otion in )hich all such for*s of sy* olic action are e*pirically !roundedL <-hat is to say, re!ard less of )hether theolo!y is ri!ht or )ron!, it is propounded y iolo!ical or!anis*s that can the*selves propound anythin! only so lon! as they are physically alive, hence capa le of *otion.= :hatever a theolo!ian *ay e in so*e supernatural real*, e*pirically he canFt e a theolo!ian e'cept insofar as his sy* oliBin!s are enacted throu!h the *ediu* of a ody6and lo!olo!y e!ins <and also necessarily ends= )ith Iuestions a out his nature thus.

?o!olo!y relates to all 5olo!ies5 in askin!, as its first Iuestion, 5:hat all is !oin! on, )hen so*eone says or reads a sentenceL5 -here are so*e thin!s !oin! on, )ith relation to the specific su #ect *atter of the sentence. (nd ehind or eyond or )ithin that, there are the kinds of processes and relationships that are involved in the sayin! or understandin! of any sentence. -hat approach to the su #ect in !eneral sets up lo!olo!yFs first Iuestion, )hich necessarily puts the lo!olo!er on the unco*forta le frin!es of all the ans)ers to all specific Iuestions. +t *ust start fro* the fact that lo!olo!yFs first Iuestion is a variant of the pri*e 2ocratic Iuestion, the Iuestionin! of itself, and of its relation to nature <)here y it eco*es the purely technical analo!ue of the theolo!iansF 5!race5 that 5perfects5 ut does not 5a olish5 the real* of natureFs speechlessness=. 0ven at the risk of resortin! so*e)hat to the *ythical, letFs end y surveyin! the field thus, as it looks in ter*s of lo!olo!y: Cirst, althou!h in *any respects the speculations of lo!olo!y rin! us *uch closer to ehavioris* than is 5naturally5 the case )ith inIuiries into the nature of the )ord, there is one total, unyieldin! opposition. Behavioris* is essentially *onistic, in assu*in! that the difference et)een ver al ehavior and nonver al ehavior <lo!olo!y )ould call it a distinction et)een sy* olic action and nonsy* olic *otion= is ut a *anner of (egree# But lo!olo!y is dualistically vo)ed to the assu*ption that )e here confront a difference in *in(# 8ence, it puts pri*ary stress upon & "%% & @UP?+C(-+./, P.?(,+-M, /0D(-+./ <and countless variations of such= as the very soul of lo!olo!ical inIuiry. (nd )here do such *odes of duplication co*e fro*L +n our nature as sheerly physiolo!ical or!anis*s there is the isy**etry of the ody, there are the *odes of reciprocatin! *otion <systole and diastole of the heart, the rhyth* of respiration, the alternations and co*pensatory alances of )alkin!=. (nd in a va!ue )ay the !ist of )hat /e)ton su**ed up in his third ?a) of *otion, 5-o every action there is al)ays an eIual and opposite reaction,5 is e'perienced to the e'tent that an or!anis* *ust sense the difference in alterity et)een pushin! a reed and collidin! )ith a stone. But a )hole further real* of duplication arises fro* the nature of discourse as a 5reflection5 of the nonlin!uistic situations in )hich the hu*an or!anis*Fs pro)ess )ith lan!ua!e is acIuired. -his is the kind of duplication that sho)s up *ost o viously in the critical difference et)een a physical thin! and its correspondin! na*e. Curther, y the nature of lan!ua!e such parallels <5co*pleted5 in the relation et)een sprin! and a sprin! son!, or et)een the physical process of plantin! and a ritual desi!ned to acco*pany such a process= inevita ly !ive rise to a vast real* of duplication due to the fact that analo!y is i*plicit in the application of the sa*e ter*s )hen referrin! to different situations6and all actual situations are different insofar as no t)o such situations are identical in their details. 2uch 5idealiBation,5 at the very roots of the classifyin! function intrinsic to the repeated application of the sa*e ter*s to different conditions <a property of speech )ithout )hich no natural lan!ua!e could take for* or e learned=, itself involves an endlessly repeata le act of duplication. -his analo!ical aspect of lan!ua!e thus sets up possi ilities of further develop*ent in its o)n ri!ht, *akin! for the fictive ran!e of identifications and i*plications and su stitutions )hich add up to the vast co*ple'ities of the )orld as )e kno) it. +t eco*es a real* in its o)n ri!ht and essentially anthropocentric, in ein! ver ally a*plified y our 5is*s5 and 5olo!ies5 and *athe*atical reductions <all instances )are1'ellen'e of specifically hu*an inventions in the real *ofsy* olicaction=. 2uch resources can eco*e so hi!hly developed out of the*selves, y analo!ical e'tension and the

duplication of such analo!ies in correspondin! *aterial i*ple*ents and techniIues, that the process of duplication can eco*e parado'ically reversed, as in PlatoFs theory of 5i*itation.5 By this t)ist thin!s are said to 5i*itate5 the 5ideas5 <lo!olo!y )ould call the* the 5class na*es5= )hich )e apply to the*, hence in & 200 & ter*s of )hich )e can e said to conceive of the*. 8ere statin! thou!hts of 5essence5 in ter*s of IuasiAte*poral priority, Platonis* concluded that the 5ideas5 or 5for*s5 <that is, the class na*es= for the particular e1istent thin!s of our e*pirical, everyday )orld *ust have een e'perienced in a supernatural real* prior to their 5i*perfect i*itation5 that )e see all a out us. (s vie)ed lo!olo!ically, such 5for*s5 are 5prior5 in the sense that the na*e for any 'lass of o #ects can e vie)ed as 5logi'ally prior5 to the particulars classed under that head. (nd any particular can e called an 5i*perfect5 instance of that class na*e, ecause such a )ord <and its 5idea5= is not a thing, ut a lank to e filled out y a (e$inition, )hich )ouldnFt e a thin! in that sense. Met no particular thin! could perfectly represent the definition. -o take PlatoFs e'a*ple: -here is not one ed )hich you could point to and say, 5-hatFs ed.5 /or could any of the countless other eds, variously different in their particulars fro* one another, and *any of the* not even *ade yet, e selected as the ed. Mou could say, 5-hatFs a ed, 5 ut not #ust 5 ed5 or 5the ed.5 +ncidentally, thou!h you could thus use an indefinite article, Plato couldnFtG for there is no such !ra**atical particle in his Dreek. -hat i*pin!es upon another real* of speculation in )hich lo!olo!y is properly *uch interested. Consider the scholastic for*ula Nihil in intelle'tu 6uo( non )rius in sensu# -here is nothin! in the real* of understandin! )hich did not e!in in the real* of the senses. . viously, )e are there involved in the a* i!uous relation et)een 5i*a!es5 and 5ideas5 )hich directly ears upon the analo!ical factor operatin! in the *odes of duplication. -o that for*ula, ?ei niB added, nisi intelle'tus i)se, 5e'cept the understandin! itself.5 -he strictly lo!olo!ical eIuivalent of that addition )ould e a concern )ith respects in )hich the !iven structure of a lan!ua!e <such as its particular !ra**ar, or even such sheer accidental affinities as si*ilarity in sound et)een particular )ords in a !iven idio*= sets up conditions intrinsic to the *ediu* )here y )e donFt #ust thin* with a lan!ua!e, ut the lan!ua!e can in effect thin* $or us. >uch has already een done alon! those lines, and *uch can still e done. Basically, + take it, the study of wor(s as wor(s in 'onte1t asks us to ask ho) they e6uate with one another, ho) they im)ly one another, and ho) they eco*e trans$orme(# -here are conte'ts in the sense that a )hole te't is the conte't for any part of the te't. -here are conte'ts in the sense of )hatever 5 ack!round,5 historical, !eo!raphical, personal, local, or universal, *i!ht e & 20" & conceived of as the scene to )hich the sy* olic act of the author as a!ent e'plicitly or i*plicitly refers, over and a ove the nature of the te'tFs sheerly internal relationships. But no) let us consider a!ain the ehaviorist an!le. .n the issue )hich + a* to discuss here, donFt fail to consult a truly ad*ira le article, 50'planation, -eleolo!y, and .perant Behavioris*: ( 2tudy of the 0'peri*ental (nalysis of Purposive Behavior,5 y Hon @. ,in!en, .hiloso)hy o$ /'ien'e, $3 <"%43=: 223E73. -hou!h + dou t )hether + Iuite use it the )ay it )as intended, it is so *ethodolo!ically scrupulous a perfor*ance, its accuracy speaks for itself.

-here is 5operant5 conditionin! and there is 5respondent5 conditionin!.PavlovFs<or :atsonFs= )as of decided lya5respondent5sort. -he e'peri*ental ani*al res)on(s y salivatin! )hen you !ive it asniff of *eat. -est its response Iuantitatively y checkin! its flo) of saliva. -hen, after havin! y repetition esta lished the association et)een the sniff of *eat and the rin!in! of a ell, rin! the ell )ithout the sniff of *eat, and check on the a*ount of salivation as a response thus conditioned. B. C. 2kinner e'peri*ented )ith an additional test. Dive an ani*al a !oal, set up so*e si*ple condition )here y, if it pecks at a certain for* <or color= or presses a lever, it operates a *echanis* that releases a it of food. 8avin! een syste*atically starved to a out fourAfifths of its natural )ei!ht, it does )hatever it can in the need for food. -he la oratory conditions are so set up that there are fe) thin!s it can do. (s the result of its rando* *otions, it learns to repeat the pressin! or peckin! operation that is *ost con!ruent )ith its 5natural endo)*ent.5 (nd conditions are so set up that this operation procures it food. -he kind of instru*ental 5purpose5 it thus acIuires is called an instance of 5*olar5 ehavior. (nd such *ethods of 5control5 can e e*ployed y the e'peri*enter to teach the ani*al Iuite specialiBed *odes of ehavior, as co*pared )ith its natural 5repertoire5 for !ettin! food. (t the sa*e ti*e, of course, there is a kind of 5*olecular5 ehavior !oin! on in the ani*al, the purely physiolo!ical correlates of odily *otion such as Pavlov )as studyin! in his techniIue for *easurin! the de!ree of salivation )ith )hich his do!s responded to his respondent *ode of conditionin!. +t is *y notion that lo!olo!yFs interest in Iuestions of hu*an 5*olar5 responses )ould pri*arily involve considerations of rhetoric and le!islation <as )ith *atters of penal la) and ta'ation=. But )hereas hu*anistic studies usually sho) little interest in Iuestions of 5*olecular5 ehavior, lo!olo!y *ust stress this su #ect since it ears so directly upon the possi le correlations et)een physiolo!ical nonsy* olic *otion and & 202 & sy* olic action alon! the lines )e touched upon in our reference to the airAconditionin! plant that had to use proportionately *ore ener!y )hen a *ore e'citin! *otion picture )as ein! sho)n <)hich is to say, )hen the audiovisual *otions of the fil* )ere ein! interpreted y the audience in ter*s of sy* olic actions for )hich the correlative nonsy* olic *otions of their odies put a proportionately !reater urden upon the airAconditionin! *echanis*, )hich could have no direct response to the fil* itself as a seIuence of *otions, ut )hich its 5sensors5 )ere desi!ned to re!ister, as translated fro* the fil*Fs *otions y the audienceFs actions, )hich )ere in turn reflected as correlative odily *otions=. + have deli erately left that sentence in its present un)ieldy condition, the etter to su!!est the underlyin! pro le*atics of such lo!olo!ical concerns, thou!h it is o vious that *odern technolo!y is developin! at a hi!h rate the resources for such clinical inIuiries into the 5*olecular5 odily *otions that acco*pany our )ays )ith sy* olic action <apparently includin! even inIuiries into correspondin! routines of selfAcontrol=. :hen considerin! such *ythic fi!ures as the :or* .uro oros, the (*phis aena, or the )orld conceived as a *i!hty 8er*aphrodite, one *i!ht plausi ly derive the* fro* desi!ns purely internal to the resources of sy* olicity. Cor instance, even the ran!e of *eanin!s in the Dreek preposition am)hi is enou!h to su!!est ho) the thou!ht of such aroundness and a outness *i!ht e 5*ytholo!iBed5 <*ade narrative= in the i*a!e of a creature that )ent oth for)ards and ack)ards. -he *utuality of )ays in )hich ter*s i*ply one another *i!ht )ell su!!est the circular analo!y of a creature )ith its o)n tail in its *outh <the desi!n here, lon! efore there )ere dictionaries, su!!estin! )hat does characteriBe the nature of a dictionary, as a )holly selfAcontained universe of discourse, a kind of 5circularity5 in the )ay all the ter*s 5circle ack upon5 one another=. (nd )hen the principle of polarity eco*es localiBed in ter*s of the se'es, it follo)s as a standard resource of dialectic that such

a IuasiAantithesis can e 5resolved5 y the *ost o vious correspondin! ter* for synthesis. ?o!olo!y does tentatively entertain the likelihood that such i*a!inin!s *ay have a !roundin! in physiolo!ically still e'istent vesti!es of our 5ancestral5 evolutionary past. 8o)ever, even if there *ay happen to e such survivals fro* our prever al past, and should they still e *anifestin! traces of the*selves in so*e of the ver aliBin! ani*alFs *ost eschatolo!ical *yths, lo!olo!y uilds on the assu*ption that the differentiatin! *odes of sensation as i**ediately e'perienced y us ani*als & 203 & now contri ute *ost to the i*a!ery out of )hich a co*ple' te'ture of concepts and ideals can e developed y the resources of analo!y intrinsi' to the nature of ter*s. By the ad#ective 5intrinsic5 here is not necessarily *eant a 5po)er5 of lan!ua!e. -he sa*e property can as accurately e called a *ere limitation of lan!ua!e, a li*itation due to the fact that )e cannot apply the sa*e e'pression to t)o situations )ithout to so*e e'tent introducin! the principle of analo!y, *etaphor, 5fiction5 as a 5creative5 resource in its o)n ri!ht. ?o!olo!y tentatively assu*es that, Iuite as physically !rounded 5her*aphroditic5 tendencies are clearly indicated in *any actual instances of such 5synthesis,5 so such *ythic fi!ures as the pri*al )or* feedin! on itself *ay e a response to physiolo!ical conditions <prior even to our uterine sta!e= still vesti!ially )ithin us, and actin! as a source of i*a!ery. -hou!h one *ay dou t )hether such possi ilities *ay ever yield *uch in the )ay of further discoveries, + *ention the* si*ply to indicate the ran!e of inIuiry )hich )ould e involved in the study of the hu*an ani*alFs nonsy* olic 5*olecular5 ehavior underlyin! the field of sy* olic action. ( *ore re)ardin! kind of inIuiry alon! these lines *i!ht concern the possi ility that the socially *or id featurin! of cri*inality, violence, sadis*, terror, and the like <*any aspects of )hich sho) up in folk tales for children= *ay have a (ou&le origin# (s a social pheno*enon <thus )holly in the real* of sy* olic action= the astoundin!ly lar!e nu* er of *ercenaries <)riters, actors, and the various kinds of e'perts e*ployed in the purely technolo!ical aspects of such ehavior= are o viously producin! co**odities that are desi!ned to attract ideally a *a'i*u* nu* er of vie)ers as a *eans of esta lishin! as lar!e a *arketplace as possi le )here the e'perts in sales pro*otion can est reco**end their clientsF products. -he social *or idity of such 5art5 is !reatly a!!ravated y the nature of current -9 realis*, in )hich there is no apprecia le difference et)een a *erely simulate( act of violence and a real one <)hich )ould e the eIuivalent of sayin! that there is no apprecia le difference et)een the artistic i*itation of sufferin! in Dreek tra!edy and the a'tual rutalities )itnessed y the *o s )ho attended the !ladiatorial contests in decadent ,o*e=. (polo!ists for the profita le sellin! of such )ares )ill point to the hi!h de!ree of violence in, say, the !reatest plays of 2hakespeare. -hey *ake no *ention of the fact that the Iuality of the (i'tion introduces a & 20$ & nota ly different di*ension. (nd as a *atter of fact, )riters for the current *arket operate in a field )hich, y the very nature of conte*porary realis* <or naturalis*= as addressed to oth eye and ear, )holly o literates the distinction et)een real and si*ulated happenin!s, a confusion so 5natural5 to the *ediu* that strictly scientific depictions of *oonAshots and the like *ust specifically keep ad*onishin! their pu lic )hen they are not re'or(ing an instru*ent in *otion ut are *erely

si*ulatin! such. +f one *ust e so scrupulously specific in keepin! that distinction clear, )hat then of a child )ho )atches IuasiAreal killin!s ti*e after ti*e, )ith no )arnin!s that the si*ulations appeal to a childFs i*a!inativeness in a )ay )here y, after a fe) years of such fare, that child has 5 een throu!h5 all those e'periences. -he incidents have eco*e 5*oral5 in the *ost ety*olo!ically accurate sense of the ter*, that is, 5custo*ary.5 +n that *ediu*, such *odes of conduct have eco*e esta lished as 5the nor*,5 and the child has een 5educated5 to think of hu*an relations in such ter*s. ,ecall the case of the la)yer )ho recently tried to !et his youn! defendant declared innocent ecause the oy had een !reatly influenced y the depictions of violence on the tu e. + dou t )hether even a Clarence @arro) could have used that defense successfully, if only ecause there is such a vast invest*ent in the depiction of violence. Met + personally !o alon! )ith those )ho elieve that 5entertain*ent,5 as so conceived, does function as a *or id kind of education. But the pressures of the *arket are such that the suppliers of co**odities for that *arket *ust sacrifice a lot )hen cuttin! do)n on violence and hoppedup se', either of )hich can e a su stitute for the other e'cept )hen attacks are directed )ith eIual insistence a!ainst oth. Cor any radical eli*ination of the* oth )ould leave a void that other for*s of sy* olic action are not eIuipped to fill. But ho) far should )e !o )hen askin! )hat is the source of such appeal in these *odes of su stitution, depictin! 5cri*inal Christs5 )hose 5*ission5 it is to take on the urden of our !uilt, suffer their i*itated passions in our ehalf <as is also the case of 5real victi*s,5 offered for the entertain*ent, fascination even, + *ean for that inferior species of the 5tra!ic pleasure5 )e !et fro* di!estin! the literal news of each dayFs cri*e and disaster=L >i!ht not the search for such sources of appeal lead us ack to a kind of purely )hysiologi'al frustrationL + do not refer to )ays )here y i*a!inary & 207 & su stitutes help us 5co*pensate5 y fantasies that fulfill our )ishes for do*inance, se'ual !ratification, or ven!eance, and like )ishes that are oth sti*ulated and repressed y factors in the social order. + have in *ind a *ore parado'ical kind of frustrationG na*ely, if hu*an odies have een selectively disciplined throu!h countless years of prehistory to endure certain purely physical kinds of strain, *i!ht the conditions of civiliBation frustrate the direct e'pression of such aptitudes as !et developed y, and inherited fro*, the conditions that prevailed prior to the conditions of civiliBationL -o illustrate y an oversi*plified anecdote, a spirited youth, livin! al*ost ai*lessly in a *odern slu*, encounters kinds of $rustration that a youn! healthy 0ski*o, at a ti*e efore :estern civiliBation had contri uted so !reatly to the deterioration of his tri al culture, could not have had the sli!htest notion of. -he physicality of his purposes )ould have een clear. -hey )ould have een developed y traditions that also developed his a ility to under!o the kinds of effort and correspondin! strain indi!enous to such a *ode of livelihood. -he conditions of his situation )ould also have selectively developed the physical and attitudinal resources consistent )ith the purposes that the needs for survival under those conditions called for. +nsofar as such an endo)*ent )as developed in ans)er to the 5challen!e5 that the conditions the*selves helped define, is there not a $rustration of the aptitudes that are, as it )ere, 5in orn5 in the very 5!enetic endo)*ent5 of a species thus selectively trained, their odies thus havin! had 5 red into5 the* )hatever a&ilities to perfor* are y the sa*e token nee(s to so perfor*L (fter all, + a* ut sayin! that 5in red5 in irds there is the a&ility to flyG and insofar as that a ility is not !iven e'pression, they are frustrated, in their very nature 5repressed.5

9ie)ed thus, the spirited youth )ho eco*es a 5delinIuent,5 *i!ht *ore accurately e thou!ht of as seekin! the 5*oral eIuivalent of )ar.5 But )ars are lar!ely so'ial constructs, thus *otivated y disorders in the real* of sy* olicityG and )e are here askin! a out a possi le reduction to the real* of sheer nonsy* olic, physiolo!ical *otion. -he kinds of strain or conflict that are ein! assu*ed here, and that the or!anis*Fs 5!enetic endo)*ent5 needs to 5e'press5 if it is not to e 5frustrated,5 )ould e )holly in the real* of *otion. .ne !ets !li*pses of such a *otive in athletic efforts <no) invaria ly corrupted fro* the very start y their tieAin )ith *odes of decadent sy* olicity kno)n as professional sports=. -hey are !rounded in an asceticis* of trainin!, trainin! & 203 & to under!o <and thus e'press= the potentialities of the physiolo!ical or!anis* to endure strain, potentialities that )ould other)ise e denied e'pression. +n an early ook <"%37G .ermanen'e an( +hange, second revised edition O?os (ltos, California: 8er*es Pu lications, "%7$P=, + e'ercised considera ly a out a correspondin! *oral conflict that characteriBed /ietBscheFs cult of tra!edy, and that + related also to a salient aspect of his style, its restless hankerin! after 5perspectives y incon!ruity,5 in the service of an =mwerthung aller Werthe# +n su**in! thin!s up so*e four decades later, + find that related speculations should e recalled. ,ecallin! the*, + *i!ht su* up the )hole 5lo!olo!ical5 situation thus: -here is <"= the principle of polarity )ith re!ard to the Iualitative distinction et)een sy* olic action and nonsy* olic *otion. -his is the pri*e source of duplication, insofar as the e'periences of odily sensation shape the *aterials )hich lan!ua!e dra)s upon as the source of its 5fictions,5 in the real* of sy* olicity. :ithin the real* of sy* olicity itself there is <2= the kind of polarity that the ne!ative adds to nonsy* olic nature. +t itself splits into the propositional <isAis not= pair and the hortatory <doAdo not= pair. +n the real* of the ody as a sheerly nonsy* olic physical or!anis* there is <3= the polarity of the distinction et)een the need for stru!!le <in the effort to attain the *eans of livelihood= and the re)ards of rela'ation <)hen a hun!er has een sated=. +n a hi!hly co*ple' social structure the resources of sy* olicity are such that the sheer physiolo!y of such a distinction eco*es !reatly confused y sy* olic factors <property relationships, for instance=. But )e have tried to indicate )hy )e assu*e that it can function Iuite parado'ically as a *otive. <?eisure, for instance, can function as a *ode of psycholo!ical une*ploy*ent, )ith t)ists )here y people can 5*ake )ork5 for the*selves y 5inventin!5 confused purposes and relationships.= Cor*al sy* olic structures *i!ht e reduced to three ter*inistic relationships: eIuations <identifications=, i*plications, transfor*ations. Cor instance, if so*e particular 5is*5 or 5olo!y5 or personality type or location or )hatever is e'plicitly or i*plicitly presented as desira le or undesira le, it )ould e identified )ith correspondin! 5values56and such )ould e 5eIuations.5 5+*plications5 )ould fi!ure insofar as one ter* e'plicitly or i*plicitly involved a cycle or fa*ily of ter*s, as the idea of 5order5 i*plies a co*panionAter*, 5disorder,5 or i*plicit in the idea of an 5act5 is the idea of an 5a!ent5 )ho perfor*s the act. By 5transfor*ations5 )ould e *eant )hat )ould e the 5fro*A)hat,5 5throu!hA)hat,5 5toA)hat5 develop*ents in a sy* olic structure. 2uch & 204 & unfoldin!s <fro* potentiality to actualiBation via a 5peripety5 of so*e sort= can e either narrative or purely conceptual or oth. -he Iuestion of 5transfor*ations5 necessarily i*pin!es upon the shiftin! choices et)een te*poral, narrative priority <yesterday/today/to*orro)= and lo!ical priority <the syllo!istic first pre*ise/second pre*ise/conclusion desi!n6or the dialectical notion of a class na*e as

5prior5 to any particulars that can e classed under that head=. +n this connection, the route fro* lo!olo!y to theolo!y is via a lo!olo!ical criticis* of PlatoFs *ytholo!y ecause it assi!ns to his ideal for*s a real* narratively prior to their *ode of classification as in effect !eneral na*es for )orldly particulars included under those various 5ideal5 heads. 2uch a procedure )ould e called the 5te*poriBin! of essence,5 in that it does 5*ytholo!iBe5 <that is, translate into terms o$ story= a ver al resource of classification that has no te*poral di*ension. 2ince 5eternity5 is also a kind of nonte*porality, the conditions are present )here y the 5ti*elessness5 of the supernatural real* a$ter death < y e'tension involvin! a real* prior to all )ordly e'istence= a* i!uously overlaps upon the purely technical sense of ti*elessness in the lo!olo!ical sense of polar ter*s ti*elessly i*plyin! each other. (nd inas*uch as theolo!y necessarily uses narrative ter*s )ith re!ard to the e*er!ence of ti*e out of ti*elessness, lo!olo!yFs usiness is to discuss such e* arrass*ents that survive, even after theolo!y has critically !one eyond *ytholo!y. But lookin! in the other direction, )hereas lo!olo!y is vo)ed y sheer definition to e *uch concerned )ith the 5*olecular ehavior5 of the ody <there y !oin! alon! radically )ith ehaviorist inIuiries=, lo!olo!y *ust insist cate!orically upon a polar distinction et)een ver al and nonver al ehavior, in contrast )ith the ehavioristsF notion that they are there concerned )ith ut a difference of (egree# ?o!olo!yFs distinction et)een the sy* olic and nonsy* olic real*s is at least as a solute as any distinction et)een 5*ind5 and 5 ody,5 thou!h it has a nota ly different )ay of !ettin! there. +n fact, the distinction is as asic as that et)een &rea( and the wor( 5 read.5 .r as the distinction et)een the sea as a 5*other sy* ol5 and the sea as the physical ody of salt)ater it is, vastly a sloshin!Aaround. :ith re!ard to the lo!olo!ical distinction et)een sy* olic action and nonsy* olic *otion, it *akes no difference )hether the hu*an ani*al 5thinks with lan!ua!e,5 or 5thou!ht5 and 5sy* olicity5 are i(enti'al# +n either case, insofar as the speechless hu*an or!anis* acIuires fa*iliarity )ith a tri al lan!ua!e there arises a duality of *otivational & 20; & real*s )here y the hu*an ani*alFs )ay )ith sy* ols is not reduci le to ter*s of its correlative *olecular ehavior. But )hen + read of her*eneutic e'perts )ho con!ratulate the*selves that the traditional Cartesian split et)een su #ect and o #ect, thou!ht and e'tension, is ein! avoided, + )ould note that there are t)o Iuite different )ays of considerin! any such develop*ent. +f @escartesFs dualis* is attacked as a 5psycholo!y of consciousness,5 it is in trou le. But )e should not let any reservations re!ardin! the +artesian for*ulation of the dualis* serve as a device y i*plication to discredit the dualistic principle itself. Cor if )e do so, )e are in effect i*plyin! *onis* either y s*u!!lin! in undeclared vesti!es of idealis*, or y )illyAnilly su scri in! to the 5*aterialistic5 oversi*plification of ehavioris*. But lo!olo!yFs 5dra*atistic5 <or dialectical= vie) of lan!ua!e as sy* olic action is in its very essence realisti'6and such a vie) is necessarily dualistic, since *an is the typically sy* olA usin! ani*al, and the lin!uistic invention of the ne!ative is enou!h in itself to uild a dualis*, even eyond the other t)o polarities )e also included in our su**ation. (t least as a tentative )orkin! principle, lo!olo!y holds to the notion that the relations et)een poetry and *ytholo!y <and thence via criticis* and )ritin! to theolo!y, plus )holly secular offshoots or disrelated !ro)ths, if there are such= *ust in all likelihood e* ody 5i*a!inative5 traces intrinsic to any sy* olic <that is, hu*an= *ediu* in its o)n ri!ht, alon! )ith traces of the for*ative e'periences under!one )hile the hu*an ani*al is !radually acIuirin! fa*iliarity )ith the *ediu* <such as its

initiation in the )ays of a tri al lan!ua!e=. (nd such traces of the inceptive are all the *ore likely to e still )ith us since e'periences of that sort are not a *atter *erely of a hu*an or!anis*Fs infantile past, ut are ever orn ane). Cor lan!ua!e is innately innovative. /o one could !o on *akin! his )ords *ean the sa*e, even if he e'pended his est efforts to *ake the* stay put.

+O!#S
-his essay )as first pu lished in -he Genyon 4eview " <)inter "%4%=: "7"E;7. ". (ny such possi le relationship et)een personal tensions and their use as *aterial for intense lin!uistic activity <to e analyBed and ad*ired in its o)n ter*s= *i!ht fi!ure thus. But there are special, purely lo!olo!ical, incentives for such a relationship et)een poetic activity and psycholo!ical passion. .n various occasions <particularly the essay, 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis,5 in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion O"%3"P= + have discussed the process )here y the effort to characteriBe conditions now turns into a 5story5 of 5ori!ins5 then, often a & 20% & purely 5*ythic5 past. -his endeavor can co*e to tie in )ith purely psycholo!ical *otives in such cases as, for instance, a poetFs inclination to d)ell 5re!ressively5 on thou!hts of early years actual or i*a!inary vesti!ial *e*ories of infancy. -hus :allace 2tevensFs puBBle*ents a out the 5first idea5 see* to *e an atte*pt, y an act of the 5i*a!ination,5 to recover a sense of )hat thin!s *ust have see*ed like to a child efore thin!s eca*e codified y na*es, or even colored y the assu*ption that anythin! unna*ed )as potentially na*a le. +ncidentally, )ith re!ard to KeatsFs ode <)hich + take to envision a kind of 5artAheaven,5 a theolo!ical heaven ro*antically aestheticiBed=, y *y interpretation, the transfor*in! of his diseaseFs odily sy*pto*s <fever and chill= into i*a!inal counterparts )ithin the conditions of the fiction )ould e a poetic e* odi*ent of the orthodo' reli!ious pro*ise that the true elievers )ould re!ain their 5purified5 odies in heaven. -hat is, the sy*pto*s )ould have their 5transcendent5 counterparts in poetic diction as indicated in *y analysis. + revie) these various considerations ecause the discussion of the* offers a !ood opportunity to at least indicate 5hu*anistic5 concern <the ad*onition to 5kno) ourselves5= that + take to e involved in the lo!olo!ical distinction et)een the hu*an or!anis*Fs real* of nonsy* olic *otion and the kind of 5self5 it 5naturally5 acIuires throu!h its protracted, infor*ative traffic )ith the <learned= pu lic *odes of sy* olic action. & 2"0 &

9. SymAolism as a 'ealistic )ode

.*e6Psyc3oanalyDing. %ogologiDed 19 9
-he *ain interest of this essay is in Kenneth BurkeFs recapitulation of the place of entelechy in his )ork fro* Philosophy of ?iterary Cor* <"%$"= throu!h @ra*atis* and

@evelop*ent <"%42= in the 5(ddendu*.5 .ther points of interest are his various definitions of )hat he *eans y 5lo!olo!ical realis*5 and his oftenArepeated distinction et)een archetype and entelechy. -he su title descri es the lo!olo!iBin! process that Burke kept perfor*in! in so *any of these late essays, translatin! the )ork of other thinkers <Plato, >ar', Creud, Hun!, 2aint (u!ustine= into lo!olo!ical ter*s. -here is a certain a*ount of repetition in these late essays ecause Burke likes to use the sa*e e'a*ples over and over a!ain, and the lo!olo!iBin! process is itself so*e)hat repetitive ecause the *ain lo!olo!ical coordinates and assertions a out lan!ua!e do not chan!e. -he distinction Burke *akes et)een 5ti*eless5 and historically 5uncaused5 recurrent archetypes and Burkean 5entelechy5 is crucial for lo!olo!y and, !oin! ack a )ays, for his dra*atistic poetics. 0ntelechy, as Burke uses it, is a function of lan!ua!eG it is the a ility, or the possi ility, of developin! a ter*inistic set to the end of the line, or 5to perfection.5 Dod is one e'a*ple, ut so is the devil. -ra!edy, for e'a*ple, is the perfect cathartic for* of dra*a ecause it has the *ost perfect tra!ic prota!onists and victi*s. (t a *ore *undane level, )e can lin!uistically arrive at the idea of 5perfect5 read or the 5perfect stor*,5 or the 5*other of all attles.5 -hou!h none of these 5perfections5 could possi ly e'ist. BurkeFs specialty is ver al te'ts. .ne of his est e'a*ples of 5entelechial5 analysis and thinkin! can e found in his essay 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis5 in -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion <"%3"=, especially in the section devoted to the 5cycle of ter*s i*plicit in the +dea of J.rderK 5 <see the chart on pa!e ";$=. Burke )as al)ays an e'tre*ely careful and accurate entitler. 2y* olis* is a realistic *ode ecause lan!ua!e <)hich is )hat sy* olis* *eans here= is used to descri e and discuss real events and thin!s in the real )orld. 0ven a te't is realistically )hat it is: a ver al structure in )hich the )ords are facts that can e e*pirically studied. ( te't, as such, is as realistic as any other physical thin! or o #ect. -he su title 5 J@eAPsychoanalyBin!K ?o!olo!iBed5 is a little *ore co*plicated. Burke tended to ar!ue )ith a !reat *any *a#or thinkers in his defense of lo!olo!y. -hese included Creud, Hun!, B. C. 2kinner, /. .. Bro)n, Buck*inster Culler, >arshall >c?uhan, ,enV :ellek, Credric Ha*eson, H. 8illis >iller, Cleanth Brooks, :ayne Booth, and *any others. +n 5@eAPsychoanalyBin!5 psychoanalysis, )hich Burke considers too idealistic, he translates it into ter*s of lo!olo!ical realis*. Psychoanalysis, in )hichever specific for* it is practiced, is al)ays ound to an idealiBed cycle of ter*s, a no*enclature. Burke )ants a theory of the *ind and ody <of the self= that is *ore *aterialistic and realistic than & 2"" & the idealiBed vie) of the self found in *ost psychoanalysis. 5Psychoanalytic approaches to sy* olic activity are clearly a for* of idealistic social science5 <3=. 5?o!olo!ical realis*5 is the key ter* here, )hich Burke defines in a variety of )ays throu!hout the essay. -his is the last of the four lo!olo!y essays in this !roup. 8o)ever, *any other essays in this collection also deal e'tensively )ith BurkeFs lo!olo!ical vie)s and, especially, )ith the connections he )orks out et)een lo!olo!y and technolo!y. 2ee, for e'a*ple, 5:hy 2atire, :ith a Plan for :ritin! .ne,5 5-o)ards ?ookin! Back,5 and especially 59ariations on JProvidence.K 5 Burke also discusses lo!olo!y at so*e len!th in the intervie) 5CounterA Dridlock.5

I
.n readin! the very su!!estive article y (nthony Burton in your fall "%4; issue, 5Beauty and the Beast: ( CritiIue of Psychoanalytic (pproaches to the Cairy -ale,5 + )as *oved to *ake so*e co**ents )hich, + hope, *i!ht in turn call forth further co**ents. :e should pro a ly e!in )ith the ter* 5sy* olis*.5 +n *y 5dra*atistic5 vie) of 5lan!ua!e as sy* olic action,5 the *ost !eneral *eanin! of the ter* 5sy* olis*5 is 5co**unication in ter*s of a sy* olAsyste*.5 -hat is, in the United 2tates )e speak an 5(*erican5 rand of 0n!lish6and *y particular application of that langue in this article is an instance of sy* olic action. But Creud uses the ter* 5sy* olic action5 in a *ore specialiBed sense, as synony*ous )ith 5sy*pto*atic action.5 -he 5sy* ols5 of a drea* are 5sy*pto*atic5 of psycholo!ical pertur ations in the 5psyche5 of the drea*er. (ristotleFs ter* 5i*itation,5 as applied to tra!edy, )ould involve another aspect of the 5sy* olic5 in the sense that an (thenian tra!edy )as ut a sym&oli' enact*ent of sufferin!, in contrast )ith the use of 5real5 victi*s in the !ladiatorial contests of the ,o*an theater. (ny >ar'ist theory of the distinction et)een 5 our!eois cos*opolitanis*5 and 5socialist realis*5 )ould also e'e*plify a concern )ith particular (iale'ts o$ sym&olism )ithin the real* of sym&olism in general# (nd so on, includin! for instance the 5fourAfold5 sche*e of *ediaeval her*eneutics. :hen )e are dealin! )ith psychoanalytic *odes of interpretation such as CreudFs and Hun!Fs, the overall 5lo!olo!ical5 fact is that )e are necessarily involved in theories of analogy# -he *anifest content of so*e sy* olic e'pression is the analo!ue of a latent content, the nature of )hich is defined in accordance )ith the particular theories of *otivation and interpretation propounded y the !iven psycholo!ical no*enclature. & 2"2 & .n pa!e 277, on the su #ect of 5archetypes,5 Burton Iuotes Hun!Fs Iuite relevant co**ent to this effect: 5:e are concerned first and fore*ost to esta lish certain analo!ies, and no *ore than thatG the e'istence of such analo!ies does not entitle us to conclude that the connection is already proven. N -he e'istin! analo!ies, ho)ever, are si!nificant enou!h in the*selves to )arrant the pro*inence )e have !iven the*.5 (nd he Iuotes a later state*ent, sayin! that the archetypes 5are )ithout kno)n ori!inG and they reproduce the*selves at any ti*e or in any part of the )orld6even )here trans*ission y direct descent or JcrossAfertiliBationK *ust e ruled out.5 -hen, in reference to a )ork y Hoseph ?. 8enderson, a Hun!ian psycholo!ist )ho has )ritten on 5Beauty and the Beast,5 Burton says: +nitiation, he clai*s, is an archetype. But he applies the ter* roadly throu!hout his ook, -hreshol(s o$ 8nitiation, to trials of stren!th, rites of vision, and *any other cultural activities. N8e rin!s the 8opi snake youth *yth, the Beauty and the Beast tale, and the @ionysius cult to!ether )ith *any other events as e'a*ples of one su cate!ory of this one archetype. -reated ahistorically in this )ay, the construct is too va!ue to e useful. -hese are little *ore than rese* lances. >arria!e is also clai*ed to e an archetype, and includes *otherhood. But *arria!e takes *any for*s. N :hat is to e *ade archetypally of polyandry, poly!yny, ki utBi*, co**unal and sin!le *other arran!e*ents, or of the situation in )hich the *otherFs rother nor*ally acts as the cultural fatherL -o su su*e all these under one archetype does not see* realistic. 8enderson see*s o livious to the pro le*. <277E73= (ccordin!ly, Burton asks: 5:hen is an archetype not an archetypeL5 + canFt pro*ise to 5solve5 that pro le*. But it *i!ht serve as a !ood point of departure in the direction of Iuestions a out the relation et)een sym&olism in general <5lo!olo!y5= and the role of analo!y in the psychoanalytic study of

*ytholo!y.

II
Cirst, the resources of analo!y ein! )hat they are, )e could say 5ahistorically5 that any such ter*s as 5archetype5 or 5initiation5 are at a hi!h level of !eneraliBation. (ny pronounced transfor*ation fro* one state to another could e conceiva ly classifia le under the head of 5initiation,5 particularly if there )ere so*e rite that for*ally co**e*orated the develop*ent or event as a chan!e of social status. Burton co*plains that such la'ity )ith 5archetypes5 is not 5realistic.5 But thou!h + & 2"3 & !rant that Hun! is far out on the slope of idealis*, his references to analo!y )ith re!ard to archetypes )ould strike *e as a Iuite realisti' o servation a out such ter*s. 2urely, archetypes are not 5thin!s5 )ith defina le ed!es, like ta les or chairs <)hich, as ter*s, y the )ay, Iuickly take on analo!ical usa!e, as per 5)ater ta le5 or 5cathedral5=. -hey are titles for so*e kind of 5principle.5 (nd their e* odi*ent in story <5*yth5= Iuite spontaneously destroys orders. <Cor instance, so*e particular archetypal cere*ony for *arria!e *i!ht incorporate i*a!ery of plo)in! a field for plantin!. .r a *a!ical i*a!ery of plantin! *i!ht )ell help thin!s out y incorporatin! connotations of a story O5*yth5P in )hich a )o*an is ein! i*pre!nated.= Hun! ca*e Iuite close to !ettin! this *atter strai!ht. But he couldnFt !et it )holly strai!ht ecause of the ter*inistic pressure )here y, thou!h the 5*ethodolo!y of lo!olo!y5 reIuires us to !o $rom concerns )ith 5sy* olis* in !eneral5 to the technical analysis of psychoanalytic no*enclature, the pressure of the )onders that )ere y psychoanalysis revealed kept even Hun! fro* *akin! the step fro* i*plicit psycholo!ical idealis* to e'plicit lo!olo!ical realis*. But in those passa!es + have Iuoted, he )as o viously Iuite close. ?etFs see ho) thin!s look if, usin! the sa*e *ost helpfully accurate essay as our point of departure, )e proceed )ith the help of Iuotations fro* BurtonFs a le state*ent of the case. -he final pa!es of his paper sharpen the issue perfectly. -here, on the su #ect of 5Psychoanalysis and >aterialis*,5 he *akes it Iuite clear ho) *ere *atters of no*enclature <5?o!olo!ical5 considerations= line up, if )e accept the rules that are i*plicit in reduction to a choice et)een idealis* and *aterialis* <each of )hich, after its o)n fashion, calls for the ad#ective 5dialectical5=. Burton does a neat #o presentin! these t)o ter*inistic operations. 8e!elFs idealistic version du! so deep that even ?enin, on !oin! ack over the )hole su #ect, advised >ar'ists to study 8e!el, as a useful step alon! the )ay. (nd in early ooks, >ar' )as classed as a 5neoA8e!elian.5 -he difference, as BurtonFs tri* analysis *akes clear <hence, since + a* referrin! to it, + can *ake further cuts=, is reduci le to t)o theories o$ origin# /a*ely: +n 8e!el, /ature and 8istory are the unfoldin! of the ( solute +dea throu!h ti*e. -his is a *etaphysical analo!ue of the theolo!ical vie) of a @ivine 2pirit *ade incarnate. (nd 5ideas5 are conceived as derived y that distin!uished descent, ein! *ade *anifest in the lo!ic of history, )hich develops as a series of responses to their influence. +n >ar' the provenance !ets reversed, and ideas arise as a reflection & 2"$ & of econo*ic conditions. 5-hat is, one could try to e'plain sociocultural pheno*ena and their )orkin!s y considerin! the lar!ely environ*ental *ental *echanis*s of settle*ent, )ork, de*o!raphic trends, technolo!y, as pri*e factors, and relate for*s of social or!aniBation and ideolo!y <i.e., *yth, ritual,

lan!ua!e, eliefs, etc.= to such JearthlyK *echanis*s5 <Burton, 274=. +n keepin! )ith these options: Psychoanalytic approaches to sy* olic activity are clearly a for* of idealistic social science. N 2y* ols are panAhu*an and universal throu!h ti*e and space. -hey are not seriously *odified y cultural factors, and e!an so*e)here in archaic ti*e. -hey function in the psyche accordin! to principles that are intended to hold for people every)here6.edipal conflict or archetype, in the t)o cases !iven here. 2uch syste*s of e'planation are idealist in that they are sets of ideas. 2y* ols, (rchaic -i*e, the Psyche, the Unconscious, .edipality, (rche types, are all *ental constructs. N -heir *ost su stantial clai* to value is that they have a*eliorative effects )hen used )ith patients. <274= But is our only choice that et)een i(ealism and materialism< >i!ht there e roo* for a rand of realism that doesnFt Iuite !o alon! )ith either of those opposin! *etaphysical no*enclatures, yet finds *uch of !reat value in othL ?etFs see )hat *i!ht e said alon! those lines.

III
+n a supple*ent to C. K. .!den and +. (. ,ichardsFs ook, -he 2eaning o$ 2eaning, the anthropolo!ist >alino)ski applies the ter* 5sy* olic action5 to a Iuite realistic situation. ( !roup of illiterate natives are en!a!ed in a cooperative act of catchin! fish. (s part of the process they use lan!ua!e, in callin! ack and forth to one another6and )hatever *ay e their involve*ent in 5*yths,5 their !roup coordination y the use of sy* olis* in this enterprise is a out as realisti' an enterprise as you could ask for. 0very utterance is related to the pro le* at hand, the *utual interchan!e of instructions for carryin! out an act )hich could have only een perfor*ed *uch less efficiently, if at all, )ithout the aid of sy* olis*G that is, the voca ulary of their tri al idio*. (ny such sy* olic resources are necessarily learned in 5conte'ts of situation5 that are the*selves outside the real* of sy* olis* as such. >alino)ski also touches upon sy* olic structures of a Iuite different nature < ooks, for instance, in )hich the internal relationships a*on! the ter*s do not have any such direct earin! upon the 5conte't of situation5 & 2"7 & in )hich they are ein! used. +n fact, a ook is itself a 5conte't5 for any su division of the ook as a te't. 0ven 2aint (u!ustine, )ho, of course, elieved that )e are orn in the i*a!e of Dod, offered purely realistic speculations as to ho), as an infant, he learned lan!ua!e y hearin! )ords spoken in nonver al conte'ts of situation, thou!h that )asnFt his na*e for the*. (da* and 0ve )ere the only hu*an parents )ho e!an )ith lin!uistic co*petence <and in the lingua A(ami'a even, for the develop*ent of )hich (da* )as !iven a *a#or assi!n*ent in ta'ono*y=. 2i*ilarly, thou!h Here*y Bentha* says that our 5fictions5 for psycholo!ical and ethical ter*s are orro)ed analo!ically fro* the strictly *aterial real*, 0*erson a!rees )ith hi*, plus a transcendental t)ist )here y Dod puts nature here as a kind of ra) *aterial for us to )ork fro* )hen ety*olo!ically perfectin! our ter*inolo!y of 2pirit. But in any case, )e *ust !uard a!ainst a 5!enetic fallacy,5 a 5fallacy of ori!ins,5 )hen considerin! the role of 5lan!ua!e as a *ode of sy* olic action.5 ,e!ardless of )hether it is a reflection of 8e!elFs 5( solute +dea,5 also called the 5:orld 2pirit5 <his idealistically *etaphysical analo!ues of 5Dod5= or ut an ety*olo!ical develop*ent fro* )ords for sensations e'tended analo!ically in accordance )ith Bentha*Fs theory of fictions, in either case, once arisen, it has a nature of its o)n, )ith correspondin! )owers# -here is a passa!e in BurtonFs article statin! that technolo!y could e vie)ed either alon! 8e!elian

lines as 5fro* heaven to earth,5 or alon! >ar'ist lines as 5fro* earth to heaven5 <274=, thou!h >ar'ists *i!ht co*plain unless you put it *ore strictly: fro* su structure to superstructure. But the kind of 5lo!olo!ical realis*5 that + a* tryin! to put in a )ord for )ould e 5ahistorical5 in the sense that, )hether 5ideas5 <or lan!ua!e in !eneral= e derived fro* an idealistic *etaphysical ack!round or fro* a *aterialistic one, there are *any nota le realisti' o servations that )e can *ake a out the resourcefulness of sy* olsyste*s, as innovative or 5creative5 forces, in their o)n ri!ht. :e should also re*e* er that, althou!h orthodo' theolo!yFs vie) of (da* as created in DodFs i*a!e e* odies the provenance 5fro* heaven to earth,5 the account of the Creation is intrinsically inter)oven )ith the story of the CallG hence e'pulsion fro* the Darden sets up a*ple conditions for Iuite 5tou!hA*inded5 voca ularies of hu*an *otivation. <?a ,ochefoucauldFs 2a1ims, for instance, or Hohn >andevilleFs 5Ca le of the Bees5 could fit perfectly )ith theolo!ical vie)s, as portraits of hu*an & 2"3 & relations in a society that is turned a)ay fro* Dod6and >oliereFs portrait of -artuffe )as defended as an attack not a!ainst the faith ut a!ainst reli!ious hy)o'risy, a 'orru)ting of the faith.= 8o)ever, a purely secular, realistic analysis of *otives should e 5neutral,5 rather than e* odyin! a 5*aterialistic de unkin!5 of 5idealistic5 pretensions. >ar'is* is fluctuant in this re!ard, o)in! to the fact that the rationale of the >ar'ist dialectic allo)s for a shiftin! point of vie) )here y, for instance, the our!eoisie can e hailed as 5e*ancipators5 in the stru!!les a!ainst feudalis*, yet can also e su #ected to in!enious scorn as foes of socialis*6and often these attacks can profit rhetorically y IuasiAtheolo!ical accents. +n -he +ommunist 2ani$esto, for instance <a te't to *atch )ith the 2er*on on the >ount as a rockA otto* 5theory of history5=, there are so*e siBBlin! passa!es )hich see* to 5structure5 the topics of persuasion thus: -he our!eois period destroyed the hi!hly 5personal5 aspect of the ter*s for !roup relationships under feudalis*. 5+n one )ord, for e'ploitation, veiled y reli!ious and political illusions, it has su stituted naked, sha*eless, direct, rutal e'ploitation.5 -he several follo)in! para!raphs that 5a*plify5 this state*ent are, eyond all Iuestion, a rhetorical marvel# Cirst <thanks to the persuasive ele*ents that are i*plicit in the >ar'ist dialectic, so )ell desi!ned for 5pointin! the arro)s5 of our e'pectations=, it !ives credit to capitalis* for havin! so effectively introduced the revolutionary policies )hich >ar'ist socialis* is ut continuin!. <+ncidentally, *uch of the 5revolutionary,5 or 5radically innovative5 *otivation that the *anifesto attri utes to the our!eoisieFs tieAin )ith technolo!y *ay e lar!ely due to the nature o$ te'hnology itsel$, )hatever kind of political syste* *ay, after its fashion, e ai*in! to profit y the advanta!es of technolo!y )ith a hopedAfor *ini*u* of its trou lous 5side effects.5= +n any case, to the e'tent that the idea of a socialist 5revolution5 )as in ad repute a*on! the our!eoisie, the >ar'ist dialectic could !ive the our!eoisie 5credit5 for introducin! the revolutionary principle. Cor there certainly )as no need that the >ar'ist te't run counter to our!eois usa!e, in vie) of standard references to our 5revolution,5 the Crench, and the ter* 5+ndustrial ,evolution.5 -he in!enious rhetorical t)ist is that the *anifesto contrived parado'ically to e'coriate the our!eois as a kind of relentless personality in the very act of eli*inatin! personal relations <such as the feudal rationale had clun! to=. +n effect, )hatever credit *i!ht !o to the our!eoisie for un*askin! the ele*ent of illusion that >ar'is* attri uted to feudalis*Fs )ersonalisti' vie) of econo*ic relationships )as, at this point, & 2"4 &

played do)n, and the the*e of depersonaliBation )as played up <in ter*s of 5naked, sha*eless, direct, rutal e'ploitation5=. +t had een the our!eois theorists )ho introduced a 5!odless5 e'planation of econo*ic hardships. (lso, the flat distinction et)een idealis* and *aterialis* !ets *odified y the official cult of 5socialist realis*,5 )hich in effect proclai*s itself to e as personalistic as the reli!iously infused <hence y >ar'ist tests, 5illusory5= rationale of feudalis* had een. (nd understanda ly a realism of this sort can e so attuned as to eco*e the propa!andistic hand*aiden of dialectical *aterialis*Fs party politics, in contrast )ith the outri!ht materialisti' de unkin! of politics outside the party.

I2
:hereupon it is no) ti*e for us to *ake clear )hat )e *ean y 5lo!olo!ical realis*.5 -he *ost direct )ay into the su #ect, as here approached throu!h BurtonFs essay, is on pa!e 277: 5:hen is an archetype not an archetypeL5 + couldnFt offer a lanket ans)er to that IuestionG ut )ith re!ard to CreudFs .edipal 5archetype,5 lo!olo!ical realis* )ould ans)er pro*ptly, 5(n archetype is not an archetype )hen itFs an entelechy.5 -his )ould involve a distinction et)een Platonic archetypes as idealistic and (ristotelian entelechies as realistic. 2ince *y Grammar o$ 2otives <"%$7=, + have touched on this *atter in *any )ays6 particularly in *y essay on 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis5 <reprinted in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion, "%3"= and in 5(rchetype and 0ntelechy5 <the second of t)o talks printed in a volu*e, 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment, "%42=. 8ere + *ust try *erely to !ive the !ist of *y position. -here are t)o kinds of priority: lo!ical <as per the syllo!istic desi!n: first pre*ise/second pre*ise/conclusion= and te*poral <yesterday/ today/to*orro)=. :e can also say that the ter* for a 'lass of o #ects is 5lo!ically prior5 to any and all of the particulars classifia le under that head. +n oth Dreek and ?atin, the sa*e )ords *ean 5 e!innin!5 in oth senses. -hus, in ?atin, the )ord )rin'i)ium *eans 5principle5 as in the e'pression 5the first principles of science.5 But )ith re!ard to the openin! )ords of Denesis, 5+n the e!innin!,5 the ?atin is in )rin'i)io# 2i*ilarly, the plural of the Dreek )ord ar'h@ *atches the ?atin )hen referrin! to 5the first principles of a science.5 -he Dospel of Hohn e!ins en ar'h@6and the te*poral *eanin! sho)s clearly in such )ords as 5archives5 or 5archaeolo!y.5 & 2"; & 50ssence5 is a )ord for )hat so*ethin! is# +n *y Grammar o$ 2otives, *y e'pression 5the te*poriBin! of essence5 refers to )ays )here y the vie) of )hat so*ethin! is !ets presented in ter*s of the thin!Fs origin, )hat it was or 'ame $rom# -here is a vul!ar usa!e that reveals the process *ost clearly. +f ( considers B an essentially loathso*e fello), he can spontaneously say so in IuasiAnarrative ter*s y callin! B a astard or a son of a itch. +n effect, ( defines BFs nature now in ter*s of his provenance. Cunda*entalists resented @ar)inian evolutionis* ecause, y their style, the theory of our 5descent5 fro* apes )as eIuivalent to callin! us apes6and at ti*es @ar)in eca*e so e*phatic in distin!uishin! si*ply et)een the 5natural5 and the 5supernatural5 that the i*portant lo!olo!ical distinction et)een 5du* 5 ani*als and the hu*an pro)ess )ith 5sy* ol syste*s5 !ot o scured. ?o!olo!y here )ould introduce reference to the 5fallacy of ori!ins.5 Denesis, as a ook of e!innin!s, features the tactics of te*poral priority. /arrative <story, mythos= ein! a *ore pri*itive for* of discourse than philosophy, the Bi le doesnFt e!in )ith <say= a lo!olo!ical analysis of the proposition that 5i*plicit in the idea of a social order there is the idea of possi le diso edience to that order.5 But thatFs the !ist of )hat it says, in its particular narrative )ay. +t

sho)s Dod *akin! a creature in his i*a!e, in the *ost perfect surroundin!s i*a!ina le. +t adds a ,aw, )here y diso edience is *ade possi le. (nd this la), propounded y the first and fore*ost authority, is sinned a!ainst y our first ancestor. 2o, all told, the Call )as i*plicit in the Creation, and proneness to te*ptation is of our very essence, since )e 5inherited5 such 5ori!inal sin5 fro* the 5first5 *an 5in ti*e.5 By the ?a) )e are 5te*pted in principle,5 since the ?a) *ade te*ptation possi le. .ne !ets !li*pses of this e'Iuisite a* i!uity in the ?ordFs Prayer, )here 5?ead us not into te*ptation5 *eans rather, 5Put us not to the test.5 (nd so on. PlatoFs archetypes, vie)ed in ter*s of lo!olo!ical realis*, are derived thus: -he )ord for a class of o #ects can e treated as 5prior5 to any particulars classified under that head. -here is a sense in )hich it can even e te*porally prior. Cor instance, if you consult the definition of the )ord 5ta le,5 youFll note that it enco*passes a class of o #ects countless nu* ers of )hich have not even yet een produced. (lso, there is no one particular ta le )hich you could point to and say, 5-hat is Jta le.K 5 Cor any particular ta le )ill have details that distin!uish it fro* every other ta le. But each ta le )ould in its )ay e an 5i*itation5 of the 5ideal for*5 as stated in the definition, )hich )ould e the 5archetype5 that )as 5prior5 to the lot, *any instances of )hich are not even yet in e'istence. -he & 2"% & )ord contains the root ar'h@# :here then )as this 5pure for*5 e'periencedL (ctually, as analyBed in ter*s of lo!olo!ical realis*, there is no 5archaic5 or 5te*porally prior5 situation involved. +t is a purely !ra**atical *atter of classification, translated into ter*s of story.

2
(nd no) to the Creudian 5archetype5 of the 5pri*al cri*e5 co**itted in 5prehistory,5 and so essentially 5ori!inatin!5 that the results of it still survive, eIueathed to us in the tensions of the *odern fa*ily. (nthropolo!ists co*plained that they found no evidence of any such event. But Creud felt that he needed it as a postulate for his theory. ?o!olo!ical realis* could have sho)n hi* ho) his pro le* could have een 5solved5 y the si*ple e'pedient of turnin! fro* thou!hts of Platonic archetypes to thou!hts of (ristotelian entelechies. (ristotle uses the ter* 5entelechy5 to desi!nate the efforts of each thin! to fulfill the potentialities of its kind6a fish ai*in! to e perfectly or thorou!hly a fish, a tree to evolve in keepin! )ith its nature as a tree. ?o!olo!ical realis* )ould restrict this notion to an incentive in lan!ua!eG na*ely, 5the trackin! do)n of i*plications.5 -he no*enclature of physics, for instance, su!!ests certain possi ilities of further develop*ent. -he no*enclature of psycholo!y su!!ests possi ilities in another direction, econo*ics in another, politics in another. 8enry Ha*esFs prefaces often tell of so*e likely turn he proceeded to develop, y !oin! fro* step to step. + call this an 5entelechial5 aspect of sy* olic *otivation. +t involves all sorts of strivin!s after 5perfection,5 )hereas Creud had denied 5perfection5 as a *otive. Cuttin! *any corners, sayin! here only enou!h to convey the !ist, +Fd have Creud say: -hinkin! of representative fa*ily tensions in the li!ht of the entelechial principle <replacin! psycholo!ical idealis* y concepts of lo!olo!ical realis*=, +Fd state the situation thus: -he representative tensions of the fa*ily as + have studied it )ould co*e to a 5perfect fulfill*ent5 if the youn! *ales anded to!ether a!ainst the father, sle) hi*, and took over the )o*en, )ith correspondin! psycholo!ical results suchAandAsuch. (s so considered, the psychoanalytic no*enclature has no need to postulate that such a 5cul*ination5

ever did happen or ever )ill happen. +t is si*ply an instance of 5carryin! thin!s to the end of the line,5 5trackin! do)n i*plications to the point )here )e donFt need to distin!uish & 220 & too scrupulously et)een Jlo!ical conclusionK and Jreduction to a surdity,K and all the *ore so since )eFre in a field )here thin!s !et Iuite unsettled, al*ost as a *atter of course.5 CreudFs vie) of hu*an relations is in its very essence hi!hly 5dra*atistic.5 8e )as in effect conceivin! of the 5perfect fa*ily dra*a5 to e'press the tensions as he siBed the* up. But o)in! to the ever recurrent a* i!uity )here y state*ents of 5essence5 can !et phrased in ter*s of an 5archaic5 <*ythic= past, despite his !reat sy* olic shre)dness, he hypothesiBed an actual event )here no actuality of any sort <nothin! ut sy* olis*= )as needed.

A**#+*,) !O S$)5O%IS) AS A '#A%IS!IC )O*#

Perhaps the handiest )ay into *y proposed adaptation of (ristotleFs ter* 5entelechy5 <to na*e a !enerative principle that is usually classed under the head of 5archetype5= is y so*e references in *y .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form <"%$"= )here + hadnFt yet Iuite !ot to it. + had een )orkin! )ith the t)o notions of selfAe'pression and co**unication, and + ran into the need for a third ter*, thus: 8e )ould chan!e the rules, and urn out te*ptation y efficient e'cess of it. 8e )ould start N on an unco*pro*isin! #ourney 5to the end of the line.5 <3;n= Books that take us to the end of the line N that )ould seek /irvana y urnin! so*ethin! out. <40= /ote a 5serial5 Iuality in the 5to the end of the line5 *ode6a kind of 5)ithinness of )ithinness.5N .ne *ay !et the pattern in Colerid!eFs line, 52no)Adrop on a tuft of sno).5 (nd in 2o&y 3i'* there is an especially 5efficient5 passa!e of this sort, prophetically announcin! the Iuality of +sh*aelFs voya!e: after )alkin! throu!h 5 locks of lackness,5 he enters a door )here he stu* les over an ash o'G !oin! on, he finds that he is in a /e!ro church, and 5the preacherFs te't )as a out the lackness of darkness.5 <;;= -here are related references on pa!es 3, ;3, "";, "3", "33. +n *y Grammar o$ 2otives <$30E$0=, the notion is further developed, thou!h )ithout reference to either 5archetype5 or 5entelechy.5 -here, )ith re!ard to 5the te*poriBin! of essence,5 + specifically criticiBe CreudFs hypothesis of a pri*al 5horde ruled over despotically y a po)erful *ale.5 (nd *y criticis* is uilt around *y point a out the a* i!uous relation et)een ter*s for lo!ical and te*poral priority )here y state*ents a out ho) so*ethin! essentially is can e phrased narratively & 22" & in ter*s of derivation fro* ho) it originally was <a device all the *ore 5natural5 to an a!e so 3arwinian in its thinkin!=. -hou!h anthropolo!ists said that they found no evidence of any such prehistoric situation, Creud still clun! to it, al eit apolo!etically: 5+ think it is credita le to such a hypothesis if it proves a le to rin! coherence and understandin! into *ore and *ore ne) re!ions.5 8e 5needed5 the story only ecause he )as spontaneously characteriBin! the essence of a situation no) in ter*s of te*poral priority. (nd if the 5essence5 of fa*ily tensions now *ust e stated in such IuasiAevolutionary ter*s <of an analo!ically i*puted )rehistori' )ast= then 5)hatever dou ts one *i!ht cast upon the pattern of the

pri*al horde as an e1istent, he needed the concept as a ter* in his description of the fa*ily essence.5 + )as !ettin! close to the outAandAout distinction et)een archetype and entelechy )hen, in the ne't para!raph + referred to PlatoFs 2eno in )hich the )rin'i)les of kno)led!e are presented as innate in us, and 5re*e* ered fro* a past e'istence.5 -he section ne't develops at so*e len!th an analysis of + senFs .eer Gynt as a narrative for* in )hich essential *otives are )ro)erly presented in ter*s of te*poral priority <as, + could have added, is si*ilarly the case )ith ProustFs 4emem&ran'e o$ -hings .ast=. 2y 4hetori' o$ 2otives <"%3"= *oves thin!s farther alon! y closin! on a su**ariBin! reference to the rhetorical and dialectic sy**etry of the (ristotelian *etaphysics )here y all classes of ein!s are hierarchally arran!ed in a chain or ladder or pyra*id of *ountin! )orth, each kind strivin! to)ard the )er$e'tion of its kind, and so to)ards the kind ne't a ove it, )hile the strivin!s of the entire series head in Dod as the eloved cynosure and sinecure, the end of all desire. (s 5lo!olo!ically5 adapted, 5Dod5 eco*es the overall title of titles for any syste* <as 5dialectical *aterialis*5 *i!ht e dee*ed the 5!odter*5 of >ar'ist atheis*=. (nd 5perfection5 under!oes a transfor*ation of this sort: By 5perfection5 is *eant the )ay in )hich the unfoldin!s of a ter*inolo!y are in effect the 5strivin!s5 to the end of the line. -hus, + could include in *y definition of the hu*an, sy* olAusin! ani*al the clause 5rotten )ith perfection,5 havin! in *ind the thou!ht that there can e 5perfect5 fools and 5perfect5 stinkers, and so on6as )ith 8itlerFs 5vision of perfection5 )here y he 5idealiBed5 the He), i*putin! to his chosen victi* every vice connected )ith the pro le* at hand, or *ore !randly, every vice <and in particular )hatever vices his follo)ers *i!ht suspect in one another, )ere & 222 & it not that they could 5!ive their faults the na*e of the !ood Iuality *ost like it,5 )hile 5perfectly5 reversin! the procedure )hen lookin! for the *eanest )ay of characteriBin! any *otive of the ene*y=. -o revise is, in one sense or another, to e ai*in! at perfection. (nd to re#ect revision is to fear lest a 5pri*al5 perfection already there in essence )ill !et lost. + also touched upon the fact that, !iven the dra*atiBin! possi ilities of lan!ua!e, a state*ent such as 5+ donFt like you5 could e 5perfected5 y translation into a state*ent such as 5+ could kill you.5 (nd a drea* *i!ht thus 5perfect5 the #ud!*ent y drea*in! of you as dead. <But + a* here developin! further the state*ent in the te't.= +n *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion the issues so co*e to!ether that + can here ut indicate the an!les. >y essay on 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis5 is desi!ned to sho) ho), in ter*s of story <narrative, tem)oral priority= the account of the inte!ral relation et)een the Creation and the Call is a 5*ythic5 )ay of sayin! that the )rin'i)le of diso edience is i*plicit in the nature of .rder, )hich co*es to a focus in the need for ?a), and the ?a) 5*akes sin possi le.5 <8ence the 5first5 *an could say /o to the $irst thouAshaltAnot. (nd you *ust ad*it that that is a )holly tem)oral )ay of sho)in! ho) the principle of ne!ation presents the possi ility of ein! ne!ated.= .n pa!e 3"2 + discuss the 5principle of perfection5 in the idea of 8ell. +n *y 2i'th (nalo!y <27 ff=, on the su #ect of the -rinity. + discuss the a* i!uities of the difference et)een lo!ical and te*poral priority y notin! ho), thou!h the Cather is 5first,5 then the 2on, it )as dee*ed a heresy to conceive of such succession in ter*s of tem)oral seIuence. .n pa!e ";$, + offer a 5Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of .rder.5 -he ter*s as such i*ply one another )ithout any tem)oral (imension# -hat is, the ter* 5.rder5 i*plies the ter* 5@isorder,5 and

vice versa. But in narrative accounts, the story can !o $rom a state of .rder to a state of @isorder, or vice versa. -he ter* 5.rder5 i*plies such ter*s as 5. edience5 or 5@iso edience5 to the .rder. But in the correspondin! story, they are related in a te*porally irreversi le seIuence, as the Cirst (uthority sets up the .rder, then !ives the /e!ative Co**and that *akes @iso edience possi le, and so on. (n e'plicit reference to 5entelechy5 and the 5lo!ic of perfection5 is on pa!e 300. -he headAon discussion is the article on 5(rchetype and 0ntelechy,5 the second of t)o talks pu lished under the title of 3ramatism an( 3evelo)ment & 223 & <"%42=. + there uild around the passa!e in the .oeti's )here (ristotle says that in tra!edy the cala*ity should involve conflicts a*on! inti*ates <or, in ButcherFs translation, 5so*eone near and dear5= 5)hen rother kills rother, or a son kills his father, or a *other her son, or a son his *other6either kills or intends to kill.5 + have never seen evidence that Creud ever read this passa!e, )hich doesnFt at all sin!le out the one 5.edipal5 cri*e as Creud does. (nd the curse on the 8ouse of (treus involved a situation in )hich a father unkno)in!ly <unconsciouslyL= ate the hearts of his sons at a anIuet supposedly cele ratin! a reconciliation et)een rothers. + further note: Cor all CreudFs e*phasis on the fatherkill, itFs )orth re*e* erin! that the pri*e instance of the sacrificial *otive in the .ld -esta*ent is the story of ( raha*Fs pious )illin!ness to sacrifice +saac. (nd the entire lo!ic of the /e) -esta*ent is uilt a out the story of a divine father )ho deli erately sent his son on a *ission to e crucified. + take it that (ristotle is !ivin! us 5the recipe for )er$e't victi*a!e,5 or rather the 5perfect i*itated victi*565and y JentelechyK + refer to such use of sy* olic resources that the potentialities can e said to attain their perfect $ul$illment.5 -hou!h he does discuss the earlier for*s out of )hich tra!edy developed, his e*phasis is upon not its ori!ins ut on its *odes of 'om)letion# But Creud <in %eyon( the .leasure .rin'i)le, "%22= had called upon us 5to a andon our elief that in *an there d)ells an i*pulse to)ards perfection, )hich has rou!ht hi* to his present hei!hts of intellectual pro)ess and su li*ation.5 (nd a little later he said, 5-he repressive instinct never ceases to strive after its co*plete satisfaction.5 + ar!ue that these t)o sentences are *utually contradictory. Cor )hat could *ore clearly represent an 5i*pulse to perfection5 than 5strivin!5 after 5co*plete satisfaction5L Creud proposes to su stitute )hat he calls a 5repetition co*pulsion,5 or 5destiny co*pulsion,5 desi!nations for a psychopathic tendency to relive so*e prior trau*atic situation y so confrontin! a totally different set of later circu*stance that they are interpreted y the sufferer in ter*s of the ori!inal painfully for*ative situation. :hile not disputin! the likelihood of such a tendency, + proposed 5to consider ho) it looks, as vie)ed in the li!ht of an JentelechialK principle havin! )ider functions than the *anifestations )ith )hich Creud is here concerned.5 (nd + stated the case thus: & 22$ & +s not the sufferer e'ertin! al*ost superhu*an efforts in the atte*pt to !ive his life a certain $orm, so shapin! his relations to people in later years that they )ill confor* perfectly to an e*otional or psycholo!ical pattern already esta lished in so*e earlier for*ative situationL :hat *ore thorou!h illustration could one )ant of a drive to *ake oneFs life 5perfect,5 despite the fact that such efforts at perfection *i!ht cause the unconscious striver !reat sufferin!L

+ ut proposed to )iden the concept of perfection as + have already e'plained. (nd + develop the notion that an early 5trau*atic5 e'perience *i!ht lead one to see life in those ter*s. (ccordin!ly one *i!ht so interpret a later situation that it )as like the older situation over a!ain. (nd this process 5)ould e JentelechialK or JperfectionistK in the ironic sense of the ter*, insofar as the sufferer )as in effect strivin! to i*pose a JperfectK for* y usin! the key ter*s of his for*ative )ound as a paradi!*.5 + then discuss in effect ho) Creud psychiatrically reversed this process y i*a!inin! the kind of out ursts that )ould 5perfectly5 e'press fa*ily tensions as he sees the*. But o)in! to the a* i!uities )here y essential situations can e e'pressed in ter*s of Iuasite*poral priority, he presents this entele'hial sy* oliBin! of fulfill*ent as the derivative of an ar'hety)al situation that actually happened in the 5archaic5 past. + discuss several other aspects of the case, all involvin! the notion that the 5entelechial5 *otive, the !oad to try 5perfectin!5 sy* olic structures y 5trackin! do)n i*plications to the end of the line,5 is a kind of for*al co*pulsion intrinsic to *ankindFs involve*ent in the resources of sy* olic action. (nd often y the 5te*poriBin! of essence,5 an overstress upon the ter* 5archetype5 leads to talk of the 5archaic5 or 5pri*ordial5 )here the real issue, as vie)ed 5lo!olo!ically,5 involves ut an 5entelechial5 perfectin! of sy* olAsyste*s. +ncidentally, the entelechial principle itself can lead to a te*poriBin! in the other direction. Cor instance, consider t)o 5theories of history5 such as -he 2er*on on the >ount and -he +ommunist 2ani$esto. Both are perfect patterns of fulfill*ent, so far as *atters of sheer lo!olo!ical analysis are concerned. Both are so essentially entele'hial in their structure that oth are stories of a )er$e'ting process. -hou!h *y ook ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion <"%33= has very *any passa!es that fall under the head of entelechy or perfection, there are no such entries in the inde'. 8ere are a fe): "%E24, 7$E77, 3%E4$, "$7, "73E73, "30E32, 33", 3;$E;7. -he pa!es on Poe deal )ith the & 227 & 5perfection5 of death. (nd his account of ho) he 5derived5 -he 4aven is an interestin! instance of the shifts et)een lo!ical and te*poral priority.

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in the .sy'ho'ultural 4eview 3 <)inter "%4%=: 27E34. & 224 &

4. !3eory
& 22% &

1E. A !3eory of !erminology

196
-he topic for the sy*posiu* at )hich Kenneth Burke delivered this talk in "%33 at @re) University )as 5>etaphor, 2y* ol, +*a!e, and >eanin!.5 8is openin! a out the five do!s dates ack to "%7% )here Burke used it, in a shortened for* as the conclusion to another talk, 5>ind, Body, and the Unconscious5 <?an!ua!e as 2y* olic (ction, 43 ff=. -he *ost nota le part of this talk is not the five do!s, thou!h they do ear thinkin! on and are typically Burkean in their vie) of ho) )ords ehave. -he *ost nota le part co*es later in the essay )here, usin! *aterial fro* the essential Denesis essay in -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion <"%3"=, Burke takes up and e'pands upon his ideas a out cycles of ter*s and lo!ical and te*poral priority. Burke lists three *ain cycles: action, order, and po)er. ( !reat *any *ore could e listed. ?ater in the essay Burke adds CreudFs 5unconscious repression5 as a *a#or cycle. Burke also points out that every ook has its o)n cycle of ter*s intrinsic to it and can e analyBed to sho) the e'tent to )hich this is true. :hat Burke has in *ind here )ith his cycles are the different )ays in )hich )e or!aniBe <or our lives are or!aniBed for us or a )riter or!aniBes a ook= y these cycles of ter*s. 2tart )ith the pri*ary ter* <action, order, po)er= in any !iven scenes <say, (*erica and HapanG (*erica and +ndia= and you can !enerate <or, as per Burke, 5derive5= all the other related ter*s fro* it. 2tart )ith action in Burke, and you !et its opposite *otionG start )ith order <the la)= and you !et its opposites, disorder and o ey/diso eyG start )ith po)er and you )ill pro a ly !et the sources of it6say, *oney, politics6 and its opposite, !radations of, li*ited a*ounts of po)er do)n to the po)erlessness: a #ect povertyG repressed )o*enG political disenfranchise*ent. -here is no pure antony* to po)erG one can !o in *any directions fro* it, especially into !overnance, and eventually ack to action, order, and certainly 5unconscious repression.5 -his is a very sti*ulatin! essay and one that asks to e applied, in and out of literature, in and out of BurkeFs ver al )orlds of discourse6say, to fil*s, to real politics, to real events in real ti*e. Burke ends his essay )ith his usual cautionary, ad*onitory re*arks that everythin! is *ore co*plicated than )e think and that )e *ust e careful not to si*plify our account of the hu*an condition. & 230 &

I
+ shall start )ith a *ost difficult *atter, a report of five do!s. Cirst, there is the 5pri*al5 do!, the do! that one usually encounters in a 5pri*al scene5 of childhood. 8e has a stron!, un*istaka ly Creudian strain in his *akeup. (nd he is crossed )ith )hat >alino)ski )ould call 5conte't of situation.5 -hat is, he *er!es into the ack!round < eni!n or *ali!n= of )hich he )as an inte!ral part )hen the child ori!inally learned to distin!uish hi*. -hou!h oth he and his conte't *ay have een for!otten in their particulars, the 6uality of the e'periences associated )ith hi* *ay stay )ith us throu!hout our lives, fi!urin! su tly <5su li*inally5 )ould e the )ord no)= in our attitude to)ards do!s. (nd under the influence of dru!s, hypnosis, or psychoanalytic couchA)ork *any

particular details a out hi* and his conte't of situation *ay e recovered. -he *ain point for our purposes is that he is not properly defined in ter*s of his o)n peculiar nature alone. 8e is 5sy* olic5in the sense that anessential part of his 5*eanin!5< oth for!otten and unerrin!ly re*e* ered fro* out of the recesses of our past= resides in his role a*on! a co*ple' of conditions not specifically do! like. /e't, there is the 5#in!le5 do!. :hereas the 5pri*al5 do! )ould e associated )ith *any nonver al circu*stances, the 5#in!le5 do! )ould involve his relation to the particulars of speech <such as the fact that in 0n!lish the )ord 5do!5 rhy*es )ith )ords that the correspondin! Hun( or 'hien )ould not rhy*e )ithG and y a tonal accident that en!a!ed the poet e.e. cu**in!s, he is 5Dod5 spelled ack)ards=. 8ere also )ould elon! his )ro)er name, plus the punlike relationship to identical or si*ilar na*es, includin! those of people or places. .ne *i!ht even e'tend the ran!e of the 5#in!le5 do! to cover the lo!ically dissociated lin!uistic situation that unites do! and tree <since each, in its )ay, has an association )ith the )ord 5 ark5=. But thou!h the 5pri*al5 do! and the 5#in!le5 do! can tu! dan!erously at the leash of reason, all is Iuite different )ith the 5le'ical5 do!, the kind defined in the dictionary )er genus et (i$$erentiam# 9ie)ed y the tests of either poetry or neurosis, he is an e'ceptionally uninterestin! do!. But )ithout hi* and his kind, the )orld of )holeso*e co**on sense as )e kno) it )ould collapse into !i erish. +n our civiliBation, to indicate )hat the )ord 5*eans,5 you )ouldnFt even need a ver al definition, or the correspondin! )ord in so*e other lan!ua!e. ( *ere picture of the 5le'ical5 do! )ould suffice to indicate )hat )as *eant, even in a lan!ua!e that )e did not kno). Met note, for later reference in this chapter: +tFs i*possi le & 23" & to *ake a picture #ust of 5do!,5 in the specifically le1i'al sense. Cor there are all sorts of do!s, do!s of *any siBes, reeds, shapes, colors, postures, and so on. But your picture )ould reIuire you to dra) so*e )arti'ular *in( of do!, )hile at the sa*e ti*e your illustration *ust e interpreted as indicatin! )hat is *eant y the )ord 5do!5 in general# (nd as a *atter of fact, the picture in an alien dictionary *i!ht have een not of 5do!5 in !eneral, ut of a $o1 terrier# (lso, )ithin this narro)er or it, the sa*e sort of pro le* )ould prevail. Cor even the picture of a fo' terrier reIuires you to use specific traits for !eneral purposes, since all fo' terriers differ fro* one another. 8ereFs a pro le* to )hich )e *ust certainly revert, as re!ards Iuestions that have to do )ith a -heory of -er*s. Courth, adaptin! fro* (ristotle, )eFd distin!uish an 5entelechial5 do!, the 5co*plete5 do! to)ards )hich all do!!ery variously aspires, to the e'tent that do!s fulfill their nature as do!s. :e here confront the ter*inistic principle involved in an e'pression such as 5perfect5 do!, to desi!nate the natural fulfill*ent of do! 6ua do!. . viously itFs *uch easier for a do! to e )holly a do! <to e'e*plify the very do!!iness of do!= than it is for a hu*an ein! to e'e*plify in all fullness the hu*anity of his nature as a hu*an ein!. + hope later to *ake clear ho) this for*alistic principle fi!ures in our thou!hts on the functions of ter*s. But for the present, )e *ust *erely introduce the notion. Cinally, there is the 5tautolo!ical5 do!. Mou !et hi* y crossin! the 5pri*al5 do! )ith the 5le'ical5 do!, thou!h this e'peri*ent )orks only if you continue to select a*on! the offsprin!, not all of )hich reed true. 8e should reveal the 5pri*al5 strain only in the sense that, like the pri*al do!, he *er!es )ith his conte't. But he does so in a )ay typically 5le'ical.5 Cor instance, it )ould e a 5tautolo!ical5 step if )e )ent fro* 5do!5 to 5kennel,5 or to 5do! food,5 or to 5do! license,5 or to 5*aster,5 or to 5cats,5 5hunt,5 5!a*e,5 5su servience,5 5loyalty,5 5runnin! in packs,5 5do!!edness.5 :hen approached thus, fro* 5do!5 as point of departure, all such related details eco*e 5tautolo!ical5 in the sense that they are all infused )ith the 5spirit5 of the ter* in ter*s of )hich they are *utually related <so*e)hat as thou!h 5do!5 )ere at the center of a circle, and all the other ter*s )ere distri uted alon! the circu*ference, as

radii !enerated fro* this center=. +n so*e early pa!es entitled 50'a*ination of a Case @escri ed y ,ivers,5O"P + first ran into a si*pler for* of the distinction + a* tryin! to *ake here. +t involved a speculation of this sort: ( child )ho had een fri!htened y a do! in a passa!e)ay fro* )hich that child could not escape *i!ht e trau*atically affected y the situation o$ &eing 'on$ine( & EKE F in a )assageway without an e1it at a time when a (anger sign was )resent, thus respondin! to this )hole !estalt as fearso*e *otive, rather than *ore specifically to the do! in particular as dan!er si!n. (nd if the childFs attention had een for*ed alon! those lines, the resultant 5affect5 in an adult *i!ht sho) up rather as 'laustro)ho&ia <fear of 'lose( )la'es= than as $ear o$ (ogs# -he situational aspect of the case could *anifest itself particularly <as )ith the )ar pho ias that :.8.,. ,ivers )as treatin!= )hen the sufferer had to enter a du!out under circu*stances *arked y the nearness of the ene*y. Cor he 5unreasonin!ly5 $eare( the only part of the situation that *i!ht rin! hi* so*e co*fort: na*ely, the opportunity to 5di! in5 and thus to e less of a tar!et for the ene*yFs ullets. But note that, as re!ards either the 5tautolo!ical5 do!, or the 5pri*al5 do!, their definition involves their 'onte1tual or situational nature, their *eanin! as part of a s'ene# -his is the i*portant consideration for our ne't step. But efore )e *ove on, letFs riefly revie) our list: ". .rimal (og# (ssociated )ith su *er!ed *e*ories of a 5first5 do!, in case the e'perience )as in so*e )ay for*ative, or 5trau*atic.5 +nsepara le fro* his conte't of situation. 2. Hingle (og# +nvolves sheerly tonal associations, *ost of )hich are accidental to one particular tri al idio*. 3. ,e1i'al (og# -he )holeso*e, co**onAsense, dictionary *eanin!6and if the )orld had only that, )eFd all die of oredo*, or perhaps fare forth i*perialistically to interest ourselves y *akin! other people suffer for our fear of oredo*. $. Entele'hial (og# Beco*es of *a#or i*portance in )orks of art. Cor instance: ideally, a character )ho is to e sacrificed *ust e the perfect victi* for the !iven situation. -he person )ho is to e'act the sacrifice *ust e, in his )ay, a perfect fit for his role as victi*iBer, and so on6at least insofar as classical nor*s of artistic e'cellence are concerned. (nd perhaps those )ho spoke in ton!ues <)e read a out the* in various passa!es of the /e) -esta*ent= )ere inter*in!lin! #in!le utterance )ith entelechial *eanin!. +f a situation in adult life )ere capa le of ein! su**ed up y so*e analo!y <as )ith the relationship et)een an anecdote and its *oral in a fa le y (esop= the representation )ould e 5entelechial5 y reason of its summari?ing nature. 8o)ever, it *i!ht e translated into ter*s of a *erely imaginary incident $alsely 5re*e* ered5 fro* oneFs infantile past. -he entelechial principle & 233 & is a purely for*al, nonte*poral kind of fulfill*ent. But it can e represented in narrative ter*s, that is, ter*s for tem)oral priority. .ne can confront a situation no) y entelechially i*a!inin! the kind of 5pri*al scene5 that )ould 5account for5 thin!s as they no) see* to e. +n this sense, the i*a!ined scene )ould e entelechial, a condensed, for*al )ay of $ul$illing in )rin'i)le )hat is to e 5unfolded.5 CreudFs concept of a 5repetitionAco*pulsion5 )ould also fit in here. Cor such a *otive contains 5entelechial5 in!redients insofar as the sufferer, or su #ect, al*ost as thou!h y deli erate desi!n, 5perfects5 different situations y i*posin! upon the* the sa*e essential relationships.O2P 7. -autologi'al (og# 2uch associations as one *i!ht uild up y inert ans)ers to a Iuestionnaire.

MouFd ask people )hat they thou!ht of )hen you said 5do!,5 and youFd )eed out the *eanin!s that see*ed idiosyncratic. Cor your *ain interest )ould involve the *ost representative associations of ideas. 0ven rilliant stylistic innovators uild their fi!ures of speech y not venturin! far fro* such standard channels of affinity, thou!h often <as + tried to sho) in .ermanen'e an( +hange <"%37= )hen discussin! 5perspective y incon!ruity5= underlyin! properties of correlation *ay e contrived y perspectival leaps, as in Criedrich /ietBscheFs style, )ith its *odes of a rupt reclassification, asically a *ethod he could have learned fro* 2pen!ler or 0Bra Pound, had he had the opportunity.O3P

II
+ discovered the need for these several do!s )hen tryin! to settle on a hardAandAfast distinction et)een si!ns and sy* ols. -he distinction is clear enou!h at its e'tre*es. Cor instance, s*oke is a si!n of fire, and fire *ay e the si!n of a short circuit. But s*oke *ay e the sy* ol of a co**unication et)een 5upper5 and 5nether5 real*s. (nd fire *ay e the sy* ol of se'ual a!itation, or of cleansin! <as in pur!atory=, or of hellish punish*ent. <.r, for that *atter, it *ay e the sy* ol of all such i*plications, indeter*inately inter)oven. 2urely *uch of the lure in i*a!es derives fro* the ease )ith )hich they can contain *otives that, if reduced to eIuivalent ter*s lo!ically e'plicit, are found to e violently at odds )ith one another.= But not only is there a ve'in! area of overlap et)een sy* ol and & 23$ & si!n. -he distinction does not see* useful enou!h to *e even at its est, e'cept in e'tre*e cases, as )hen )e assu*e that, althou!h ees apparently have a Iuite co*plicated and e'act si!nalin! syste*, the present state of the evidence )ould not allo) us to class the* )ith *an, as capa le of 5sy* olic action5 in the full sense of that ter*. -hey are presu*a ly &orn with a si!nal syste*, )hereas *an *ust learn his sy* ol syste*s. (nd )e *ust put ees into a different classification fro* *an at least until so*e investi!ator can prove y his e'peri*ents and o servations that eesF )ays of si!nalin! to one another are not innate, ut the ees *ust !o to school and take courses in BeeQ (pparently irds perfect their son!s y i*itation, ut sin! so*e)hat even )ithout trainin!. (nd in any case, + su *it that 5sy* olic action5 in the full refle'ive sense prevails only )ith *an, an ani*al that can apply conventional sy* ol syste*s to the discussion of conventional sy* ol syste*s. But efore proceedin! further, + *ust a*end *y references to the 5tautolo!ical5 do!. -he tautolo!ical relationship a*on! ter*s is *ost profita ly studied if )e )ork )ith speci*ens at a *uch hi!her level of !eneraliBation than such a concrete )ord as 5do!.5 -here are at least t)o !rand instances: <"= -he Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of 5(ction5G <2= -he Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of 5.rder.5 + tracked do)n the 5(ction5 set in *y Grammar o$ 2otives,O$P thou!h )ithout )holly kno)in! )hat + )as doin!. -he 5.rder5 set + )orked out )ith *ethodolo!ical a)areness, in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion. O7P + su *it that these t)o ter*inistic dynasties have rei!ned con#ointly throu!h *uch of our civiliBation, *ay e throu!h all civiliBations <or 5cultures,5 if you )ant to add 2pen!lerFs distinction et)een 5civiliBation5 and 5culture5=. Mou *i!ht )ell choose to uild a third cycle around 5Po)er.5 + once *ade a e!innin! )hen, in connection )ith ,ichard :ri!htFs novel Native /on + tentatively offered this lineup for the Po)er fa*ily: +t is co*posed of *any *e* ers: social po)er, se'ual, physical, political, *ilitary, co**ercial, *onetary, *ental, *oral, stylistic <po)ers of !race, !randeur, vituperation, precision=6po)ers of

e*ancipation, li eraliBation, separation <5loosin!5=, po)ers of fascination and fasciBation <5 indin!,5 as in >annFs 5>ario and the >a!ician5=6and po)ers of )isdo*, understandin!, kno)led!e. -here are )ays )here y, o)in! to the nature of synechdoche, any *e* er of this fa*ily *ay co*e to do vicarious service for any other *e* er, or for the fa*ily as a )hole6so that one *ay *arry or rape y politics, )a!e )ar in ar!u*ent, e *entally superior y the insi!nia of social privile!e, ind or loose y kno)led!e, sho) oneFs *uscle or enhance oneFs stature y financial inco*e, etc., in )hatever per*utations & 237 & and co* inations one cares to contrive. +n particular, in Native /on, + should have liked to discuss the authorFs treat*ent of the interrelationships a*on! the po)ers: physical, se'ual, social, and *onetary6 )ith at the end a transcendence into the po)ers of understandin!.O3P CreudFs no*enclature su!!ests a related strand, a Cycle of -er*s +*plicit in the +dea of 5Unconscious ,epression.5 +n fact, every ook can e studied as a fa*ily of ter*s thus i*plicatin! one another in so*e analo!ous fashion. 8ere, for instance, is a relevant passa!e concernin! a ook y Hohn @e)ey, ,i&eralism an( /o'ial A'tion, uilt a out the persuasive force of ter*inistic interrelationships: ( out the topic of li eralis*, the author !roups the cultural values he *ost ad*ires. 8is ook is )ritten to sho) )ith )hat i*portant and desira le traits li eralis* can e identified. 8e !oes throu!h a cycle of virtues, such as peace, li eration, 5the develop*ent of the inherent capacities of individuals *ade possi le throu!h li erty,5 tolerance, reinte!ration, science, rationality, education, charity, coura!e, and hope6and he pleads that li eralis*, as he conceives it, can e included in this cycle. (nd + analyBed 8itlerFs 2ein Gam)$ as a vicious use of this sa*e principle, there contrived y pittin! a con!lo*erate atch of 5(ryan5 virtues a!ainst a correspondin!ly indiscri*inate atch of selfA contradictory vices that *i!ht e found in varyin! de!rees every)here, ut that 8itler attri uted e'clusively to his chosen He)ish scape!oat. <Both of these e'a*ples are reprinted in *y .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form.=O4P :e have already considered a kind of ter*inistic !eneration closely linked )ith the 5entelechial5 principle. Cor a further develop*ent here, consider the relationships a*on! the cast of characters in a dra*a. -hus, if a certain kind of effect is to e produced, then a certain !roup of persons *ust e chosen for their function in rin!in! a out that effect, and their relationships to one another *ust e so desi!ned that all the dra*atic personae can *ake their particular contri utions to the necessary develop*ent of the plot, in the necessary order. 8ere, too, is a kind of ter*inistic cycle, )ith the characters functionin! as key ter*s, their nature as si*ulated personalities residin! so*e)here et)een the !rand !eneraliBed cycles and the real* of our concrete 5do!,5 ut also involvin! appropriate i*a!ery as an au'iliary resource to the ends of individuation and actualiBation. + should feel uneasy if + had to keep these various kinds of ter*inistic cycles tri*ly related to one another, so that + *i!ht *ake a co*posite photo!raph of the lot. ,ather, + )ould turn that )hole su #ect around, & 233 & and call attention to the fact that *uch of the $ree(om in *anFs capacity for sy* olic action resides precisely in the ran!e of i*provisin! here even )hen )orkin! )ith a pu lic idio*, a *ediu* of e'pression collectively shared y all the *e* ers of his tri e. ( cycle of ter*s is like a cluster of stars. -he sky, as vie)ed fro* any one of such positions, )ill sho) a correspondin! difference in the

distri ution of the other positions, thou!h they all ulti*ately for* ut one sin!le set of interrelationships. (nd it is in this )ay that a *an defies total prediction until he is finished. +ndeed, prediction is in effect the application to livin! *an of para*eters derived fro* the real* of deathG that is, the possi ilities of the future are reduced to ter*s derived fro* the past. But i*plicit in a ran!e of ter*s, each of )hich can provide a different perspective, there is y the sa*e token the possi ility of i*provisation, involvin! a Iuite different distri ution of ter*s. (nd this is true every ti*e until the last ti*e. ( ne) incident, for instance, can prod us to see 5!ood5 i*plications in a ter* that heretofore )e had used pe#orativelyG )hereupon a correspondin! revision of related ter*s *i!ht ensueG and here are the *akin!s of a 5conversion.5 +n su*, the very ran!e and shiftiness of the ter*inistic cycles )e have een considerin! contain in!redients that link the po)ers of sy* olic action )ith the possi ilities of innovation. 8ence, in the hopes that + have esta lished this point at least )ell enou!h to free *e fro* the need for a sin!le overall pattern here, let *e refer to still another )ay of cuttin! up the real* of ter*s. +t has to do )ith so*e thou!hts + once had on (lfred /orth :hiteheadFs state*ent that 5philosophy is the product of )onder.5 (t the ti*e )hen + first ran across this !ood for*ula, + )as also *uch e'ercised y 9e lenFs ter*, 5idle curiosity,5 to desi!nate the ulti*ate *otive ehind philosophic and scientific speculation. .n askin!, 58o) do these ter*s relate to each otherL5 + sa), or at least thou!ht + sa), the possi ility of a !raded series here. -onin! thin!s do)n step y step fro* 5)onder,5 + fi!ured that )e *i!ht !et successively: interest, curiosity, 5idle curiosity,5 and play. -hat is, philosophy *i!ht e called 5the product5 of any such *otive, on that scale of !raduated attenuations. .r, proceedin! in the other direction, one *i!ht !o gra(atim et )aulatim fro* )onder to reverence, thence to a)e, and so on to fear, dread, terror6)hereat, strikin! out at an an!le, )e *i!ht call philosophy a *ode of defense, or of co)ardice, or of coura!e. <-his !raded series )as discussed in *y .ermanen'e an( +hange.= Cor the *o*ent, + )ould like to point out that, to so*e de!ree, ter*s are thus *odified continually. Usually )hat happens is that, as Here*y & 234 & Bentha* sche*atiBed in his 5-a le of the 2prin!s of (ction,5 the sa*e *otive can e presented in either friendly or unfriendly !uise <his )ords are 5eulo!istic5 and 5dyslo!istic5=. -hus freIuently, on a s*aller scale, you *ay find an author reco**endin! under a favora le la el *uch the sa*e principle or process he had dis*issed else)here under an unfavora le one. 2o *uch for a !eneral state*ent a out the resources of persuasive ter*inistic e'ercisin!. -hou!h you *i!ht !ladly settle for less 5freedo*,5 in the hopes of *akin! thin!s etter stay put, + su *it that such liIuidity is intrinsic to the nature of sy* olic action. +n any case no), )ith our five do!s and our variously constituted cycles of ter*s at least )averin!ly in *ind, letFs )orry throu!h a third *a#or aspect of ter*inolo!y.

III
-o approach this pro le*, note first that the Po)er fa*ily of ter*s co*es to a fearful focus in the real* of motion# -hat is, in the last analysis, you cannot e 5po)erful5 unless you move so*ethin!. (n orator *i!ht prove hi*self po)erful y !oadin! his audience to attle. But the ulti*ate test is still stricter: na*ely, can those )ho )ere thus !oaded to attle ulti*ately succeed in so thro)in! their )ei!ht around < y their sheer po)ers of *otion, as enhanced y the *otions of their fi!htin! *achines= that they )hysi'ally undo the ene*yL +n this sense, +Fd say that our concern )ith the Po)er fa*ily centers in pro le*s to do )ith the relation

et)een 5action5 and 5*otion.5 >any ter*inistic sche*es that prevail today are essentially concerned )ith the *odalities of *otion. -his proposition applies to all the physical sciences. -he s'ientists themselves, in )orkin! out their ter*inolo!ies, are decidedly in the real* of sy* olic a'tion# But the terminologies are pri*arily concerned )ith the real* of motion# 2i*ilarly, if one desi!ns a ther*onuclear o* , or devices in the real* of che*ical or iolo!ical )arfare, he is a'ting# But the (evi'es that he desi!ns e'ert their po)er purely in the real* of motion <e'cept, of course, insofar as their *ere e'istence *ay serve to strike terror in the ene*y, and thus can also e a kind of sheer i*a!ery that 5acts5 as a deterrent to an opponentFs policies=. 2o, + dare think that in our )ay )e are fully reco!niBin! the very essen'e of the Po)er fa*ily )hen )e uild a theory of sy* olic action around the frank reco!nition of the conditions i*posed upon us y the reIuire*ents of sheer *otion. +ndeed, one cannot even so *uch as think & 23; & a thou!ht <or internally say a )ordQ= e'cept insofar as there are certain neural *otions in his rain pri*arily, and perhaps secondarily throu!hout all his ody. But thou!h there cannot e any 5act5 of 5thou!ht5 <or )hatever you )ant to call it, 5ver aliBation,5 for instance= )ithout correspondin! odily *otions, sy* olic action is not reduci le to ter*s of *otion. +n rief, the *an )ho desi!ns and pro!ra*s a co*puter is a'ting; his co*puter is nothin! ut a set of motions6and one cannot le!iti*ately reduce the desi!ner to ter*s of his desi!n. -o !ive the *ost o vious instance of the error involved in the atte*pt to define hu*an action in ter*s of a co*puterFs *otions, ear it in *ind that, at the very least, *an is a iolo!ical or!anis*, )hereas a co*puter is an arti$a't# (nd ho) can a device that does not under!o the *otives of pleasure and pain possi ly serve as an adeIuate *odel for the *otives of any ani*al, even one *uch 5lo)er5 in the scale than *anL + put 5lo)er5 in Iuotation *arks, ecause *any of *anFs typical vices, such as one peopleFs ullyin! of another people, do not *ake *e unduly proud of our specifically hu*an pro)ess. But asically, it all !ets do)n to this: @estroy all ani*als that are endo)ed )ith our characteristic kind of 5sy* olicity56and there )ould still re*ain such *otions as the rotation of the 0arth on its a'is, the revolutions of the 0arth a out the sun, and the periodic sur!in! of the oceans in response to the influence of the *oon pri*arily, and of the sun so*e)hat. +n rief, there )ould still e the irreduci le real* of sheer *otion. But if )e take, as part of the !iven, *an and his special po)ers of 5sy* olicity,5 )e confront a for*ula of this sort: .ersons a't; in the process of a'ting, they *ust move; things can ut move# But here a pro le* enters. +t concerns, of all thin!s, the relation et)een the literal and the analo!ical. :e see* so*eho) to have !ot so turned around that, if you treat *an as a sheer *achine, you are thou!ht to e literal, )hereas if you dra) a distinction et)een a *achineFs *otions and the *achine *akerFs actions, you are *ore likely to e called fi!urative ecause you donFt call a *an a *achine <if not a *achine oldstyle, then the ne) type, of )hich the electronic co*puter is the *odel=. 2o )e *ust ask: Hust )hat is 5literal,5 and )hat 5analo!ical5L +n one sense, the nature of lan!ua!e is such that every use of a )ord is 5analo!ical.5 Cor if + apply the sa*e )ord to t)o situations, + canFt escape ein! involved at least in a kind of 5protoAanalo!y.5 Cor every situation, in its clutter of details, is uniIue. 8ence, if + apply the same ter* to two situations, + a* necessarily stressin! an ele*ent they have in co**on, as distinct fro* their differences <and in his 4hetori' (ristotle

& 23% & *akes it Iuite clear that analo!y is involved )hen a speaker defines a current situation y treatin! it in ter*s of so*e past situation=. 2urely, )hen )e talk a out situations, this a* i!uity is o vious. :e kno) that no t)o historical situations are e'actly alike. But ho) a out our )ords for things< ?etFs approach the *atter y a sli!htly ne) start. ( friend )ho teaches dra*a had )ritten *e cele ratin! the 5dra*atic *etaphor.5 8e )as referrin! to the !rand ter*inolo!y that centers in )ords for active, passive, and refle'ive, ter*s that also tie in )ith the distin!uished 52tance5 fa*ily, connectin! 5essence5 and 5su Astance.5 /or should )e overlook their analo!ues in current ter*inolo!ies of *otion: effectors, or outputG receptors, or inputG and feed ack <ter*s that + )ould have us look upon as $ragments of a dra*atistic perspective=. But, )hereas so*e years a!o, + )ould have settled on the notion that )e here had to do si*ply )ith a *etaphor, + *ost decidedly do so no lon!er. -hin!s (o &ut move, and persons (o a't, thou!h persons can also let the*selves !et pushed into the role of *ere auto*ata, little etter than thin!s in *otion, as )hen they respond unthinkin!ly to the !oads of a spell inder, and fall to thinkin! it is their patriotic duty *erely to do as they are told. 3rama )ould fi!ure here only secondarily, in the sense that, y usin! dra*a as a *odel, )e can !et !ood cues as to )hat ran!e of ter*s is i*plicit in the idea of an act <a ran!e that even includes, as )ith tra!edy, the concept of cure y vicarious victi*a!e=. >y friend ans)ered: 5(ll lan!ua!e is *etaphorical.5 (nd since there is a sense in )hich he is correct, letFs see )hat )e should do ne't. Cirst, )e can note that even if all lan!ua!e is *etaphorical, or analo!ical, there is o viously a difference et)een callin! the *oon 5*oon5 and callin! it, say, 5)anderin! dau!hter of the ni!ht.5 2o, at the very least, there are *etaphors and *etaphors6and one of these e'pressions is clearly *uch *ore fi!urative than the other. Met, on closer inspection, even our literal ter* dissolves into ety*olo!ic ori!ins that take us far fro* a literal oneAtoAone correspondence et)een a 5thin!5 and its 5na*e.5 -hus 5*oon5 *er!es into 5*onth5 <5*ooneth,5 as )e !et 5)ar*th5 fro* 5)ar*eth,5 if )e *ay follo) 8orne -ooke in these *atters=, and oth apparently dissolve into a root me or ma, *eanin! to 5*easure,5 fro* )hich there also is derived our )ord 5*editate.5 8ence, to siBe up this ter*inistic situation adeIuately, )e are reIuired to recall the instance of the 5pri*al5 do!, )hich could not have e'isted alone, ut )as necessarily part of a 5pri*al scene.5 :e are here involved & 2$0 & in the line of thou!ht, essentially 2pinoBistic, that re*inds us: /o 5su stance5 can e'ist all y itself, e'cept 5everythin!.5 +f the o #ect that )e literally desi!nate as the *oon )ere all y itself, no poet )ould ever have )ritten a poe* a out it, and no space*an could ever hope to reach itG or, for that *atter, )e could not even kno) of its e'istence. -he particular ite*s of our e'perience can e'ist at all only ecause each is part of a )ider conte't. :e are usually *isled here y the nature of the 5le'ical5 do!, a dra)in! of )hich can e sho)n )ithout a ack!round <e'cept, of course, the pa!e itself, )hich is ri!htly i!nored as part of the definition=. -o !rasp the essential nature of lan!ua!e, )e *ust not think of speech as essentially a process of 5na*in!5 thin!s or situations. ,ather, since every thin! or every situation is in so*e respects uniIue, insofar as )e apply the sa*e )ord to *ore than one thin! or one situation, )e are in a sense

5analo!iBin!.5 <8ence *y reference to a kind of 5protoAanalo!y,5 as distinct fro* analo!y in the e'plicit, for*al sense.= +f one cries 58elp5 in three totally different situations <say, )hen in dan!er of dro)nin!, in dan!er of fallin!, in dan!er of ein! struck=, he has in effect 5classified5 all three different sets of circu*stances under the sa*e !eneral headin!, as 5helpAsituations.5 .r, other)ise put: 8e has in effect !iven all three situations the sa*e 5title,5 ecause of so*e i*portant ele*ent they have in co**on, despite their !reat differences as re!ards particulars. (nd + su *it that )e should think si*ilarly of outri!ht 5na*es5 or 5nouns5 <5su stantives5=. .ur )ords for individual 5thin!s5 do not involve a *ere oneAtoAone correspondence et)een sy* ol and sy* oliBed <)ord and thin!=. ,ather, they are a kind of a&&reviation <8orne -ookeFs su!!estive ter*= that can serve to entitle a situation y featurin! )hatever part of that situation happens at the ti*e to e of pri*ary interest. -hus, every ti*e + encounter a do! in real life, the do! is in a so*e)hat different situation. But all of these situations could e entitled 5do!Asituations5 insofar as that aspect of all the *any different actual or possi le situations is )hat particularly en!a!es the center of *y attention. (ll of these situations dou tless have *ore thin!s than the do! in co**on. Cor instance, all of the* )ill necessarily e situations that have in co**on the sa*e la)s of nature. But )e donFt think of these )hen referrin! to a do!Asituation under the title of 5do!,5 thou!h )e i**ediately eco*e conscious of such a situational in!redient if )e are *akin! plans for sendin! a do! up in a satellite. +f you adopt this conte'tual or situational approach even to ter*s for & 2$" & specific acts or concrete o #ects, you see that they are, in effect, titles for co*ple' situations, *uch as the )ord Hamlet su*s up, in ter*s of the na*e for the *ost si!nificant role, the vast co*ple'ity of details su su*ed under that title. -he title, thou!h applied literally to one particular dra*a, is 5protoA analo!ical5 in the sense that it can e applied to perfor*ances differin! !reatly fro* one another. (nd it eco*es outright analo!y )hen )e apply it to so*e person, real or i*a!inary )hose situation in life *i!ht lead us to call hi* 5a 8a*let.5O;P (ll told, althou!h in *y earlier ook, .ermanen'e an( +hange, + pri*arily stressed the *etaphorical or fi!urative aspects of lan!ua!e, and treated philosophical 5perspective5 as a kind of 5analo!ical e'tension,5 + )ould no) )ant to shift the e*phasis, contendin! that, first of all, )e have to do not #ust )ith *etaphors, ut )ith terms, and relationshi)s a*on! ter*s. .n this asis, it is literal to say that 5persons a't, and thin!s ut move.5 (nd it is $igurative to say that people are like their o)n *achines, or that their co*puters can e taken as an adeIuate *odel of their *otivational structure. -rue, *an is prone to the te*ptations of auto*atis*, and he cannot act )ithout *ovin!6 ut to say as *uch is not y any *eans the sa*e as sayin! that he is 5nothin! ut5 a undle of sheer *otions. . servations concernin! the rules of a !a*e are not identical )ith the sheer distri ution of forces that one )ould necessarily perceive if he )ere not a le to infer that the event under o servation )as a !a*e ein! played purposively y persons, and if he could analyBe the !a*e not in ter*s of players tryin! to score in accordance )ith a rule ook, ut only as thin!s in *otion, )ith a nearAinfinity of relationships involved in their sheerly physical ehavior and in the *easurin! of stress and position )ith re!ard to one another. +*a!ine tryin! to fi!ure out )hat is !oin! on in a all!a*e, if you )ere ein! strictly 5e'trasy* olic,5 hence could not even kno) )hat is *eant y strikes, and alls, and hits, and runs, and errors, and innin!s, ut could )ork your )ay to the rule ook only y correlatin! various )ei!hts in *otion on a field. -hen, if you )ere cau!ht in all that ni!ht*are entan!le*ent of ter*s for sheer *otion and position, i*a!ine )hat a liftin!Aup it )ould e, if all of a sudden you )ere allo)ed to read

the rules of the !a*e <)hich is to say, if you )ere told )hat )rin'i)les of a'tion infor* the !a*e=, and could (e(u'e the !a*eFs nearinfinity of *otions in terms o$ this principled real* as *otivational source rather than re(u'ing the !a*e solely to ter*s of such *otions. + donFt kno) )hy + picked on moon for *y e'a*ple. (nd surely + could have !ot a etter meta)hor than 5)anderin! dau!hter of the & 2$2 & ni!ht,5 thou!h there is our space*enFs a* ition to *ake a 5soft landin!5 on <shall )e sayL= 5Cynthia.5 +n any case, + hope + have *ade it clear that, e they literal or *etaphorical, )e are in the real* of terms# 0ven the sheer sensations of the ody report to us in terms o$ si!ht, sound, s*ell, and so on. (nd thus, too, to *atch 5protoAanalo!y,5 there is a kind of sheerly physiolo!ical 5preAno*enclature5 <in the real* of sheer *otion= )hich reduces all sorts of particular situations to ter*s of one or another sensory channel.

I2
(lon! )ith thou!hts on the ran!e of ter*s, includin! the special energeia of *etaphor and i*a!e, )e *i!ht co**ent on the particular nature of the printed pa!e, and its si*ilarity to a *usical score. 0ither *i!ht happen to e handso*e. But re!ardless of ho) either *i!ht loo* )hen #ud!ed sheerly as calli!raphy, as visual desi!n, its ma:or function resides in its nature as instructions for perfor*ance. :hen )e see a musi'al s'ore, re!ardless of )hether or not )e are *usicians, )e realiBe at a !lance that it is a set of instructions. :e do not ask that it itself have *usicFs peculiar sensory Iuality as appeal to the ear# Cor )e assu*e )ithout Iuestion that this test is not *et until the )ork is perfor*ed y an e'pert. But ecause )e have all learned ho) to talk and to read, )e donFt usually stop to consider the i*plications of that fact that, in a nota le respect, print on a pa!e is e'actly like *usical notation. -hat is to say, the reader is like a perfor*er, )ho *ay or *ay not e a le to carry out the printed instructions adeIuately. -rue, there is a sense in )hich even a paintin! or a piece of sculpture *ust e 5perfor*ed5 y the o server. +t cannot co*e to life for hi* unless he 5e*pathiBes5 )ith it. +n this sense, a paintin! or sculpture, in its nature as a sy* olic act, cannot e any 5 etter5 than the o serverFs a ility sy* olically to 5reAenact5 it. 8ence, in this respect, e'a*ples of !raphic and plastic art are also ut 5instructions for perfor*ance.5 Met they differ fro* the printed pa!e or the *usical score to the e'tent that they are already $inishe( )er$orman'es done y e'perts, )hereas the printed pa!e or the *usical score are not 5final perfor*ances5 in that sense. -he *usic is yet to e )laye( <either $or us or &y us, or in the i*a!ination of those co*paratively fe) persons )ho are skilled enou!h at readin! a score to #ud!e the sounds internally )ithout the need to hear the*, as )ith Beethoven )ho )as deaf=. (nd )e do not usually stop to re*ind ourselves that the instructions on a printed pa!e are not a perfor*ance & 2$3 & <in the )ay that a paintin! is a perfor*ance= until the te't is read, either to us y an e'pert reader, or to ourselves as perfor*ers *ore or less capa le of i*a!inin! ho) it sounds, even if read in silence. 2ee )here )e are then, in tryin! to understand the nature of sy* olic action. All wor*s involvin! sy* ol syste*s depend for their effect upon our )illin!ness and a ility to 'olla&orate y respondin! properly to the*. :ithin these conditions, )e can distin!uish et)een the kinds of )orks that are already a final )er$orman'e <such as dra)in!s, paintin!s, sculpture, sin!in!, recitation, the playin! of

*usical instru*ents, dancin!, actin!= and te'ts that are instru'tions for a final perfor*ance <such as *usical notation and )ords on a pa!e=. .ne should keep this distinction in *ind )hen speculatin! on the 5sensory5 nature of different *edia. Met, a further distinction is necessary here. (ll *usic *ust e appreciated in ter*s of its sensory nature <that is, )e *ust first of all love the rhyth*ically related sounds as such efore )e can ever 5transcend5 this sensory e'perience and hear unheard *elodies, y advancin! fro* the real* of sensory appreciation to an intuition of the )rin'i)les involved in such an e'perience=. But in contrast )ith *usical notation, there are *any kinds of ver&al utterance that have no value )hatever, as re!ards the tests of tonality and rhyth*. Understanda ly, a*ateurs or analysts concerned )ith the )onders of poetry or prose as s)o*en <as !li*psed throu!h and eyond the written )ords= are scandaliBed at the very thou!ht of 5speedA readin!.5 Cor insofar as a te't is adapted to the pace of the voice, an approach to it y speedAreadin! is at est vul!ar. Met *uch infor*ation that co*es to us throu!h )ords has no specifically ver al value. 2o*eone *i!ht )isecrack )ith the contents of a phone ook, and rin! out funny resonances. But usually even that sa*e enterpriser, )ho *i!ht find there *aterial for an entertainin! tour de force, ordinarily consults that atch of na*es si*ply as a convenient )ay of !ettin! a nu* er. (nd, in contrast )ith the nor*s of poetic or rhetorical pacin!, the ideal here )ould e an invention that fed into you, as into an indifferent co*puter, that )hole condensed *ass of infor*ation )ithout a sin!le concern for anythin! other than its ready availa ility. +nsofar as education involves, a*on! other thin!s, the acIuirin! of *uch purely factual data, )e )ould e est off if )e could take in such *aterial, not #ust at the slu!!ish pace of speedAreadin!, ut rather )ith a co*puterFs li!htnin!like capacity to 5scan5 and 5re*e* er5 the vast clutter of infor*ation that flashes efore it. (nd the situation )ould e & 2$$ & est of all if, like a co*puter, )e didnFt have to e'ert ourselves consciously in such a process of stora!e, ut could have the data so*eho) co**unicated to <or stuffed into= our rains electronically, )hile )e played or slept or concerned ourselves )ith other *atters. :e *i!ht )ell keep such thou!hts in *ind, )hen co*parin! the sy* olic action of )ritten or printed )ords )ith the sy* olic action of other artistic *edia, includin! the poetry or rhetoric of the spoken )ord. .ther)ise, )e *i!ht ask the )ron! thin! of the )ritten or printed )ord, )hich cannot e )holly 5tactile5 until spoken. -rue, there can e direct visual appeal, as )ith calli!raphy or fine printin!6 ut in this sense the appeal is not specifically ver al at all, since it is purely the appeal of (esign# + )ould y no *eans underrate the value of such appeal. + *erely )ant to rin! out the fact that the sheerly ver&al nature of )ords is not concerned )ith visual desi!n e'cept insofar as the desi!n of a poe* on the pa!e can also help indicate ho) the te't should e re'ite( <or should e hear( in the i*a!ination=. (s co*pared )ith the pace of the voice, the eye tends al)ays to e somewhat of a 5speedAreader.5 (nd place*ent on the pa!e *ay serve, thou!h inadeIuately, as a poetFs eIuivalent of a *usicianFs instructions for perfor*ance <such as lar!o, *oderato, ada!io, and the like, or as a *usicolo!istFs indicatin! of the asic eat in ter*s of *etrono*e, )ith si!ns for acceleration or retardin!, and for chan!es in volu*e=. But )e should keep in *ind that the pa!e itself is not the perfor*ance in the sense that a paintin! is a perfor*ance. +t is like a scantily edited *usical score, )hich leaves *uch to the #ud!*ent of the reader as 5perfor*er.5

2
:e have said nothin! yet of the relation et)een dialectical 5transcendence5 and dra*atic 5catharsis5 < et)een the Up)ard :ay and victi*a!e=. /or have )e considered a possi le third lo!olo!ical step <fro* selfAe'pression and co**unication to 5consu**ation,5 the sheer 5trackin! do)n of ter*inistic possi ilities5 ecause one sees the*, or thinks one does, i*plicit in a !iven ter*inolo!y, and one cannot rest until such potentialities are actualiBed=. 8o)ever, you 5!et the idea.5 (nd surely, of especial *o*ent a*on! 5tautolo!ical5 correlations there is the 5thinkin! of the ody,5 the translation of *otivational attitudes into ter*s of corporeal analo!ues. (nother na*e for these *i!ht e the 5*etony*ic principle.5 & 2$7 & But y )ay of concludin!, let us d)ell on a si*pler thou!ht, of this sort: +n the )orld as )e kno) it, there are *any kinds of conferences, consultations, sy*posia, and the like, dealin! )ith )ords and *eanin!s. Usually, so*e)here in the course of the*, participants fall to e)ailin! the inadeIuacies of speech. Met, ut for speech, any such enterprises )ould e al*ost i*possi le, even as re!ards *eetin!s of e'perts in other for*s of sy* olic action. Cor a partin! sunshine thou!ht, let us look at the *atter thus: -hink ho) happy each one of us is, )henever he chances to say so*ethin!, even if it e ut a sin!le sentence, that so*eone else a!rees )ith. (nd if )e are outri!ht praised for our offerin!, )e s)ell )ith pride <thou!h usually hastenin! to adopt a *easure of )hat >arianne >oore has astutely called #udicious *odesty5=. Hust think, then: :hat if, far eyond the presentin! of our tiny inventions, )e had invented the realm o$ wor(s itsel$# 8o) )e )ould love ourselvesQ -he thou!ht *i!ht help re*ind us ho) !reatly )e do priBe that *iraculous *ediu*, -he :ord. (nd if + *ay Iuote fro* a for*er dear friend of *ine, )ho* + also necessarily roke )ith <for ho) could one ut reak )ith so*eone to )ho* one had een so closeL=: -here is peace in the seIuence of chan!es fittin!ly ordered: ve!etation is at peace in *archin! )ith the seasonG and there is peace in slo)ly addin! to the structure of our understandin!. :ith each life the risin! of a ne) certitude, the physical losso*in! free of hesitancy, the unans)era le do!*atis* of !ro)th. :ho )ould not call all *en to hi*6thou!h he felt co*pelled to dis*iss the* )hen they ca*e, co**union residin! solely in the su**ons.O%P

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in 8nter)retation: -he .oetry o$ 2eaning, ed. 2tanley ,o*aine 8opper and @avid ?. >iller </e) Mork: 8arcourt, Brace W :orld, "%34=, ;3E"02. Copyri!ht X "%34 y @re) UniversityG reprinted y per*ission of 8arcourt, +nc. ". Kenneth Burke, .ermanen'e an( +hange: An Anatomy o$ .ur)ose </e) Mork: /e) ,epu lic, +nc., "%37=, "33E$2. 2. 2i!*und Creud, %eyon( the .leasure .rin'i)le, authoriBed trans. fro* the second Der*an edition y C. H. >. 8u ack <?ondon: -he +nternational Psychoanalytical Press, "%22=. 3. Burke, .ermanen'e an( +hange, %0.

$. /e) Mork: PrenticeA8all, "%$7, 224E4$. 7. Boston: Beacon Press, "%3", ";3ff. & 2$3 & 3. Kenneth Burke, -he .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form <rev. ed. a rid!ed y the authorG /e) Mork: 9inta!e Books, "%74=, '. 4. 8&i(#, 30%,"3$E;%. ;. Cor a fuller develop*ent of this position see *y article, 5:hat (re the 2i!ns of :hatL ( -heory of J0ntitle*ent,K 5 Anthro)ologi'al ,inguisti's $ <Hune "%32=: "E23. %. -he lines are fro* a novel of *ine, -owar(s a %etter ,i$e <Berkeley: University of California Press, "%32=, )hich )as pu lished over thirty years a!o and )as reissued in "%33. & 2$4 &

11. !owards %ooking 5ack

19 6
+n this essay, Kenneth BurkeFs icentennial lecture at the University of >ichi!an, he pursues at *uch !reater len!th the *ain the*e of 5.n JCreativityK6( Partial ,etraction5 <"%40=. -hat the*e is the astoundin! !enius of technolo!ical inventionG or, innovation in the physical sciences )hich has produced ato* o* s, or!an transplants, !ene splicin!, clonin!, a*aBin! *achines, eIually a*aBin! *edical procedures, -9, >,+s, C(- scans, co*puters, the :orld :ide :e , and *ore. 2o*e of these inventions see* truly *iraculous, especially )hen )e consider )hat can e *ade )ith *odern technolo!y6say, a co*puter that can do)nload the )hole of the 0ncyclopedia Britannica in *inutes <or is it secondsL=. But it )as the !rosser products of *odern technolo!y that concerned Burke. 8e had very little to say a out co*puters, ut lots to say a out industrial pollution and the defilin! of the environ*ent, the various che*icals that have een 5added5 to our food and )ater, and the colossal )aste necessitated y our de*ocratic, capitalistic )ay of life. +n typical fashion <at least in these late essays=, Burke takes a lon!, rounda out and so*e)hat eccentric route to his *ain points a out (*erica in the past and in the future. Cor his approach, he uses an antholo!y of )ritin!s y and a out (*ericans <-he /ative >use= co*piled y ,ichard ,uland, and he uses :alt :hit*an and 8enry (da*s for his conclusions. -he final para!raph contains one of the *ost succinct state*ents Burke )rote in these late essays a out the link et)een lan!ua!e, rationality, technolo!y <the perfection of rationality=, and the future of (*erica. :e need to re*e* er that Burke )as al)ays of his ti*e: that it )as the depression in (*erica that set Burke off in the early thirties and led to the )ritin! of Per*anence and Chan!e <"%37=G it )as :orld :ar ++ that partly set hi* off in the early forties to )rite ( Dra**ar of >otives <"%$7=, a out 5-he Purification of :ar5G and it )as the cold )ar that fi!ures so pro*inently in ( ,hetoric of >otives <"%70=. >oral/ethical pro le*s <dra*a, tra!edy, victi*a!e, catharsis= in society in !eneral do*inate his )ork of the early fifties

)hen he )as still )orkin! out his dra*atistic poetics, and still *uch concerned )ith the universal hierarchic psychosis and his o)n socioana!o!ic criticis*. By -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion <"%3"=, Burke has shifted fro* dra*atis* to lo!olo!y, a shift that is evident in ?an!ua!e as 2y* olic (ction <"%33=, )hich is divided et)een the final )orks of dra*atistic analysis and the early )orks of lo!olo!y6*uch *ore of the first than the second. ?an!ua!e as 2y* olic (ction <"%33= is a su**in! up collection, thou!h so*e of the essays look for)ard to BurkeFs central concerns in his lo!olo!ical studies, as they are represented in the essays collected in .n 8u*an /ature. @urin! this last productive period <"%34E;$=, Burke shifted his focus a)ay fro* the cold )ar and the threat of nuclear holocaust to the & 2$; & lan!ua!eAtechnolo!yAcounterAnature connection so pro*inent in these last essays. Burke )as an astute student of his o)n society <(*erica= and of the overall historical scene. Cro* the aestheticis* of the t)enties, to the collapse of capitalis* in the early thirties, throu!h :orld :ar ++ and the cold )ar, and finally to the ascent of technolo!y in the si'ties and seventies, BurkeFs eyes )ere al)ays )atchin! <not Dod= ut his o)n ti*e and place. -he !round)ork for all future lo!olo!ical analysis is laid in -he ,hetoric of ,eli!ion, especially in 5-he Cirst -hree Chapters of Denesis.5 5Prolo!ue: 0pilo!ue in 8eaven5 is a thro) ack to the central vision of dra*atis*, the con#unction of lan!ua!e and the social hierarchy, )hich is a product of lan!ua!e <#ust as technolo!y is=. +t is in the essays of the late si'ties, seventies, and early ei!hties that )e !et all of the applications of and apolo!ies for lo!olo!y. >any of the essays )e have not included here <and there are Iuite a fe)= are defenses of lo!olo!y a!ainst all co*ers. -his is not the place to su**ariBe the *ain tenets of lo!olo!yG they are every)here in these essays, over and over a!ain, in a variety of conte'ts. Burke assures us *any ti*es that lo!olo!y is a 5co*ic5 approach to the technolo!ical tra!edy takin! place all around the )orld. +t is never clear )hether this co*ic criticis* is !oin! to provide us )ith any uplift, any solutions, any course of action6or anythin!, for that *atter, eyond the consolation of kno)led!e and irony. >any ti*es )hile *akin! plans for this talk + tinkered )ith t)o versions of an alternative title: 5:e (re :hatL5 or 5:hat +s .ur (d#ectiveL5 0ver since early adolescence, )hen + )as an ardent 0sperantist, + have een so*e)hat uneasy at the thou!ht that our nation has no Iuite satisfactory ad#ective. 5Usono5 is the 0speranto noun for 5United 2tates of /orth (*erica5G the correspondin! ad#ective )ould e 5Usona.5 :e canFt say 5United 2tatesan,5 or 5UnitedA2tatesish,5 or 5UnitedA 2tatesly.5 :hen dealin! )ith international ne)s, #ournalists often use the initials 5U.2.5 as an ad#ective, a practice that !oes )ell enou!h )ith such e'pressions as 5U.2. policy on this *atter56thou!h one often hears it re uked. (nd a patriot )ould feel little etter than a traitor if he referred to the 5(*erican fla!5 as the 5U.2. fla!.5 2o 5(*erican5 it is. :e are the 5(*ericans,5 despite the *any other countries of /orth (*erica, Central (*erica, 2outh (*erica and near y islands that have as *uch title to the ter* as )e. (nd y the sa*e token )e are 5(*erica,5 or in verse so*eti*es 5Colu* ia,5 for )ho )ould think of sin!in!, 5. United 2tates, the !e* of the ocean5L (nd alasQ the ter* 5u!ly (*erican5 refers e'clusively to certain U.2. citiBens a road. ( fe) years a!o Professor ,ichard ,uland of :ashin!ton University pu lished a volu*e, -he Native 2use </e) Mork: @utton, "%$2=, )hich

& 2$% & helps us consider *any further i*plications of this issue. <+t has since een repu lished y the sa*e fir* in a ook entitled Our /torie( ,an(, )hich pursues the su #ect throu!h later years.= ,uland has asse* led in one place *any disparate )ritin!s, fro* as early as "330, concerned )ith 5theoretical and practical advice on ho) (*ericans6as (*ericans6should )rite: in )hat diction, )ith )hat for*, on )hat su #ects, for )hat audience, after )hat *odels, to )hat purposeL5 -hus he has 5tried to focus on ans)ers that have een offered to the Iuestion, 8o) can our literature e *ade un*istaka ly (*ericanL5 +tFs an en!rossin! asse* la!e to ro)se around in. But for present purposes + *ust e content to deal )ith a fe) salient aspects of those e'hi its involved in 5(*ericaFs selfAconscious effort to develop a native aesthetic sensi ility.5 8o)ever, in the earlier entries the e*phasis is <as )ith this state*ent in the preface to the %ay .salm %oo*, "3$0= upon 5Conscience rather than 0le!ance, fidelity rather than poetry, in translatin! the 8e re) )ords into 0n!lish lan!ua!e, and @avidFs poetry into 0n!lish *eter.5 +n these early entries there is no direct concern )ith the 5(*erican5 the*e as such. But, lookin! ack, )e can clearly see it e*er!in! in this re*ark of -ho*as 8ookerFs <"3$;= on the su #ect of church discipline: 5-hat the discourse co*es forth in such a ho*ely dresse and course ha it, the ,eader *ust e desired to consider, +t co*es out o$ the wil(ernesse, )here curiosity is not studied. Planters if they can provide cloth to !o )ar*, they leave the cutts and lace to those that study to !o fine.5 +n that reference to 5)ildernesse5 there is i*plicit a turn fro* a theolo!ical *otive for the 5plain5 style of diction to a Iuite secular #ustification, the econo*ic severities in the /e) 0n!land colony. (nd as ,uland points out, )ith the )eakenin! of strictly reli!ious fervor the Iuestion of style )ould co*e to involve a different asis of reference, )hich centered in co*parisons et)een the state of letters in the /e) :orld and the .ld. -hus, )ith re!ard to the pro le* of our ad#ective, considerations of stylistic propriety turned fro* 5insistence on the purity of colonial autono*y5 to the hi!h de!ree of 5provincialis* )hich )as to o sess literary theorists in the nineteenth century.5 2ince the Pil!ri*s had rou!ht )ith the* their identity as dissenters, in their resistance to the styles of court and hi!h church they )ould e referrin! to the values of the .ld :orld as a kind of *odelAinAreverse. But )ith that reference )eakened, the e*phasis shifted to the difference et)een .ld :orld and /e) :orld )orks of literature in !eneral. Ben#a*in Cranklin descri es ho) he deli erately )ent a out it to use & 270 & the /)e'tator as a *odel for his style <)hich, like :ashin!ton +rvin!Fs, )as ad*ired for its fidelity to 0n!lish canons of taste=. (nd ,uland Iuotes one local poet <>ather Byles, "4$$= )ho ea!erly proclai*ed that )hatever value his verses *i!ht have )ould e due to Pope: J-is Pope, *y Criend, that !uilds our !loo*y /i!ht, (nd if + shine Jtis his reflected ?i!ht N PopeFs are the ,ules )hich you, *y Criend, receive, Cro* hi* + !ather )hat to you + !ive. N 2o Pope, throK *e, shines full upon your >useG 2o cold my BreastG and so your Boso* !lo)s. N +t )ould e a task in itself #ust to list the various per*utations and co* inations of topics involved in

the )averin! line of attle et)een pleas to i*itate the 0n!lish as *odels and calls to thro) off the servilities of i*itation. 2idney 2*ith, )ritin! in -he E(in&urgh 4eview, ";20, and detailin! all the !reat cultural thin!s (*ericans had not done 5durin! the thirty or forty years of their independence,5 rounds thin!s out y askin!, 5Under )hich of the old tyrannical !overn*ents of 0urope is every si'th *an a 2lave, )ho* his fello)Acreatures *ay uy and sell and tortureL5 But nine years later, in the sa*e *a!aBine, :illia* 8aBlitt thanks Cooper ecause 5he does not take everythin! fro* us, and therefore )e can learn so*ethin! fro* hi*.5 .ther articles in -he E(in&urgh 4eview took (*ericans to task for sins a!ainst the purity of 0n!lish. 8o)ever, /oah :e ster, "4;%, had #ud!ed: 5-he 2cotch )riters no) stand al*ost the first for erudition, ut perhaps no *an can )rite a forei!n lan!ua!e )ith !enuine purity.5 8ere *i!ht e the place to point up )hat *i!ht e called the urden of this talk. -he first te'ts reflect the identity of the colonists in their role as church*en. -heir ad#ective is not 5(*erican,5 ut 5Puritan.5 -hey are reli!ious dissenters livin! in a ne) colony under the soverei!nty and protection of the British cro)n. +n this situation the docu*ents that ,uland selects !ravitate a out the stylistics of )orship. But -ho*as 8ookerFs reference to the 5)ildernesse5 as a *otive ehind the 5plain5 style introduced a *otif that )ould co*e to play a i! part in critical discussions a out the do*estic literature as 5(*erican.5 +f any such 5(*erican5 )riters )ere to e properly placed )ith reference to reli!ious affiliations, their ad#ectives, to e adeIuate, )ould have to e hyphenated: ut not as )ith 5Der*anA(*erican,5 rather as )ith 5?utheranA(*erican5 or 5+rish CatholicA(*erican.5 + should like to ar!ue in ehalf of a rudi*entary develop*ent & 27" & )here y our )ays of lookin! ack at the rise of 5(*ericanis*5 as a literary criterion turn out, parado'ically, to reveal a process that eventually calls for the dissolution <or at least the radical *odification= of a specifically 5(*erican5 identity. . viously, a dialectical desi!n of that sort )ould e nothin! unusual. +n fact, it )ould e Iuite standard, a *ere special case of the parado' )here y any or!anic !ro)th contains the seeds of its undoin! <a hu* le e'a*ple of )hich )e first encountered ack in the days of Prohi ition, )hen so *any of our citiBens in *ild la)lessness *ade their o)n )ine, and it eca*e apparent that the process of fer*entation asic to the production of the )ineFs alcoholic content )ould develop to the point )here the alcohol killed the yeast that )ould have !enerated a hi!her alcoholic content=. +n our present case, + have su!!ested that )hen the 5plain5 style )as #ustified not directly as the *ode of e'pression *ost fittin! for *anFs hu* le relationship to Dod, ut as the *ode of stylistic severity est fitted for the severities of the *aterial conditions under )hich the colonists )ere livin! <in a 5)ildernesse5=, the situation )as there y so set up ter*inistically that critical discussion re!ardin! literary style involved *aterialistic considerations not directly reli!ious. (nd the ad#ective for such a relationship et)een the nature of literary output and the *aterial circu*stances out of )hich it arose )as 5(*erican.5 (ccordin!ly it is *y #o to atte*pt sho)in! )hy, if )e ut e'tend our o servations a out the *aterial 5conte't of situation5 under )hich speculations a out the nature and fitness of 5(*erican5 coordinates )ere adeIuate to the cultural conditions prevailin! )hen the concept of 5(*ericanis*5 as the fittin! cultural nor* )as developed, no) y the sa*e token further develop*ents in the sa*e direction are no lon!er adeIuate. (nd + *ust try to sho) )hy the very thin!s that 5(*erica5 did )ith its 5)ildernesse5 no) reIuire our !ropin! for so*e other ad#ective, reIuirin! us a!ain to collectively ask, 5:e are )hatL5 Uneasily + ad*it: >y discussion there y encounters considerations that, )hile relevant to this yearFs Bicentennial festivities, yet are not suited to such an attitude of national selfAcon!ratulation as )ould

*ost felicitously fit the occasion. :e are )hatL 2ince efore the *iddle of the last century, >ar'Fs dialectical *aterialis*, )ith its stress upon the *aterial underpinnin!s of any cultural superstructure, has een tellin! us in effect that 5(*ericanis*5 is a rand of our!eois nationalis*. (nd ein! in desi!n a sophisticated variant of 8e!elian dialectic, it has a recondite )ay of sayin! that )hatever !oes up *ust co*e do)n. .r, *ore accurately, )hatever has & 272 & developed to a certain sta!e *ust develop still further, at least until the last ti*e6and then, #ust as the fer*entin! yeast !enerates the alcohol that kills it, so there occurs the develop*ent )here y <0n!els said= )ithout *anFs e!innin!s in slavery there could e no socialist fulfill*ent, ut eventually the dialectic of class stru!!le a olishes itself. +n contrast, the dialectic of the Christian ulti*ate, as foretold in the last ook of the /e) -esta*ent and *ade *onu*ental in @anteFs 3ivine +ome(y, retains the MesA/o polarity of elect and repro ate for ever, in the eternity of Paradise and 8ell, perpetual liss and perpetual an!uish. .ur enterprise *ust so*eho) pick its )ay et)een these t)o different and *ore radical lo!ics. >ean)hile, )ith re!ard to a Behaviorist theory, such as B. C. 2kinnerFs conclusions a out hu*an responses as inferred fro* his 5operant5 conditionin! of du* ani*als, )e can note its contrast )ith various individual or social psycholo!ies )hich *ake no atte*pt to e 5(*erican5 <even )hen, as )ith :illia* Ha*es, their )ork does have a nota ly 5(*erican5 tone=, ut all of )hich the Behaviorists )ould discount as e'a*ples of 5*entalis*.5 (t ti*es, havin! )atched the northern li!hts, and speculatin! that, despite the !lorious spread of such a spectacle, they e'ert less po)er than the )eakest of pud!y infantile fists, + have thou!ht that the BehavioristsF char!es a!ainst 5*entalis*5 could at least e e'pressed !allantly y likenin! the soAcalled *ind to the glow of such a )onder. (nd + )ould contend that the hu*an skill in the acIuirin! and *anipulatin! of a co*ple', ar itrary sy* olAsyste* such as a tri al lan!ua!e is )er se enou!h to #ustify us in i*putin! to hu*an or!anis*s a di*ension of *otivation not reduci le to the principles of ehavior *anifested y ani*als not dependent, as )e are, upon the hi!h develop*ent of purely sy* olic resources. /or can + understand #ust ho) an e'peri*ent )ith a conditioned pi!eon could tell us *uch a out peculiarly 5(*erican5 tests of a literary style, e'cept for the lanket ans)er that the )ork e*ploys 5contin!encies of reinforce*ent.5 +n any case, *entalis* or no *entalis*, the contrast et)een the early theolo!ical tests of stylistic propriety <in the service of )orship= and the later increasin!ly secular tests of 5(*erican5 )ritin! su!!ests one interestin! parado'. :hereas any theist )ould take it for !ranted that his Dod e* races a *otivational circu*ference infinitely !reater than any such !eo!raphically local an or it of reference as 5(*erica,5 technically the situation !ets reversed. Cor the concept of national union, e*er!in! out of a purely political federation a*on! the colonies, involved *odes of collective resistance that in effect transcended reli!ious differences. +n that sense, if a political union contracts to preserve freedo* of reli!ion, & 273 & its authority is *ore co*prehensive than that of any sectarian ody included )ithin it. -he secular !uarantee of reli!ious freedo* applies to allG the various churches, each )ith its particular 5universal5 doctrine, )ould e local eneficiaries of these politically *ore co*prehensive ri!htsG thus in effect the political state )ould e to its *any churches as a hen to her chicks. 8o) thin!s do !et turned aroundQ + suddenly recall an earlier use + *ade of that fi!ure, ack in the

thirties, )hen revie)in! a ook y .tto /eurath, 2o(ern 2an in the 2a*ing </e) Mork: Knopf, "%3%=. /eurath )orked )ith )hat he called 5silhouettes,5 desi!ned to so co* ine Iuantities as to !ive an inklin! of Iuality. +n tryin! to indicate ver ally his pictorial *ethod for contrastin! the status of the church in different eras, + )rote <the revie) is reprinted in *y .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form O"%$"P=: :e are sho)n, for instance, the silhouette of a to)n in the >iddle (!es and in *odern ti*es. +n each )e see a church surrounded y secular uildin!s. +n the >iddle (!es, the church overtops a cluster of little uildin!s, in a out the proportion of a hen to her chicks. +n his visualiBation of *odern ti*es, )e see the sa*e church, no) surrounded y skyscrapers, in a out the proportion of the hen to a atch of electric refri!erators. 2uch reversals are al)ays flittin! in and out )ith re!ard to speculations of this sort. -hey #ust 5co*e natural.5 -hus Cro*)ell, addressin! the 8ouse of Co**ons <Hanuary 22, "377= e'pressly and surprisin!ly tells us of one in the other direction: 5,eli!ion )as not the thin! at first contested for Jat allKG ut Dod rou!ht it to that issue at lastG and !ave it to us y )ay of redundancyG and at last it proved to e that )hich )as *ost dear to us.5 Underlyin! the concerns of this paper there is the fact that a style <hence the ele*ents of a personality that !o )ith it= *ust so*eho) !et transfor*ed )hen it is addressed not to a sectarian reli!ious con!re!ation ut to a secular audience respondin! to literary appeal in !eneral <a *otive that is intert)ined )ith appeal to the #ud!*ent of critical authorities in particular, thou!h not identical )ith it=. (nd the e*er!in! tests of style <hence 5(*erican5 identity= first *anifested the*selves as aspects of 5provincialis*,5 e!innin! as colonialis*, then, after the ,evolution, !ravitatin! around attitudes to)ards literary i*itation <usually of 0n!lish *odels= vie)ed so*eti*es as an e'e*plary procedure, so*eti*es as deplora le. -o *e the *ost strikin! e'hi it in ,ulandFs ook is Hohn Pickerin!Fs & 27$ & 5>e*oir on the Present 2tate of the 0n!lish ?an!ua!e in the United 2tates of (*erica5 <";"3=. -he *ain steps *i!ht e su**ed up thus: -he su #ect is 5the preservation of the 0n!lish lan!ua!e in its purity.5 N :e speak and )rite a dialect of 0n!lish, ut 5(*ericans5 )ho )ould have their )orks read y 0n!lish*en *ust )rite in a lan!ua!e that the 0n!lish 5can read )ith facility and pleasure.5 N Pickerin! )ould !uard a!ainst the day )hen the )orks of )riters such as >ilton, Pope, 2)ift, (ddison )ould reIuire translation 5into a lan!ua!e that is to e called at so*e future day the (*erican ton!ue.5 N -he loss )ould not e so !reat )ith scientific )orks, ut 5)orks of taste5 al)ays lose y translation. N Beyond the transactions of usiness, there is the fact that 5our reli!ion and our la)s are studied in the lan!ua!e of the nation fro* )hich )e are descended.5 N -hou!h )e donFt speak and )rite 0n!lish )ith purity, he )ould defend us a!ainst the char!e of a deli erate 5desi!n to effect a radical chan!e in the lan!ua!e.5N :hile concedin! that 5there is !reater unifor*ity of dialect throu!hout the United 2ates5 than in 0n!land, he says that )e have undenia ly 5departed fro* the standard of the lan!ua!e.5N /ot only have )e introduced ne) )ords and !iven old )ords ne) *eanin!sG )e still use )ords that have eco*e o solete in 0n!land. -hat last is the one + particularly relish. :e *ust not only retain old usa!esG )e *ust also keep a reast of )hen to scrap the*. + think of that notion )hen recallin! ho) pleased )e no) are to find, in the hills of (ppalachia, survivals fro* )ay ack. But + *ay !ive a false i*pression. + Iuite a!ree )ith ,uland )hen he says, 5Pickerin!Fs insistence on constant vi!ilance reflects his cultural conservatis*, ut his picture of lan!ua!e alteration and fluidity indicates a surprisin!ly *odern sense of lin!uistic develop*ent.5 (nd is it not true that the hi!hly

innovative nature of :estern technolo!y <applied science= )orks stron!ly a!ainst any such *odes of lin!uistic propriety as Pickerin! 5advocated5L <+ put the )ord in Iuotation *arks ecause he pauses to point out that the use of the )ord as a ver is 5of (*erican ori!in.5= (s )ith the lon! retention of ?atin in the ,o*an Catholic >ass, and the hieratic role of 2anskrit in ancient +ndia, in eras )hen the *odes of production re*ained *ore sta le than under the strikin!ly innovative force of *odern technolo!y, the lan!ua!e of )orship could eco*e set apart fro* the idio* of the con!re!ation throu!h the sheer fact of havin! institutionally conserved stylistic traditions that secular institutions had !radually evolved a)ay fro*. :hile the spoken lan!ua!e of a lar!ely illiterate people did eco*e *odified, )ritten te'ts )ere intrinsically & 277 & conservative6althou!h the po)erfully innovative !enius of *odern technolo!y can also i*part to the )ritten <or *ore accurately, the printed= )ord *any innovative functions, o)in! to the role of literacy in the chan!in! *odes of livelihood that !o y the na*e of the +ndustrial ,evolution <itself a ter* )ith inherent reversals since so *any of the industrialists )hose )ays of appropriatin! and pro*otin! the revolutionary resources of applied science !o y the na*e of 5conservative56a consideration that )e shall e unco*forta ly involved in )hen askin! )hat happens to the )ord 5(*erican5=. Pickerin!Fs a* itions for the preservation of stylistic purity )ere i*possi le of fulfill*ent since lan!ua!e is inte!rally tied in )ith the nonlin!uistic 5conte't of situation5 in )hich it is acIuired. -he very nature of the settlersF *ove*ent )est )as chan!in! that conte't so rapidly and radically, the resultant differences et)een livin! conditions on the i*perialist island and in our territories e'pandin! across the continent )ere *ore than enou!h to frustrate Pickerin! ideals of stylistic confor*ity. +n fact, the nature of technolo!ical innovation )as already *odifyin! in 0n!land the conditions needed for the preservation of his nor*s in the 5>other Country.5 :eFre no) ready to consider our ulti*ate reversal, centerin! in this Iuestion: >i!ht the conte't of situation that )as instru*ental in the adoption of the ter* 5(*erican5 as a stylistic criterion of our literature also have contained the conditions that reIuire a turn a)ay fro* such standardsL (t this point the te't *ost servicea le for our purposes is -he E(u'ation o$ Henry A(ams, y an author )ho also )rote a satiric novel entitled 3emo'ra'y# :e *ust still further discuss the up uildin! of the )ord 5(*erican5 and its association )ith the )ord 5de*ocracy5 eulo!istically conceived <reIuirin! us to ask )hat should ideally e reIuired of a hypothetical author )ho *i!ht arise so*eho) to *eet the specifications for the role of .oeta Ameri'anissimus=. But the very thou!ht of such a possi le fulfill*ent introduces a asic pro le* esettin! our search for a national ad#ective )ith clai*s to )hich the title is unencu* ered. -he place of 8enry (da*s in this connection is at once revelatory and relevantly ironical, as )e readily realiBe )hen considerin! this co*plicated situation: & 273 & ". -hou!h a *e* er of a fa*ily a out as ancestral as any could e in our national history, includin! t)o hi!hly credita le presidents, in his E(u'ation he took on the literary persona of a technolo!ically lost -ele*achus in search of a technolo!ically *inded 5father5 to replace the principle of identity he a andoned )hen tryin! to out!ro) the ei!hteenthAcentury fa*ily identity he )as orn )ith. 2. 8is ei!hteenthAcentury fa*ily identity coincided )ith the years )hen British scientists and inventors )ere *akin! e'ceptionally !enial advances in the kinds of innovation that he, like

:alt :hit*an, sa) co*in! to a cli*a' in the nineteenthAcentury 0'positions of +ndustrial Pro!ress that )ere literally une'a*pled in all past ti*e. 3. +n essence, he )as askin! not )hat it is to e an 5(*erican,5 ut )hat it is to e )hat co*es ne't. .r, *ore specifically, #ust as the early colonistsF identity had developed fro* specific sectarian co**unities to a *uch lar!er secular 5(*erican5 co**unity, 8enry (da*s )as in effect co*in! out the other side. 8is ironic search for a ne) 5fa*ily5 identity involved a fi!urative enroll*ent in a )orld of *echanis*s that, thou!h produced y persons, added up to a transcendin! of the personal <al eit y a kind of transcendence do)n)ard=. -he innovative technolo!y that the )hite invaders rou!ht )ith the* fro* 0urope led fro* the personalis* of sectarian reli!ion to the overall political personalis* that attains fulfill*ent in the aesthetic criteria of an 5(*erican5 literature. But the E(u'ation leads us to confront co*plications )here y these sa*e technolo!ical resources, oth in ein! further developed and in leadin! to further develop*ents of the sociopolitical conditions that they helped rin! a out, no) de*and of us asic considerations not reduci le to ter*s of 5(*ericanis*5 old style. -hus there are correspondin! Iuandaries a out the criteria of all do*estic literature insofar as it is to e so shaped that, in attainin! their styles purely as 5(*ericans,5 our authors )ill not have *et their cultural o li!ations6e'cept in ter*s of the no) dan!erously narro) tests of peculiarly 5(*erican5 aesthetic identity < ounded on one side y the su divisiveness of nostal!ically poetic re!ionalis*, and on the other y such versions of reality as are indistin!uisha le fro* each dayFs 5headline thinkin!5=. & 274 & 8enry (da*s, you )ill recall, uilt his thesis around the polariBed use of the ter*s 59ir!in5 and 5@yna*o.5 :hen lookin! ack to)ards lookin! for)ard, + find in that for*ula the clear e*er!ence of a pro le* that is latent, yet ve'in!ly present, throu!hout all the essays in ,ulandFs volu*e. But the halfAresponsive, halfAadversarial 5(*ericanis*5 that !re) out of the 5)ildernesse5 and its despoliation see*s, in retrospect, to have reached its poetic fulfill*ent in :hit*anFs )ay of ein! nationalistically infused y the spirit of 0*ersonFs *oralistically pra!*atic transcendentalis*. -here, in the poetic persona of 5:alt :hit*an, Cele rant5 <for such is his est su**ariBin! epithet, his ideal ans)er to the search for our ad#ective= )e find )hat he hi*self has called a 5decla*atory5 kind of verse. (nd )e )ant to d)ell further on his kind of fulfill*ent. >ean)hile, a it *ore should e said a out (da*s. :hile readin! -he E(u'ationKs *any incidental references to environ*ental factors <5conte'ts of situation5= that inevita ly fi!ure in the critical discussion of concerns for a truly national literature <to *atch our political independence )ith a literary counterpart=, + find one *a#or consideration persistently presentin! itself. 5@e*ocracy5 and 5capitalis*5 are specifically political ter*s. Met tre*endously i*portant as they are, + take it that 8enry (da*sFs 9ir!inA@yna*o polarity etter slo!aniBes the fateful <and *ay e even fatalL= turn at the close of our t)o centuries, )hich is an interlude et)een the futuristic, pro*issory sta!e of ever e'pandin! technolo!ic in!enuity and Iuandaries )hen such a develop*ent has een 5pro!ressively5 raisin! ne) e'actions. -he natives )ho )ere ein! dispossessed )ere sorely trou led )ith re!ard to their identity. 2urvivin! records of their oratory testify to the di!nified eloIuence of their *any ineffectual appeals. -here )ere al)ays ne) )hite *en turnin! up )ho had no co*punctions a out reakin! the treaties *ade )ith the +ndians y other )hite *en. +n fact, itFs dou tful )hether they )ould e overly co*punctious a out reakin! their o)n )ord. Cor thou!h *any entries *anifest profound respect and sy*pathy for the natives and their )ay of life, *any of our intruders found it Iuite natural to look upon the natives as the intruders. -heir )ay of life, insofar as it survived, could do so only y interferin! )ith the )ay of life that )as destined to usurp the continent. -he enslaved lacks patched up for the*selves a piece of

poi!nantly eautiful illiterate culture y spirituals in )hich they )ept for the*selves as honorary i lical He)s. But the )hites could in ti*e undo enou!h of the 5)ildernesse5 for literary critics to de ate the allAi*portant pro le* of ein! an 5(*erican5 author. & 27; & (lon! those lines 8enry (da*s has in effect pointed to)ards our need for a ne) ad#ective. (nd his 5la) of the acceleration of history,5 y )hich he referred to the !eo*etrically increasin! pace of technolo!ical innovation and to )hich he )ould unresistin!ly a andon hi*self since the tide of history )as irresisti ly flo)in! in that direction, could do service oth as a synony* for )hat is no) usually called an 5e'ponential curve5 of societyFs plun!e into the future, and as the analo!ue of )hat the 5psycholo!y5 of a fallin! o #ect )ould e if such a thin! )ere involved in a personal rather than a sheerly physical *ode of ehavior, )here y (da*sFs la) of historyFs acceleration )ould e a *etaphorical la) of fallin! odies that are te*pera*entally #u*pin! to a )ersonal fall like >atthe) (rnoldFs 0*pedocles into 0tna. -hou!h the *onetary rationale played a *a#or role in developin! the continentA)ide e'pansion of an econo*y that )as Iuite alien to the a ori!inesF, in the last analysis it )as the technolo!y that *ade the *a#or difference. + stress the point ecause, re!ardless of political syste*s, it is the ad#ust*ents to and throu!h the uses of technolo!y that )ill continue to define our !lo al conte't of situation. (da*sFs reference to a character in his satiric novel rin!s out the point, at least as he sees it: 52he had !ot to the otto* of this usiness of de*ocratic !overn*ent, and found that it )as nothin! *ore than !overn*ent of any other kind.5 -hatFs a it e'cessive. But it does help point up the notion that the pro le*s of en!ineerin!, like the science of allistics, are the sa*e re!ardless of the politics involved, thou!h different political syste*s *ay vary in their a ility to cope )ith such pro le*s. -rue, -he E(u'ation )as not finished until "%04, and (da*s on the la) of acceleration is talkin! a out *odern trends in !eneral rather than a out our country in particular. But )e should lin!er a it )ith the state*ent that his co*panion ook on cathedrals should e su titled 5( 2tudy in -hirteenthACentury Unity5 and his E(u'ation should e su titled 5( 2tudy in -)entiethACentury >ultiplicity.5 +n the .hae(rus 2ocrates na*es unity and plurality as the pri*e prin ciples of dialectics. -he desi!n fi!ures in the very title of our nation. (nd 0*erson sa) the poet as e'foliatin! a unitary creative intuition into a diversity of *anifestations. But (da*s separates the t)o principles in ti*e, )ith one or the other upper*ost. -hus, as his io!rapher 0liBa eth 2tevenson o serves: 8e had done #ustice to the 9ir!in in the cathedral ook. 8is usiness no) )as to do #ustice to the @yna*o, )hich, in "%00, see*ed his o)n ti*eFs *ost fittin! sy* ol. +f he had lived in "%70, he )ould have chosen & 27% & another sy* ol, possi ly the ato*ic pileG the *eanin! )ould have een the sa*e. 8is for*ulation preceded y not *uch *ore than a decade 2pen!lerFs 3e'line o$ the West# Peerin! into (da*sFs ter* 5*ultiplicity5 <eIuated )ith the @yna*o, )hile 5unity5 had een eIuated )ith the 9ir!in=, )e !li*pse considerations of this sort: (s early as PlatoFs 4e)u&li', the division of la or had already developed in (thens to the e'tent that, as Plato sa) thin!s, it raised i*portant cultural pro le*s for the sy* olic resolvin! of )hich he )orked out so*e in!enious dialectical landish*ents. -hey )ere desi!ned to esta lish an ideal principle of #ustice <in Dreek, a 5)ay5= that )ould transcend all the particular 5)ays5 or 5#ustices5 connected )ith the various *odes of livelihood

involved in the class distinctions resultin! fro* the division of la or. Co*pared )ith the vast *ultiplicity of techniIues *ade oth possi le and necessary y the develop*ents of *odern Bi! -echnolo!y, such a ran!e of differences a*on! the handicrafts )as sli!ht. Met )ithin the conditions of the ti*es it )as !reat enou!h to e treated as a funda*ental risk to the )elfare of the city, since tri al life as such falls into disarray to the e'tent that its )ays depart fro* the nor*s of ho*o!eneity. +*plicit in (da*sFs concern )ith *ultiplicity are considerations *ore !lo al than national. (nd since the re*ainder of this discussion is to center on that issue, perhaps efore *ovin! on )e should cite a passa!e fro* an article y :illia* Cullen Bryant <North Ameri'an 4eview, ";27=, for it su*s up <in accents su tly ironicL= the kind of 5(*erican5 destiny that co* ined a description of a nationA ein!A orn )ith incidental references to ad#ust*ents y )hich the econo*ic order of the a ori!ines )ould e 5naturally5 replaced. 8e is discussin! 5the rapid and continual !ro)th and i*prove*ent of our country,5 in contrast )ith the *uch slo)er rate of chan!e in 0urope: +t does for us in a fe) short years, )hat, in 0urope, is the )ork of centuries. -he hardy and sa!acious native of the eastern states, settles hi*self in the )ilderness y the side of the e*i!rant fro* the British islesG the pestilence of the *arshes is raved and overco*eG the ear, and )olf, and cata*ount are chased fro* their hauntsG and then you see cornfield, and roads, and to)ns sprin!in! up as if y enchant*ent. +n the *eanti*e pleasant +ndian villa!es, situated on the skirts of their huntin! !rounds, )ith their eautiful !reen plats for dances and *artial e'ercises, are taken into the oso* of our e'tendin! population, )hile ne) states are settled and cities founded far eyond the*. -hus a !reat deal of history is cro)ded into a rief space. & 230 & 0ach little ha*let, in a fe) seasons, has *ore events and chan!es to tell of, than a 0uropean villa!e can furnish in a course of a!es. :as there not a trace of deli erate irony in that )inso*e )ay of detailin! ho), even under pleasant conditions, the nativesF )ay of life )as ein! undoneL Cor in the ne't para!raph there is a neat ut o viously ironic t)ist. -hrou!hout ,ulandFs ook are panora*ic passa!es y critics )ho list the )ide variety of su #ects that (*erican authors should treat ut are ne!lectin!. .thers co*plain that even our virtues *ilitate a!ainst !ood literature, since they *ake so *any of our citiBensF lives too *ediocre to e )orth talkin! a out. Bryant defends our country a!ainst this char!e on the !round that *any of our i**i!rants fro* 0urope rou!ht their vices )ith the*. +n any case, the reference to the 5pleasant +ndian villa!es,5 surrounded under conditions that *ust eventually *ake their traditional )ay of life i*possi le, touches on an issue + referred to efore. Suite often a treaty that )as *ade in !ood faith )as roken for the si*ple reason that, even in the capital, there )as no one fi'ed authority to )hich such *atters could e referred. -he authoritative function did not reside in any personal officeG it )as in the pressure of the ne) technolo!y and the )aves of ne) settlers or pro*oters that ca*e )ith it. But + *ust !uard lest )e !et turned in the )ron! direction. -hou!h the history of (*ericaFs relations to the a ori!ines is not a savory one, that is not *y point. + a* concerned )ith stylistic criteria in keepin! )ith the processes )here y, as the state of :estern technolo!y at one ti*e *ade relevant the kind of 5(*erican5 fulfill*ent represented in so *uch of :hit*anFs poetic !ospel, so the later develop*ents, confronted y (da*s, are leadin! throu!h his sta!e to asta!e that is yet to e considered. ( *o*entous replace*ent of the sort that Bryant )as touchin! upon )as the destruction of the uffalo, )hich could not survive the settlersF )ay of far*in!, yet )as the asis of *any tri esF livelihood. (nd + read so*e)here in ,ulandFs ook an early la*ent to this effect: :hat chance do (*ericans have of

developin! a civiliBation to e proud of )hen trees are so plentiful that a sIuirrel could !o fro* >aine to ?ouisiana y #ust hoppin! fro* ranch to ranch )ithout ever once havin! to touch !roundL (t this point letFs say *ore a out 5:alt :hit*an, Cele rant,5 the poet )ho see*s to have done est y the #o of !ivin! us a truly 5(*erican5 son!, even in the strictly political sense. +n its )ay it )as re*otely analo!ous to )hat 9ir!ilFs Aenei( )as in cele ratin! the ,o*an he!e*ony *ade possi le y the destruction of Cartha!e. +n :hit*anFs case & 23" & the stylistics of pro*issory assertion put the stress not upon the contrast et)een rival )ays of life on this continent <the )hite *anFs and the red *anFs=, ut upon a contrast et)een the vesti!es of 0uropean feudalis* and the oisterous develop*ent of our!eois de*ocracy )ari )assu )ith the e'pansion of )hite settle*ents. (lso inter)oven )ith the unitary nature of :hit*anFs vision )as an i*plicit pro le*atical di*ension )here y his !ospel of de*ocratic rotherhood could e for hi* a purely personal *edicine of )hich *any of his co*patriots felt no need. + have already referred to the *any passa!es in ,ulandFs ook listin! the varieties of su #ects that critics said )ere availa le to (*erican authors, yet too often ne!lected in the atte*pt to follo) 0n!lish *odels. -hese are the critical forerunners of the panora*ic surveys or catalo!ues <in an i*patient *o*ent, 0*erson called the* 5inventories5= that are so characteristic of :hit*anFs verse, relyin! heavily on anaphora as a for*al device for tyin! his lines to!ether. -hus, in 52on! of the Broad ('e5 the first si' lines of the second stanBa e!in 5:elco*e are5G then co*e 5:elco*e the,5 5:elco*e are,5 5:elco*e the,5 5:elco*e the,5 5:elco*e #ust as5G then co*es 5?ands rich,5 follo)ed y three lines e!innin! 5?ands of.5 .ver half the lines in 5/alut au 2on(e5 <t)ice PoeFs ideal len!th for a lyric= e!in 5+ see5 or 5+ hear.5 +tFs a fi!ure that Iuickly esta lishes a rhetorical pattern, stron!ly incantatory. 52eaA@rift5 starts )ith variations such as 5.ut of,5 5.ver the,5 5@o)n fro*,5 5Up fro*,5 5.ut fro*,5 5Cro* you,5 5Cro* under.5 8is poe*s are in effect like free associations of ideas that i*ply one another, yet not like catalo!ues of things ut rather like catalo!ues of )lots# <+ have in *ind Dotthold 0phrai* ?essin!Fs ,ao*oon essay, )ith its thesis that the nature of the poetic *ediu*, as distinct fro* sculpture or paintin! favors a narrative presentation of details.= :hit*an !ets his road panora*ic effects not *erely y listin! the )ide scenic ran!e enco*passed )ithin our orders, ut y tiny hitA andArun su!!estions of !oin!sAon. (lso, a *a#or aspect of :hit*anFs appeal )as as a !ospel of so*e sort. ,ecently, )hen !oin! throu!h several volu*es of PepysFs 3iaries, + realiBed the role even of sheer entertain*ent provided y ser*ons in the days efore secular art e!an to esta lish entertain*ent as a *a#or industry. (nd *uch of :hit*anFs stylistic appeal derives fro* its i*plications as a kind of seculariBed ser*oniBin!. >ark -)ainFs hu*orous concern )ith the sche*in!s of transient *ounte anks !ives us insi!hts into the lure that such for*s of eloIuence *ust have had for the populace. (nd + )ould hold that :hit*anFs verse <as an 5(*erican5 !ospel, althou!h also heralded a road= )as a stron! response to this trend, )hich tied in & 232 & )ith the inspirational eloIuence so super ly *astered y the 5orator5 to )ho* he o)es so *uch, 0*erson. 8i!h a*on! the appeals of :hit*anFs !ospel <e'cept for those )ho loathe it= is the fact that its poetry is )ritten so thorou!hly in the spirit of rhetoric. +t is not #ust the son! of 5.neFsA2elf5 he starts out y sayin! that he sin!s. +t is a for* of address, address to a kind of >odern >an )ho is thus oth the recipient and the ideal e'e*plar of )hatever !ifts are poetically cele rated as de*ocratically

(*erican. Collo)in! a lead su!!ested y @enis @ona!hue in another connection, and vie)in! :hit*anFs poetic persona as a resonantly rhetorical construct, at this point +Fd refer to (ristotleFs 4hetori', uilt a out three *odes of persuasion: y logos, ethos, and )athos# :hen appealin! y logos, the speakerFs ai* is to *ake his position see* reasona le. :hen appealin! y )athos, he )ould enlist the audienceFs e*otions on his side. -o appeal y ethos he )ould reco**end his cause y sho)in! that he is trust)orthy and *eans )ellG he is the sort of person )ith )ho* <as )eFd put it no)= youFd identify. -here is the ve'in! fact that our nation developed out of t)o asic e* arrass*ents. Cirst, the 0uropean i**i!rants rou!ht a )ay of life that could develop only y displacin! the nativesF )ay of life. Diven the ur!encies of the case, no cultural a*al!a*ation )as feasi le. 2econd, esides the )hite influ' fro* 0urope <persons )ho ca*e 5of their o)n volition5= there )ere the lacks rou!ht forci ly fro* (frica. <+ put 5of their o)n volition5 in Iuotes ecause the 0uropean )hites, too, ca*e under necessitous pressure of so*e sortG ut it differed strikin!ly fro* the kind of constraint placed upon the i*ported slaves.= (nd *ay e )e should also *ention the Chinese coolies )hose ackA reakin! la or contri uted *uch to the uildin! of the :estern railroads. (fter a fashion they also ca*e 5voluntarily,5 havin! een tricked into si!nin! contracts <)hich our courts upheld= on the asis of )hat a U.2. dollar )ould then uy in ChinaG ut they )ere lucky if a dollar that )as paid the* here even covered so *uch as the livin! e'penses it took the* to earn it. 8o)ever, since the (*erican contractors found it hard to distin!uish one 5China*an5 fro* another, *any succeeded in ri!htin! the )ron! y si*ply disappearin! into the circu*a* ience. (nd + re*e* er ho), *any years later, as a child + hurried past the local Chinese laundry. :hit*anFs poetic cele ration of the logos, )athos, and ethos of (*erican rotherhood )as to e a )ay of transcendin! all such ve'ations underlyin! our up uildin!. -hou!h ,eaves o$ Grass <first, *uch s*aller edition= appeared in & 233 & ";77, thus prior to ?incolnFs 0*ancipation Procla*ation, *any aspects of the de*ocratic ideal had already een i*ple*ented. (nd :hit*anFs poe*s of the Civil :ar, )hich reached their hei!ht in his funeral dir!e for ?incoln <surely a*on! the !randest pieces of political oratory in all the )orld, and )ith a typically personal touch to its )athos= solidified the eIuatin! of freedo*, de*ocracy, and (*erican Union. (ll )as seen as a turnin! point fro* a tyrannical past to a vi rantly pro*issory e!alitarian future that *atched the increasin! opportunities for *aterialistic a!!randiBe*ent. -he evidences of !reed )ere to e *atched y a doctrine of 5unseen e'istences5 )here y, if you peered *ore closely into the si!ns of crassness, you could discern the e*er!ent possi ilities of their eventual spiritualiBation. 8ere 0*ersonian transcendentalis* had stood :hit*an in !ood stead. Cor his logos thus, his openin! 5+nscription5 is astoundin!ly co*pact: .neFsA2elf + sin!, a si*ple separate person, Met utter the )ord @e*ocratic, the )ord 0nA >asse. .f physiolo!y fro* top to toe + sin!, /ot physio!no*y alone nor rain alone is )orthy for the >use + say the Cor* co*plete is )orthier far, -he Ce*ale eIually )ith the >ale + sin!. .f ?ife i**ense in passion, pulse, and po)er, Cheerful, for freest action for*Fd under the la)s

divine, -he >odern >an + sin!. -he UnityAdiversity pair <the U.2. desi!n= is there to e!in )ith, )here y in the first couplet the individual is eIuita le )ith the !roup. <+n 5@e*ocratic 9istas5 :hit*an )ill slo!aniBe the sa*e desi!n as 5ense* leA+ndividuality.5= >ale and Ce*ale are proclai*ed eIual, as oth odies and *inds. 2uch vi!orous life is infused )ith divinity. (nd it is here and no) around us, in our roles as 5>odern >an.5 -he si*ilarly co*pact openin! for his 52on! of >yself5 adds an i*portant ter* to his eIuations: 5+ cele rate *yself, and sin! *yself.5 +t pinpoints *y !rounds for proposin! that )e entitle hi* 5:alt :hit*an, Cele rant.5 <>ore later on the fact that the essence of )hat he is cele ratin!, in his chosen role as the literary variant of a hot !ospeler, is (*erican de*ocracy as a rotherhood.= >ean)hile, note that his role as a 5cele rant5 i*plicitly ties the logos of his de*ocratic persuasion to the )athos of his al*ost pro*iscuous ideal, his poetic clai*s to e in sy*pathy )ith us all. @octrinally, he sees in a *a'i*u* ran!e of sy*pathetic & 23$ & responsiveness the very essence of poetic responsi ility. :e have already considered the Iuite tearful )athos of his tri ute to ?incoln, as distinct fro* the severely si*ple !randeur of his heroFs <his ideal slain fatherFs= 5Dettys ur! (ddress.5 (nd have not our references to oth the logos and the )athos of his profoundly oratorical poetry <its )ays of ein! 5Cele rant5= i*pin!ed !reatly upon its )ays of appealin! y ethos, y uildin! itself up as the e'pression of an appealin! personalityL +n his poetic role as spokes*an for an ideal (*erica dedicated to the hospita le reception of all co*ers )ho )ere the victi*s of un#ust sufferin! a road, :hit*an also enlisted an a* i!uous *ythic *otive that )e can catch !li*pses of. + refer to the turn or tropis* )here y for re!ions to the east of us, the daily *a!ic of the settin! sun called for the risks of a seaAcrossin! and )hatever *i!ht happen ne't. Cor *any .ld :orld ad*irers of :hit*an, that *otivational di*ension dou tless also fi!ured so*eho), if only, as Cro* )ell *i!ht have put it,5 y redundancy.5 -he appeal y ethos attains its ulti*ate e'pression in the !ospel of de*ocratic rotherhood. (nd + a!ree )holly )ith ,ulandFs vie) of 5:hit*anFs entire life and )ork5 as a kind of national 5conclusion.5 +n the first of the t)o pieces ,uland selected <5-he Poetry of the Cuture,5 ";;"=, )ith re!ard to the openin! sentence, 5-he topA*ost proof of a race is its o)n orn poetry,5 :hit*an envisions our nation as co*in! to stand for fraternity over the )hole !lo e in a vaster, saner, *ore splendid Co*radeship, unitin! closer and closer not only the (*erican 2tates, ut all nations, and all hu*anity. -hat, . poetsQ is not that a the*e )orth chantin!, strivin! forL :hy not fi' your verses henceforth to the !au!e of the round !lo eL the )hole raceL Perhaps the *ost illustrious cul*ination of the *odern *ay thus prove to e a si!nal !ro)th of #oyous, *ore e'alted ards of adhesiveness, identically one in soul, ut contri uted y every nation, each after its distinctive kind. N+ )ould inau!urate fro* (*erica N ne) for*ulas6 international poe*s. + have thou!ht that the invisi le root out of )hich the poetry deepest in, and dearest to, hu*anity !ro)s, is Criendship. + have thou!ht that oth in patriotis* and son! <even a*id their !rander sho)s past= )e have adhered too lon! to petty li*its, and that the ti*e has co*e to enfold the )orld. Pickerin! *i!ht have asked hi* in )hat lan!ua!e this !lo al poe* )ould e )ritten. -o e sure, it )ould not e classed a*on! 5)orks purely scientific5 <desi!ned 5*erely to co**unicate infor*ation )ithout re!ard to ele!ance of lan!ua!e or the force and eauty of the senti*ents5=.

& 237 & ,ather, it should e* ody 5e'cellencies of )orks of taste5 that 5cannot e felt even in the est translation.5 +n the second ite* <5( Back)ard Dlance .Fer -ravelFd ,oads,5 ";;3=, after havin! said, 5+ have )ishFd to put the co*plete Union of the 2tates in *y son!s )ithout any preference or partiality )hatever,5 :hit*an proceeds: Cro* another point of vie) ,eaves o$ Grass is avo)edly the son! of 2e' and (*ativeness, and even (ni*ality6thou!h *eanin!s that do not usually !o alon! )ith those )ords are ehind it all, and )ill duly e*er!eG and all are sou!ht to e lifted into a different li!ht and at*osphere. .f this feature, intentionally palpa le in a fe) lines, + shall only say the espousin! principle of those lines so !ives reath of life to *y )hole sche*e that the ulk of the pieces *i!ht as )ell have een left un)ritten )ere those lines o*itted. @ifficult as it )ill e, it has eco*e, in *y opinion, i*perative to achieve a shifted attitude fro* superior *en and )o*en to)ards the thou!ht and fact of se'uality as an ele*ent in character, personality, the e*otions, and a the*e in literature. + a* not !oin! to ar!ue the Iuestion y itself. -he vitality of it is alto!ether in its relations, earin!s, si!nificances6 like the clef of a sy*phony. (t last analo!y the lines + allude to, and the spirit in )hich they are spoken, per*eate all ,eaves o$ Grass, and the )ork *ust stand or fall )ith the*, as the hu*an ody and soul *ust re*ain as an entirety. 8ere, + take it, :hit*an is referrin! to the fact that his !ospel of de*ocratic rotherhood, Criendship, and Co*radeship is e'tended to enco*pass a principle of 5adhesiveness,5 a ter* he orro)ed fro* phrenolo!ical usa!e to desi!nate the specific 5faculty5 of *anAlove, to )hich *any passa!es in his poe*s ear )itness )ith astoundin!ly frank sy* olis*. -he only )ay + can e'plain the situation to *yself is that, e'cept for those discernin! *e* ers of his pu lic )ho )ere #ust naturally 5in the kno)5 <and in the understanda le cause of caution he so*eti*es sou!ht to thro) the* off the track=, readers interpreted his 5a*ativeness5 in less specific a sense. -he lines could have su!!ested a variant of e'pressions such as references to politicians as ein! 5 edfello)s5 or 5playin! footsy5 )ith one another. .r recall ho) custo*ers at a priBefi!ht indi!nant that theyFre not !ettin! their *oneyFs )orth since the o'ers arenFt puttin! up enou!h of a attle, *ay start sin!in!, 5?et *e call you J2)eetheartK6 +F* in love )ith you.5 +n any case, :hit*anFs o)n insistence upon the i*portance of this *otive as a !eneratin! principle ena les us to see ho) it *i!ht serve as a source of unitary elation. 8ere )as a ter*inistic t)ist )here y a 5pro le*atical5 & 233 & personal proclivity or persuasion could eco*e i*plicitly identified )ith ideals at the very roots of popular sanction, )ith correspondin!ly *edicinal or cathartic effects upon the cele rant 2elf. Co* ine the nor*s of politically de*ocratic 5 rotherhood5 )ith the i*plications of 5adhesiveness,5 and each such di*ension can co*plete the other, as it )ere, 5 y redundancy.5 /o) )e *ust !o ack to (da*s. (lready in :hit*an, )e sa) the !ospel of 5(*erican5 pro*ise i*pin!in! upon the !lo al. <5. poetsQ N )hy not fi' your verses henceforth to the lan!ua!e of the round !lo eL the )hole raceL5 Cor the ne) co*radeship )as to unite 5not only the (*erican 2tates, ut all nations, and all hu*anity.5= 8enry (da*s points to)ards a !lo al di*ension of Iuite a different sort. :e have een considerin! the fact that our speedy e'pansion across )hat )as to eco*e our national

oundaries could take the irresisti le for* it did only 5 y reason of5 the technolo!y it rou!ht )ith it. +*plicit in :hit*anFs son!s of occupation )as a )ay of life characteriBed y the kind of co**odities <)ith correspondin! sociopolitical relationships= that attained their *ost strictly ver al counterpart in such pu lications as (*erican *ailAorder catalo!ues, i*plyin! *odes of 5cooperative co*petition5 that eventually !ot historical place*ent in the na*e of social @ar)inis*. <( recent reproduction of a firstAedition catalo!ue contains a re*inder that the sa*e fir* sold oth opiu* and opiu* curesG and o)in! to so*e research + once did on pro le*s of dru! addiction, *y hunch )ould e that the 5cures5 *erely provided opiu* under another na*e.= But in (da*sFs ook, co*in! a out half a century after ,eaves o$ Grass <and at a ti*e )hen, )e no) kno) for sure, the sheer technolo!y of livin! )as developin! as an e'ponential curve, as (da*s in his )ay had said= the !lo al possi ilities that :hit*an had envisioned in hopefully )ersonal ter*s of universal 5a(hesiveness5 )ere sho)in! up instead in ter*s of im)ersonal aspects of (isunity <despite the fact that all the *ultiplicitous clutter )as co*prised of inventions *ade y )ersons=. >ay e at est )eFre necessarily ro ed to this e'tent: (lthou!h )e *ay poetically attitudiniBe in various local )ays, *ay e the overall issue does not )holly lend itself to son!, as the scatteredness of PoundFs +antos indicates. .r, in contrast, think of HoyceFs )ouldA e universal drea*Alan!ua!e, its deli erately fo!!y ety*olo!ical *ayhe* co**itted throu!h a *i'ture of )illfulness and scholarship upon )hat is in essence an in!eniously, and te*pera*entally, and *ultiply conta*inated <5sophisticated5L= stock of 0n!lish. 8o) could there e a )holly adeIuate & 234 & !lo al idio* to do for the or&is terrarum of current conditions )hat 9ir!ilFs Aenei( proposed to do for the *ilitaristic )a1 4omana of the ,o*an 0*pireL (nd can a 5!lo al5 parlia*ent such as the United /ations e via le e'cept y reliance upon a kind of ureaucratic headline speech that ad*its of translation at top speedL -ryin! to su* up the situation as )e need to consider it here, +Fd state the issue thus: :ith :hit*an, )hen all )as !oin! )ell, everythin! fell into place. +t all added up to the literary eIuivalent of 5*ystic unity.5 8is sche*e even had a ka alistic in!redient. Cor thou!h the ka alists )ould not *odify so *uch as a sin!le sylla le of a traditional sacred te't, they had a her*eneutic t)ist )here y they could interpret it differently. +tFs not hard to i*a!ine ho), )hen so approached, even the dullest of passa!es *i!ht e seen to flare up like a nova. (pparently :hit*anFs )ay )ith the relation et)een 5 rotherhood5 and 5adhesiveness5 had an inspiritin! effect of that sort, solvin! )hat )as other)ise <to orro) a for*ula fro* ,ichard Chase= a 5pro le* in pu lic relations.5 ( sense of panora*ic unity uilt atop such a resolution, could )ell e *atched y an elation that his devotees *i!ht call *ystical. But there are ti*es )hen the freedo* of any sheerly sy* olic e'ercisin! loses its !lo). +t al*ost necessarily does at ti*es, any sy* olic structure is hollo) as co*pared )ith the physiolo!ical i**ediateness of the 5(ni*ality5 )hich :hit*anFs o)n poetic creed had cele rated. 0ven a *inor odily illness can transfor* the !allant !estures of health into a *ockery, )hereupon (rought takes over. +f, for )hatever cause, the !reat elation of inte!rally interrelated sy* olic operations a ates, the letdo)n can e al*ost total. .ne is then ut a ody in the *ost desolate sense, a ody such that one dies )hen it does, ro ed of all the entrancin! hu*ane fullness <the )leroma= )ith )hich oneFs sy* olically en!endered sense of reality had een infused. .ne then has no place in an ideal co**unity of any sort. .ne is thro)n ack inco**unicado upon the odyG one is in solitary. >ost of us need not e tossed ack and forth et)een such )ide e'tre*es in )hich the very intensity of the euphoria sets the conditions for a correspondin! intensity of letAdo)n. :ithin a *uch narro)er

ran!e, there are the hu* ler satisfactions of occasions )hen thin!s )e are at )ork on fall fairly )ell into place. .r even y puttin! the house in order )e can !et *edicine enou!h for the day. (nd as for drou!ht, )e often stave it off y entertain*ents of so*e sort, or *ay e even y follo)in! the ne)s a out other peopleFs trou les. -he thou!ht of 8enry (da*s su!!ests a third likelihood that falls & 23; & so*e)hat on the ias across the e'tre*es or attenuations of *ystic unity and drou!ht. :e *i!ht orro) fro* .ara(ise ,ost the ter* 5Pande*oniu*,5 >iltonFs na*e for 5the hi!h capital of 2atan and his peers.5 By 5Pande*oniu*5 + have in *ind the e1'essive version of 8enry (da*sFs 5*ultiplicity,5 a state of affairs in )hich all thin!s are a!!ressively at odds )ith one another. <.r *i!ht it e called 5PandoraFs pli!ht5L= :hen confrontin! Pande*oniu*, in the attenuated for* of technolo!ic *ultiplicity, our *ost via le response is to treat cultural Iuandaries as su #ects for further study. -hus, feedin! the relevant data into our pro!ra**ed ersatB rains the co*puters, analysts recently ca*e up )ith indications that, )hether there e continued !ro)th in the consu*ption of ener!y, or a steady state of no !ro)th, or a di*inution, the prospects look leak. +n his .urgatorio the canto concerned )ith 2loth is the one )here @ante has 9ir!il outline the lo!ic of his )ork, includin! a *otivational reduction of the poe* as a )hole. + )ould interpret this choice of place*ent as sayin!, in effect: :hen )e are stopped <in the epicFs desi!n, 2loth occupies a *id)ay position, a kind of dead center= )e *ay start ane) y pausin! to study a situation. ,e!ardless of )hether the description and dia!nosis of cultural frustrations, akin to the i**o iliBed state of 2loth, help us to develop a practical re*edy, the *ere conte*plation of hu*an predica*ents can perfor* a kind of cathartic function. +t can e psycholo!ically *edicinal, like literary fictions uilt a out situations no) ut *atters of history <such as the 2panish +nIuisition, the )itch hunts in colonial /e) 0n!land, the horrors of 8itleris*, or elated 5no) it can e told5 indict*ents of past *ilitary lunderin!=. -he puBBles of technolo!yFs attenuatedly pande*oniac *ultiplicity attain a kind of a( interim IuasiAresolution via the *any )orks devoted to the discussion of its sy*pto*s, the *ultiplicity of the situation thus ein! *atched y the *ultiplicity of the studies that reflect it. +n these circu*stances there is a kind of )orld)ide rotherhood6 thou!h only too often fratricidally slanted, and thus suicidally so, for it is Iuite alien to the pro*ises 5pro*ul!ed5 y :hit*an in his role as the eni!*atically literary analo!ue of a hot !ospeler. :e are a rotherhood in the sense that all *ankind collectively confronts a platitudinously inescapa le situation, e*er!in! )ith the Iualitative step fro* the Iuantitative technolo!ical *ultiplicity of :hit*anFs day to that of 8enry (da*sFs, and no) dreadfully o vious in the 0ra of the (to*ic Pile, alon! )ith assists fro* che*ical and acteriolo!ical advances in )eaponry and the likelihood that applied science <(da*sFs @yna*o= & 23% & )ill soon have 5perfected5 the potentialities of harnessin! even the )eather for !enocidal purposes. <>ilitary *en have already e'peri*ented alon! those lines.= (nd even if the *arvels of technolo!ic inventiveness donFt eventuate in a fratricidal )ar that )ill e !lo al in the ran!e of its disasters, esides the pro le*s of depletion and pollution due to the co**ercial use of technolo!y for te*poral or re!ional or class advanta!es )e confront the astoundin! ne) advances in iolo!y. (s is no) clearly reco!niBed, !enetic research has developed to the sta!e )here it risks inadvertently releasin! ne) for*s of life that )ould e *a#or *enaces to hu*an )ellA ein! and that, once released, are eyond our control.

-echnolo!y is so !reat a coefficient of po)er that )hen it *akes a *istake the results can e fantastically disproportionate to the intention. Consider, for instance, )hat co*paratively little da*a!e an individual can do )ho has nothin! ut his ody )ith )hich to e violent. -hen consider )hat havoc he can do if he has access to a plane and an ato* o* . -rue, technolo!yFs a ility to *a!nify our disorders *ay i*ply eIually !reat a ilities to *a!nify our po)ers of i*prove*ent, and such is indeed the case. But technolo!y <(da*sFs @yna*o= is so hi!hly innovative that )e necessarily la! in learnin! ho) est for all of us to live )ith it, particularly ecause, in such co*plicated choices, there are al)ays so *any *ore )ays of ein! )ron! than of ein! ri!ht. (nd even if you are correct in decidin! ho) est to proceed, there )ill e !reat differences of opinion <tot homines, 6uot sententiae= insofar as others )ill ri!htly or )ron!ly refuse to identify your interests )ith theirs. (nd the possi ilities of 5sa ota!e5 <if )e *ay relate this Crench )ord to a ?uddite ter* fro* 0n!land= increase proportionately to such a technolo!ic coefficient of po)er. .urs has eco*e the ideal a!e of either the hi#acker or the !uerilla ecause such roles are the perfect *atch for our technolo!ic innovators. Suite as any innovator *i!ht hit upon a 5 reakthrou!h5 that shifts the )hole productiveAdistri utive syste*, so protesters can relate to the fantastically *ountin! and vulnera le accu*ulation of technolo!ic resources )here y, if you ut cut one )ire or punch one hole in a !as tank, inconceiva ly *i!hty po)ers can eco*e )eaker than an old na! or one sputterin! candle. +n the thirties >atthe) Hosephson )rote a ook a out the financial analo!ues of the ro er arons )ho s)ooped do)n to attack caravans at the narro)s and e'act tri ute. 8e )rote of financial fina!lers )ho had their )ays of doin! so. -hen ca*e the -echnocrats )ho )ere e'ercised a out the 5 ottleAnecks5 e* edded in the very nature of such 5net)orks.5 & 240 & (nd no) )e can e!in to !li*pse the likelihood that the sa*e principle <principleQ= can *otivate either an a* itionAridden e'pert in a !reat la oratory or a hi!h school student )ho )ith a *ediocre education in physics or iolo!y can do untold da*a!e. :hy try to decide )hether anyone is 5craBy5 or 5dedicated5L +nnovation is no) so necessarily irresponsi le that its possi le effects canFt e distin!uished fro* those of the ai*less desolate )eaklin! )ho ar*s hi*self )ith i! !uns and shoots people at rando* fro* a to)er. -he *ain thin! is <as it pro a ly al)ays )as= to do so*ethin! for )hich you !et reco!niBed. (nd )hoFs to say )hat co*es ne'tL -hereFs nothin! 5*orally5 )ron! )ith all that )hen 5*orals5 is a )ord for 5custo*s,5 and if custo*s arenFt hurriedly on the *ake, they had etter e. But thou!h such considerations are part of the pande*oniac *ultiplicity )e have considered under the si!n of (da*sFs @yna*o, )e are pri*arily concerned )ith the Bicentennial i*plications of the step fro* :hit*an on (*erican de*ocratic rotherhood to (da*s on the later develop*ents of technolo!y. -he essential 5rationality5 of our inventions is )hat raises *uch of the trou le. Cor *ankind is in trou le indeed )hen the !reat acco*plish*ents of hu*an rationality raise *ore pro le*s than can !o )ell )ith :hit*anlike accents of the pro*issory. +n technolo!y )e confront an o #ective fulfill*ent, since it is so rational in its essenceG yet its very rationality is ut a caricature of hu*an reasona leness. :hen the i*ple*entations of rationality *ultiply our pro le*s, )e are conflictin! )ith rationality itself. + )ould call such ve'ations the universal puBBle )ith )hich the @yna*o no) Bicentennially confronts us.

+O!#S
HGE: -he Hournal o$ General E(u'ation 2; <fall "%43=: "34E;%. Copyri!ht "%43 y the Pennsylvania 2tate University. ,eproduced y per*ission of the pu lisher. -his paper is a revision of a Hoseph :arren Beach >e*orial ?ecture presented at the University of >ichi!an, (pril "%43. & 24" &

1/. 2ariations on .Providence.

19>1
59ariations on JProvidenceK 5 continues Kenneth BurkeFs intense involve*ent )ith lan!ua!e, technolo!y, counterAnature, and the future. -his i*portant essay consists of si'teen entitled sections )hich are divided or !rouped into nine alternatin! units devoted first to lo!olo!y and counterAnature and then to nonlo!olo!ical variations on Providence. Cor e'a*ple, the first three sections <"E3= are a out lo!olo!y, the ne't three <$E3= are a out other than lo!olo!ical vie)s of Providence. -he ne't section <4= returns to lo!olo!y and the ne't <;= returns to *ore variations. -his pattern is repeated to the end of the essay: <%= is devoted to lo!olo!y, <"0= to other vie)s of Providence, <""= to lo!olo!y, and <"2E"7= to other vie)s. -he final section <"3= concludes the essay )ith BurkeFs thirteen propositions a out lan!ua!e, lo!olo!y, technolo!y, counterAnature, and the future. -he final para!raph su*s up BurkeFs *ain lo!olo!ical the*e and presents his so*e)hat dis*al, ironic vision of the future. Providence: a lookin! to or preparation for the futureG the care or enevolent !uidance of Dod or nature. +t is the first of these definitions that applies to the lo!olo!ical part of the essay. -he second part applies to *any of the variations. (nother )ord for Providence in Burke is entelechy, or perhaps it )ould e est to say that entelechy is a ProvidenceAlike ter* specific to Burke that has to do )ith the end of thin!s. -his essay deals, pri*arily, )ith the entelechy of technolo!y and )ith technolo!y as the entelechy of hu*an ein!s, the sy* olAusin! ani*als. -he final section <"3= of the essay *akes BurkeFs position on oth of these entelechies clearG )ell, as clear as a !reat ironist like Burke chooses to e. Burke has li*ited lo!olo!y so*e)hat y insistin!, here, that lo!olo!y is purely secular and that it can only )ork )ith e*pirical evidence. <2ee proposition " in section "3.= 8e has also insisted that lo!olo!y cannot e #ud!*ental and cannot verify or disprove state*ents a out the 5supernatural.5 <2ee section "3: 5But *y ?o!olo!ical approach to a te't per*its *e to *ake no #ud!*ent, )hatever, a out the truth or falsity of -heolo!ical teachin!s. 8ence + can discuss such te'ts only as for*s of Jsy* olic actionK that are to e analyBed purely as e'a*ples of ver al ehavior.5Y -he effect of these selfAi*posed restrictions is at est very a* i!uousG they see* to li*it Burke to searchin! out and conveyin! kno)led!e o tained fro* the analysis of a te't, and to deliverin! ad*onitions a out the present and future ased on his readin! of the te't and o servations of his o)n society. But the kno)led!e he acIuires fro* a te't is hardly neutral, his approach is anythin! ut purely e*pirical, and his )arnin!s or ad*onitions are al)ays #ud!*ental. <2ee the final para!raph of the essay.= Burke had een antitechnolo!y since the thirties <since Per*anence and Chan!e O"%37P=, and *ore so as he !ot older, and the develop*ent of technolo!y accelerated until it reached

e'ponential speeds )ith the co*puter and other co*ponents of the electronic revolution. & 242 & Burke had a kind of fatalistic vie) of hu*an history and the future, especially the future created y the !enius of technolo!y and do*inated y the technolo!ical psychosis. -his vie) of hu*an history and the future derives fro* BurkeFs idea of entelechy6that thin!s have a uiltAin, irreversi le drive to co*plete and perfect the*selves. +n this case, it is hu*an ein!sF creative !enius for technolo!ical innovation that is drivin! on)ard )ith ever *ore sophisticated advances in technolo!y and *ore and *ore of our lives do*inated y technolo!y. (t the end of this lon! technolo!ical #ourney, Burke envisions a !lo al tra!edy in )hich hu*ans co*e to the kno)led!e of )hat they have done to the environ*ent and the*selves )ith their technolo!y ut it is too late to fi' )hat they have destroyed, even )ith *ore technolo!y, or free the*selves fro* dependence on their *achines, )hich are counterAnatural. -his is hardly )hat Burke could call a 5co*ic vision,5 ut it has ever een thus )ith Burke, )hose vision <certainly since the thirties= has al)ays een a tra!iAco*ic one, as full of fatalistic despair and depression as it is of co*icAironic *ind play and discountin!. -he pro le* in this essay is, :ho, or )hat, shall e our !uide into the technolo!ical future, and ho) can )e prepare for itL +n the old days it could have een Dod or nature. -here are no ans)ers to these t)o Iuestions in the essay eyond the accu*ulation of kno)led!e a out 5ver al ehavior,5 and a !ro)in! a)areness of )hat is happenin! to us, and )hat is !oin! to happen to us. Certainly, lo!olo!y is not !oin! to reverse the course of history or !et us out of the *ess )e have created for ourselves. (nd if )e put our faith in co*puters, as everyone no) see*s to e doin!, )e *ay soon suffer fro* rainAfunction atrophy and a steady di*inish*ent of the pro le*Asolvin! faculty that has !otten hu*ans throu!h so *uch history thus far. +n a sense, Burke never really developed a final vision eyond definin! hu*ans as odies that learn lan!ua!e, esta lishin! the link et)een lan!ua!e <sy* ol syste*s= and technolo!y, and deter*inin! that technolo!y )as our entelechy. ?o!olo!y is not a vision ut a *ethodolo!y for the analysis of ver al te'ts. @ra*atis* )as really a *uch *ore inclusive vie) of thin!s and led to BurkeFs *any po)erful *oral/ethical state*ents a out )ho/)hat the ene*y )as/is and )hat )e could do a out it. -hrou!hout *uch of BurkeFs dra*atistic period <the forties and fifties= the *ain ene*ies )ere the hierarchic psychosis and all that )ent )ith it, and the cold )ar. (fter ?an!ua!e as 2y* olic (ction <"%33=, it eca*e clear that technolo!y and the technolo!ical psychosis )ere the *ain ene*ies. >ore and *ore, Creon eca*e BurkeFs representative character for the tra!ic future. /o one can deny the !ood that has co*e )ith *odern technolo!y, nor, in the case of Creon, that the la) )as on his side. Burke likes Creon ecause in actin! as he did to have (nti!one put to death, he could not foresee the conseIuences of his 5#ust5 action: that his son )ould die )ith her, even as Creon tried to undo his decree. 8o) could hu*ans deny the enefits of *odern technolo!y or keep fro* inventin! *ore and *ore technolo!ical innovations, even up to the a ility to create <and destroy= life itself, or to clone ani*als and hu*ans, send a spacecraft to >ars and eyond, uild nuclear )arheads, develop *edical techniIues that allo)ed doctors to replace al*ost every or!an or #oint in the hu*an ody, includin! the 5irreplacea le5 heartL

But + should let Burke speak for hi*self. Burke )as ei!htyAfour )hen this essay & 243 & )as pu lished and pro a ly youn!er )hen it )as )ritten. +t is not his final state*ent on lan!ua!e, technolo!y, counterAnature, and lo!olo!yG those ca*e later, in the ne) after)ords in "%;$ to Per*anence and Chan!e and (ttitudes to)ard 8istory, )hen Burke )as in his late ei!hties. :hat a span of ti*e he thou!ht and )rote hi*self throu!h6si'ty plus years, eleven ooks <includin! Collected Poe*s=, hundreds of essays and revie)s. :e should re*e* er this and not *ake the *istake of thinkin! that )e have BurkeFs entelechy in this one late essay. 2ince the ti*e )hen + e!an plannin! to )rite so*e 5variations on the the*e of JProvidence,K 5 there have een so*e develop*ents )hich *ade *e decide to say *uch *ore y )ay of introduction than + had ori!inally intended. +n particular, :ayne C. BoothFs ad*ira le volu*e, +riti'al =n(erstan(ing: -he .owers an( ,imits o$ .luralism<Chica!o: University of Chica!o Press, "%4%= has een pu lished, and so*e of his astute co**ents that ear upon *y )ork have helped *e to clarify *y position, )hich co*es to a focus *ethodolo!ically in )hat + )ould call a distinction et)een history and ?o!olo!y. 8appily, the distinction is not 5invidious.5 -hat is to say, the ?o!olo!er could not properly ask anyone to *ake an 0itherA.r choice et)een these t)o )ays of speculatin! on the su #ect of 5the hu*an condition.5 (nd the *ore infor*ation historians have presented in or!aniBed for*, the etter supplied ?o!olo!y is )ith the kind of docu*ents and ad*onitions that are *ost helpful for its kind of perspectives.

1. %O(O%O%O($, "IS!O'IO('AP"$, "IS!O'ICIS)

8o)ever, ?o!olo!y )ould have to propose an invidious distinction et)een historio!raphy, a no le callin!, and historicis*, a kind of e'cess caused y a kind of insufficiency. 8istoricis* )ould not e content )ith )ritin! historyG it )ould !o further, and hold that )e are nothing &ut the products of the particular a!e in )hich )e happen to live <or, as 8eide!!er puts it, to e 5thro)n5=. ?o!olo!y, on the other hand, )ould start fro* a !eneric definition of our specific nature as hu*an ein!s. :hat, then, is the 5su strate5 of )hich )e are historical *anifestationsL -he ter* 5?o!olo!y5 itself has t)o *eanin!s, one theolo!ical, one purely secular. +n its theolo!ical *eanin!, as attested in the O1$or( English 3i'tionary, it *eans 5the doctrine of the ?o!os,5 of Christ the :ord, as narrated in the Dospel of Hohn. +n its other *eanin!, 5lo!olo!ical5 is synony*ous )ith 5philolo!ical,5 referrin! to 5)ords5 in the & 24$ & )holly secular sense, an e*pirical position )hich can *ake no #ud!*ent a out either the ri!htness or )ron!ness of theolo!ical doctrine. ?o!olo!y, as + thus use the ter* <*eanin! ety*olo!ically 5)ords a out )ords5= starts fro* a definition that applies physiolo!ically <+ a* sure you all )ill a!ree= to every hu*an ein! e'cept, as per the Book of Denesis, our first ancestors. /a*ely, our history and prehistory, vie)ed lo!olo!ically, fro* the standpoint of 5)ords a out )ords,5 is the )ritten and/or un)ritten story of a iolo!ical or!anis* that is !estated as a wor(less fetus in a *aternal ody, is orn wor(less, and develops out of its in$an'y<that is, its state of wor(lessness= )hile acIuirin! a ver&al me(ium )hich, in effect, uilds up a set of (u)li'ates for its nonver al environ*ent <in 2pinoBaFs ter*s an or(o i(earurn to *atch an or(o rerum, thou!h his 5order of thin!s5 includes *uch )ersonalisti'

content not reduci le to ter*s of the sheerly nonsy* olic=. (ll told, ?o!olo!y )ould classify this necessarily i*perfect duplication as a distinction et)een t)o real*s of nonsy* olic *otion and sy* olic action <for sy* olAsyste*s in the history of culture also include such *edia of e'pression and co**unication as *usic, paintin!, sculpture, dance, etc.=. -he strictly e*pirical *ode of place*ent here )ould e analogous to the traditional *etaphysical or theolo!ical pair: ody and *ind, *atter and spirit, thou!h not i(enti'al )ith the*. +n this respect ?o!olo!yFs *ain foes )ould e the Behaviorists, )ho *onistically reduce any such dualistic distinction et)een *otion and action to ut a *atter of (egree, )hereas ?o!olo!y )ould e e*phatic in vie)in! the distinction et)een physiolo!ical ehavior and ver al ehavior as Iualitative, a *atter of *in(# ?o!olo!y )ould also e*phasiBe an e*pirical analo!ue of the -ho*istic )rin'i)ium in(ivi(uationis# Cor the /umma -heologi'aKs )ord 5*atter5 as the 5principle of individuation,5 ?o!olo!yFs correspondin! ter* )ould e 5nonsy* olic *otion.5 (t parturition each hu*an physiolo!ical or!anis* eco*es a separate ein!, a iolo!ical or!anis* )ith its o)n uniIue sensations, pleasures and pains <local to itself, as focused y the centrality of the nervous syste*=. 0ach such individual lives and dies as a *aterial thin!, like other ani*als in the real* of *otion. But unlike all other earthly ani*als <to our kno)led!e= the hu*an kind is geneti'ally, )hysiologi'ally, materially endo)ed )ith the a ility to learn the kind of lan!ua!e )hich ?o!olo!y )ould call 5sy* olic action,5 and )hich *onistic reductionists )ould call 5ver al ehavior.5 -hus ?o!olo!y )ould not consider e'peri*ents on la oratory ani*als adeIuate to enco*pass a study of the hu*an ani*al. & 247 & ( fe) further introductory re*arks are needed. Cor ?o!olo!ical purposes, the *etaphysical desi!n of ?ei niBFs 5*onadolo!y5 can e !iven sheerly e*pirical analo!ues. -hrou!hout the Universe, in the real* of natural *otion, at every instant there is an infinite nu* er of discri*inations takin! place. (n o vious instance: a Iuantity of 82 . is in the liIuid for* of )ater. -he te*perature drops, and at a 5critical point5 the liIuid 5discri*inates5 y ehavin! as a solid, ice. .r the te*perature rises to a critical point )here the liIuid eco*es a !as, stea*. Presu*a ly every cell of our ody is *akin! discri*inations of so*e sort, in the processes of *eta olis*, the real* of *aterial *otions, y )hich the ody e'ists as a physiolo!ical or!anis*. . viously, )e are aware of ut fe) such discri*inations. +nsofar as )e are a)are of discri*inations, let us call that condition 5consciousness.5 By the 5unconscious5 )ould e *eant the processes )ithin and a out us that )e are unaware of, includin! even our un a)areness, our un consciousness, of the )ays )here y )e are conscious. + donFt see ho) Behaviorists <and + deli!ht in ha!!lin! )ith the* in *atters of this sort= could possi ly rule out such an o vious discri*ination, in their *issionary Beal to find no roo* for 5consciousness.5 But that rin!s *e to *y ulti*ate ?o!olo!ical dispute )ith the Behaviorists. -hey )ould rule out 5*ind5L -hen ho) a out definin! 5*ind5 this )ay: By 5*ind5 is *eant 5the hu*an ein!Fs !enetically <that is, physiolo!ically= endo)ed a ility to acIuire the special arts of ver al ehavior.5 .ne *ore point, and + think + can round out this introduction y tyin! our *odes of sy* olicity in )ith *y openin! ?o!olo!ical distinction et)een history and historicis*. + take it that the kind of aptitude for )hat is called 5ver al ehavior5 <)hich also includes the acIuirin! of sy* olAsyste*s !enerally, such as *usic, paintin!, sculpture, dance, etc.= can e posited as the differentia that defines us e*pirically as our specific kind of ani*al. 2uch 5ar itrary, conventional5 sy* olAsyste*s have co*e

and !one since the days of prehistory )hen our kind e!an developin! these aptitudes, the a ility to do so ein! !rounded in the ody as a physiolo!ical or!anis*. -his *ini*u* eIuivalent of )hat in *etaphysics or theolo!y )ould e called 5*ind5 or 5spirit5 )ould involve a social or collective *ediu*. (nthropolo!ists )ould assi!n it to the real* of 5culture5 as distinct fro* 5nature,5 thou!h in its pri*itive sta!es the t)o real*s *i!ht not look *uch different fro* each other, as ad#oinin! thin!s seen fro* a distance see* to *er!e. (s our ter*s for i*a!es, concepts, ideas, properties, attitudes, paradi!*s, & 243 & perspectives, situations, processes, and relationships took for*, they eca*e in effect a universe of their o)n. (lso, the *edia usin! these )urely sym&oli' devices *ade possi le the kinds of attention and co**unication that !radually led to the invention and distri ution of tools <)ith correspondin! *ethods and attitudes=. (nd thus )e no) confront the !radual accu*ulation of *anA*ade ne)Athin!s that constitute )hat )e call the institutions of 5-echnolo!y.5

/. 'A*IA!IO+S O& !"# S,5C#C!

-his su #ect lends itself to so *any 5radiations,5 so *any 5crossroads,5 as one thin! leads to another, that it is advisa le for *e to foretell fro* the start )here these o servations a out foretellin! plan to end up. By 5radiations5 + have in *ind incidental encounters of this sort: -he thou!ht of Providence as )res'ien'e, foresi!ht, forekno)led!e can co*prise *anifestations as various as @ivine Coreordination <Predestination, eternal da*nation as 5correlative5 to 5life eternal5=, insurance a!ainst risk of loss <a sideAroad that in turn could lead to *odes of invest*ent as different as those treated in a stock rokerFs *arket report and the kind of 5hed!in!5 to the ends of eternal salvation conceived of in 5PascalFs )a!er,5 PascalFs e'ceptional !enius alon! the lines of the es)rit (e g@ometrie havin! ena led hi* to )ork out the *athe*atics of the odds in the co* inations of cards that happened to e in oneFs hand )hen !a* lin!= N or the principle of 5sacrifice5 i*plicit in all trade, )hich 5sa'ri$i'es !oods5 of one sort for the enefit to e !ained y acIuirin! in e'chan!e 5!oods5 of another sort6)hereat another al*ost !lorious side road turns up, as the i*itation of sacrifice in classic tra!edy is seen to e a !rand styliBin! of such arter, )hile the story of the sacrifice in ter*s of )hich the Christian church is rationaliBed conceives of a divine ranso* in this re!ard N and also alon! the line )e encounter Behaviorist pro#ects pro*isin! techniIues of prediction and control. .r there is elief and there is credit6etc.

4. +A!,'A% A+* !#C"+O%O(ICA% PO1#'S

2ince -echnolo!y fi!ures so nota ly in all the secular 5radiations5 of our key ter*, efore *ovin! on + )ould Iuote so*e para!raphs )hich !ive the !ist of *y historical speculations in the spirit of ?o!olo!y. <-hey )ere pu lished in the )inter "%4; issue of +riti'al 8n6uiry7: & 244 & ?etFs !o to the very center of the issue, na*ely: the relation et)een 5natural5 po)ers and 5technolo!ical5 po)er. 5/atural5 po)ers can do only )hat they are doin!. +f it 'an rain, it is rainin!. +f all that nature could rin! a out in a certain re!ion at a certain ti*e is a state of drou!ht, there is the irrefuta le evidence, an actual state of drou!ht. :hen there can e an earthIuake, there is an earthIuake. /ature 5unaided5 can *anifest only the co* ination

of conditions that add up to e'actly )hat they do add up to in relation to one another. But introduce the sym&ol gui(e( te'hni6ues o$ -e'hnology, and nature can e *ade to under!o Iuite startlin! anthropo*orphiBin! transfor*ations. Unaided nature, under present conditions, couldnFt have produced our present vast arsenals of ato*ic o* s. 2uch instru*ents could not have een rou!ht into e'istence <5created5= )ithout the savoir$aire of hu*an pro)ess, )hich has thus in effect een sculptin! its selfAi*a!e in the *aterials of nonhu*an nature, in effect leavin! si!ns every)here announcin!, 5Kin!kill Kilroy )as here.5 By placin! the )hole stress upon the flat distinction et)een supernatural and natural ter*s for discussin! the 5descent of *an,5 @ar)inis* deflected attention fro* the critical distinction et)een hu*an ani*als and other ani*als, a distinction )hich, thou!h !rounded in the hu*an ani*alFs sheer physiolo!y, *ade possi le the real* of technolo!ical counterAnature, )hich e!an to take for* )ith the first innovations of instru*ents and correspondin! *ethods ut has developed at a !reatly acceleratin! rate since the start of the +ndustrial ,evolution.

7. 2ICO<S .P'O2I*#+C#. I+ #&&#C! *#6C"'IS!IA+IF#S

9icoFs New /'ien'e offers a handy )ay into this discussion, includin! the fact that his )ork has so *any radiations )hen looked ack upon in the li!ht of su seIuent develop*ents. ?o!olo!ically considered, his notions of 5Providence5 are seen to e* ody theolo!ical connotations of such foresi!ht, even )hile pri*arily furtherin! secular variations on the sa*e the*e. (lso, at the roots of Christian theolo!y <)hich is ardently *onistic atop its -rinitarian aspect= there is )hat *i!ht e called an a* ivalently 5aAtheistic5 attitude, or latitude, as co*pared )ith polytheistic no*enclatures. <-he point is discussed on pa!es $03E;, in *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion#= +n pa!an polytheis*: (ny *otive, ha itat, natural po)er, institution, or *eans of livelihood could y lin!uistic a straction eco*e a 5!od.5 .ften the process )as hardly *ore than the effect )e !et y capitaliBin! a )ord, )ritin! 5-hunder5 instead of 5thunder,5 plus *ythic personifyin! of such a stractions. :here )e *i!ht !o fro* 5finance5 to 5Cinance,5 polytheis* could readily !o a step further, to the personal !od, Plutus. & 24; & -hus )hereas Christian *oralists have )arned a!ainst the evil tendency to 5*ake !ods5 of our a* itions, the early Dreek philosopher -hales piously proclai*ed the )orld 5full of !ods,5 and <as (ristotle reports in the 3e Anima= 5he said that the *a!net has a soul in it ecause it *oves the iron.5 +n 9ico, the notion of Go(Ks )ill as 5Providentially5 *otivatin! <foreordainin!= the course of history !ets a partially (e +hristiani?e( slant y introducin! a different di*ension. +n particular 9icoFs study of Dreek and ,o*an history had led hi* to a secular theory of cultural cycles in !eneral. (nd thus, althou!h he did treat of historical develop*ent in ter*s of 5Providence,5 it )as a ter* applied in a theory of si*ilar unfoldin!s local to different peoples )ithout relation to the allAi*portant rede*ptive role of the Christian sacrifice in the desi!n. 8is reli!ious, heroic, philosophic <scientific= sta!es, )ith relapses into ar aris*, anticipate the kind of cycles that 2pen!ler )as later to developG it )as a pattern that i*plicitly allo)ed for 2pen!lerFs sche*atiBin! of the 5conte*poraneous5 in )ays )here y the same sta!es of (i$$erent cultural cycles )ould e analyBed <analo!iBed= as 5conte*poraneous5 )ith each other. (nd he introduced this notion: the rulers of each sta!e the*selves rin! a out conditions that lead to their o)n undoin!, thus !ivin! rise to the ne't phase. -his pri*e irony )as rhetorically relished y the >ar'ist dialectic.

:ith re!ard to the present discussion, + recall a passa!e )hich + have referred to else)here in )ords of *y o)nG ut + cannot re*e* er e'actly )here it is in 9icoFs New /'ien'e, hence + cannot cite it as accurately as + )ish + could. -he desi!n <vie)ed ?o!olo!ically= is: 8u*ans are y nature cruel. (dd Coresi!ht, Providence, and their cruelty eco*es transfor*ed into the 5arts of defense.5 8u*ans are y nature !reedy. (dd Coresi!ht, Providence, and this !reed eco*es transfor*ed into the 5arts of co**erce.5 8u*ans are y nature vicious O*eanL over earin!L arro!antL 5a* itious5 in a ad senseL6hereFs )here + )ish + could verify the )ordin!P. (dd Coresi!ht, Providence6and the correspondin! transfor*ation is the 5arts of statecraft.5 + have not yet een a le to Iuote this passa!e *ore accurately. But in any case, the account is accurate enou!h to su stantiate *y conclusion that 9icoFs treat*ent of the relation et)een @ivine Providence and the correspondin! enact*ents in the antics of hu*an society involves a considera le step in the direction of *odern social science and a)ay fro* theolo!ical ans)ers to Iuestions a out 5-he Providence of Dod5 as propounded in the t)o !reat -ho*ist te'ts. & 24% &

=. #%IO!<S QUARTETS I+ !"# %I("! O& 2ICO

-hou!h ?o!olo!y 6ua ?o!olo!y can *ake no #ud!*ents a out the possi le truth or falsity of the olo!ical doctrine, it is o&vious to ?o!olo!y that the ter*s of 9icoFs perspective, near the e!innin! of the ei!hteenth century, do )ith 5Providence5 as a Iualitative step *uch the sa*e as BlakeFs doctrine of i*a!ination <near the end of the century= does, in addin! a di*ension that distin!uishes ideal hu*an *otivation <and correspondin! 5vision5= fro* that of the sheerly 5natural.5 + shall say *ore a out BlakeFs position <)hich )as i*patient )ith the pious cult of /ature involved in the hi!h value :ords)orth placed upon the role of the i*a!ination=. But first + )ould take this opportunity to cite a case )here + )as o viously ai*in! at a variant of the distinction that 9icoFs usa!e su!!ests, thou!h + did not *ention it ecause + did not kno) of it at the ti*e. + a* referrin! to a section, 50liot: 0arly Poe*s and JSuartets,K 5 in *y 4hetori' o$ 2otives<"%70=. 8ere the eIuivalent of 5Providence,5 as a ter* that stands for the introduction of a ne) !eneratin! principle, is the specific turn that is pro!ra**atically announced in 0liotFs pu lic platfor*: 5(n (n!loACatholic in reli!ion, a classicist in literature, and a royalist in politics.5 <+n For ,an'elot An(rewes, "%2;.= 8ere is )hat + )as tryin! to su!!est in those pa!es: -he poetFs pu lic )as e'pected to interpret his variations on the characteristic 5Prufrock5 role in the early poe*s as a dra*atic fiction. But the 5Suartets5 )ere a devout doctrinal state*ent of attitude y >r. 0liot in person, not as an artist depictin! an i*a!inary character for pure literary effect. ,ather, they are e'pected to e read as )holly sincere, poe*s as direct in their )ay as the +on$essions of 2aint (u!ustineG other)ise the poet )ould e a hypocrite. 2ince 0liotFs 5Prufrock5 poe* )as entitled 5-he ?ove 2on! of H. (lfred Prufrock,5 + *i!ht rin! out *y point *ost luntly y proposin!, if it )ere not *eant as personally sincere, so*e such !rotesIue 5literary5 title as 5Cour @evotional Poe*s, y H. (lfred Prufrock, 0sI., ,ecently ,e orn in Christ.5 +t )ould e a title unfit Iuite to the point of indecency. 8ence, in the li!ht of 9icoFs for*ula for 5Providence5 as !eneratin! a *otivational leap, )hat is involved hereL (s )ith Dreek *yth, or the Psal*s of the .ld -esta*ent, poetry e!ins in *odes of e'pression such that reli!ious and artistic *otives and styles are ine'trica ly inter)oven. :e also reco!niBe cultural develop*ents )here y the sacred and the profane, as )ith *uch i! usiness in the current entertain*ent industry, eco*e Iuite distinct. (nd there is a nota le inter*ediate area )here reli!ious attitudes survive vesti!ially in

& 2;0 & aestheticiBed for*. -he traditional use of Dreek *yth in :estern poetry is an o vious e'a*ple of this turn, )hich !ets i*pressive lyrical e'pression in KeatsFs 5.de on a Drecian Urn.5 :ords)orthFs variant involves verse e* odyin! a literary cult of nature that is conceived as divinely infused. 0ven so hilarious a *ediu* as (ristophanic co*edy has i*portant affinities of this sort, o)in! to the association of phallic rites )ith supernatural po)ers of fertility. -here are crude vesti!es in soap opera. +ntroduce the rationale of reli!ion into any ve'atious or e'actin! situation, and you can nota ly *odify the Iuality of the *otives in ter*s of )hich you confront that situation. -hus, in early days )hen elievers assu*ed that the 2econd Co*in! )as near at hand, an inso*niac could have transfor*ed his urden into a rite of )atchin! and )aitin!, that is, keepin! vi!il. (nd there are at least traces of a different *otivational Iuality if so*e ore or nuisance of a nei!h or is referred to not as a ore or a nuisance, ut as oneFs 5cross to ear.5 (lon! that line + )ould say: By his conversion 0liot didnFt si*ply a andon the kind of attitudes, or te*pera*ental ha its that he !ave for*al poetic e'pression to in the poetry of his early Prufrock days. 8e retained the*, ut in a critically reconstituted for*. +t )ould e like the difference et)een dietin! ecause of o esity or indi!estion or hi!h lood pressure, and dietin! as a *atter of principle. Cor a seein! in )ays of our o)n, )e can refer in advance to the place )here )e consider ho), )ith 2aint (u!ustine, theolo!yFs vie)s on Predestination could )ell acco**odate even the sack of ,o*e. Cor the desi!n )as co*prehensively developed over *any years under pressure of *any varied needs. 5Providentially,5 one *i!ht say in !ood faith: +*plicit in the !esture of the so*e)hat precious, literarily ele!ant la*ent that )as e* odied in 0liotFs )ay of adoptin! and adaptin! the skillful stylistics of Hules ?afor!ue there )ere the e!innin!s of its transfi!uration in ter*s of the outri!ht theolo!ical perspective intrinsic to the 5Suartets.5 .nce )e stop to consider the t)o sta!es in this li!ht, the first sta!e ein! not a&an(one( in the second sta!e, ut trans$orme(<as the analo!ue of 9icoFs 5Providence5 in effect added to the second sta!e a kind of 5!race5 that 5perfected5 rather than 5a olished,5 the 5nature5 of sta!e one= )e see that 0liot has said as *uch in his o)n ter*s. Consider, for instance, the openin! lines: -i*e present and ti*e past (re oth perhaps present in ti*e future, (nd ti*e future contained in ti*e past, & 2;" & a desi!n repeated *ore for*ulaically in the second poe*, 5+n *y e!innin! is *y end,5 )hich is also stated in reverse. -here are *any variants, for instance this repetition of the sa*e ter*, ut )ith shifted connotations: -he only hope, or else despair ?ies in the choice of pyre or pyre -o e redee*ed fro* fire y fire. .r the rock of the parched desert in 5-he :asteland5 can eco*e the rock of reli!ious fortitudeG talk of a rose !arden can refer to *e*ories of a secular sort, then take on di*ensions of a so*e)hat *ystic unfoldin! and enfold*ent. .r consider the up!radin! of 5turn,5 as we turn fro* its incidence in

5Prufrock5 <"%"4= and 5(sh :ednesday5 <"%30=, )hile one *i!ht, in the li!ht of hindsi!ht, note the incipiently punnin! predestinations <5rock5 and 5pure frock5= in the sylla les of the poetFs early surro!ate.

6. *#+IS *O+O(",#<S THIEVES OF FIRE

?o!olo!y ein! y definition Iuite 5)ordAconscious,5 the su #ect of 5Providence5 can readily radiate into speculations a out Pro*etheus, )hose na*e is ety*olo!ically a synony* for 5foresi!ht.5 (nd this heroically endurin! -itan, )hose sufferin!s, like those of the ChristiansF Dod, *arked hi* as a sacrificial victi* in ehalf of hu*ankindFs )elfare, also elon!s in our co**entaries ecause of his *ythic association )ith the e!innin!s of -echnolo!y. (nd there are further !rounds for turnin! ne't to this fi!ure ecause )e can approach the su #ect throu!h a hi!hly su!!estive ook y @enis @ono!hue, -hieves o$ Fire, the printed version of several -. 2. 0liot >e*orial ?ectures entitled 5-he Pro*etheans,5 a na*e he !ives to *e* ers of a literary tradition )ith )hich 0liot )as Iuite pro!ra**atically at odds. @enis @ono!hue presents the case thus: +t is proper to say of the Pro*ethean intervention in hu*an history that it )as a onceAforAall affair, as a result of )hich )e kno) )e canFt !o ho*e a!ain: the intervention is historical and irrevoca le, its chief characteristic is that it cannot e deleted. -heft of the divine po)er of kno)led!e *ade reflection possi le and therefore necessaryG it *ade *en selfAa)are, self conscious, it *ade the hu*an race a *ultitude of refle'ive ani*als. But the !ift of consciousness is stolen, it introduces division into consciousness itself, as a *ark of !uilt. N Consciousness is stolen fruit or stolen fire, in either for* the ori!inal sin, source of a correspondin!ly ori!inal !uilt. >en take the har* out of it y convertin! so*e of its ener!y to a pious end, the & 2;2 & kno)led!e of Dod, or its secular for*, the kno)led!e of /ature. But for!iveness is never co*plete. N -he refle'iveness of *ind, )hich is in one sense its !lory, is in another a token of its cri*inality, its trans!ression at the source N he theft also !ave *en the po)er and the ha it of self e'pression y recourse to sy* olsG it allo)ed the* to *ediate et)een t)o kinds of e'perience lately sundered6 nature and *an, or as )e )ould no) say nature and culture. N ( ove all, Pro*etheus *ade possi le the i*a!inative enhance*ent of e'perience. -he so*eti*es Iuaint ook, 2ythology, of -ho*as Bulfinch <"4%3E";34= rin!s out the related set of i*plications re!ardin! the role of Pro*etheus: :ith this !ift *an )as *ore than a *atch for all other ani*als. +t ena led hi* to *ake )eapons )here)ith to su due the*G tools )ith )hich to cultivate the 0arthG to )ar* his d)ellin!, so as to e co*paratively independent of cli*ateG and finally to introduce the arts and to coin *oney, the *eans of trade and co**erce. Dra**ar ein! )hat it is, and *yth ein! nothin! if not !ra**atical, Pro*etheus had a rother 0pi*etheus. -hey )ere thus related as prolo!ue is to epilo!ue, as Corethou!ht is to (fterthou!ht. (nd it )as (fterthou!ht to )ho* Pandora <)hich *eans 5!iver of all5 as an epithet applied to 0arth, and 5allAendo)ed5 as a proper na*e, and )hose o' )as to raise so *uch trou le )hen thin!s !ot loose= )as sent do)n as the first )o*an, and )as )elco*ed y (fterA-hou!ht despite the ad*onitions of Corethou!ht. ?o!olo!y needs ut put all these pieces to!ether in one undle in connection )ith the fact that, as Bulfinch says, )hen 5there escaped a *ultitude of pla!ues for hapless *an,5 there )as left ut one !ood. But it )as a stron!ly futuristic one, thus at least on the slope of the providential: hope.

. '#%A!#* O5S#'2A!IO+S A+#+! %O(O%O($

+ particularly relish that ecause, thou!h the tinkerin!s of -echnolo!y have een al*ost fa ulously profuse in the proliferation of *anA*ade instru*ents, *ethods, and )orld)ide interrelationships that are constantly !ettin! out of order, at the sa*e ti*e there is al)ays an eIual profusion of hopeful assurances that, )ith ut a it *ore tinkerin!, all )ill e in order. (lon! )ith its !reat *ultiplication of thin!s, -echnolo!y pro*ises us that in ti*e there )ill e a pill for everythin!. ?o!olo!y, + fear, has ut )hat *ost people )ould pro a ly consider a dreary su stitute for hopeG na*ely, the futuristically slanted *ethodolo!ical en!ross*ent in the trackin! do)n of i*plications, )hich *ay a*ount to & 2;3 & translatin! the !rand oracular utterance, 5Kno) thyself5 into 52py on thyself.5 >yths are *ore hospita le to several *eanin!s than are the do!*as of theolo!y, the definitions of philosophy, and the *athe*atically precise *easure*ents of science. -hus esides the relation of Pro*etheus to fire as a pri*e *aterial po)er in the shapin! of hu*an destiny, there is the fiery Pro*ethean truculence as depicted in the only tra!edy that survives fro* the trilo!y of (eschylus6and @ono!hue takes off fro* that in selectin! the four tur ulent !eniuses, Hohn >ilton, :illia* Blake, 8er*an >elville, and @. 8. ?a)rence, )ho* he selects to discuss as his e'a*ples of the type, the epithet ein! one )hich ,i* aud applied to 5the poet5 in !eneral. + see the* as variously responsive to *otivational situations )hich are poi!nantly responsive to nota le chan!es produced y the increasin! pace of technolo!ical advance in the state of CounterA/ature that could not have e*er!ed in their ti*es )ithout the accu*ulated operations of peculiarly hu*an inventions. -hese develop*ents could e said to have een *ythically foretold as a tortured -itanFs !ift of stolen fire to hu*ankind <thus hu*an natureFs pro)ess in transfor*in! the conditions of nonhu*an nature y oth intent and accident, that is, the hopes in a ne) order, alon! )ith the hopes of controllin! the riot of ne) disorders that arose as unintended yAproducts of the innovations=. Cor + )ould hold that there is an ironic kind of predestination let loose ut concealed here, in a tacit assu*ption. + )ould call it the 5instru*entalist fallacy,5 )hich prevails not y ein! affir*ed ut y ein! overlooked in particular cases, althou!h )henever it is *entioned people are Iuite likely to a!ree in !eneral that it is a fallacy. -he 5instru*entalist fallacy5 <or perhaps 5Iuandary5= is the unstated assu*ption that any i*prove*ent in instru*ents or *ethods is to e evaluated solely in ter*s of its nature as that i*prove*ent. But everythin! has a nature of its o)n, and this identity is not reduci le to its nature as the function for )hich it )as rationally desi!ned. -hus so far as our adaptation to ne) e'periences is concerned, the PandoraFs o' of accu*ulated CounterA/atural innovations, )hich co*e to see* like a 5second nature,5 *ay reIuire *uch *ore analytic research and corrective tinkerin! than the instru*entalist fallacy ad*onishes us to suspect. :e are accusto*ed no) to 5i*pact state*ents,5 preparatory research seekin! to foretell < e provident or prudent a out= the possi le cultural and econo*ic effects that so*e ne) construction pro#ect *ay have on the surroundin! environ*ent. But & 2;$ & thou!hts of -echnolo!ical (ccu*ulation as a real* of CounterA/ature lead us to ask )hether -echnolo!yFs critiIue of itself *ay not reIuire 'onstant s)e'ulative<analytic, dia!nostic, dataA !atherin!= resear'h into the nature of its im)a't#

>. *O+O(",# O+ 5%A9#

2o *uch for possi le ulti*ate inIuiries into the relation et)een CounterA/ature and the role of cantankerous 5Pro*ethean5 poets )hose )ay of confrontin! such *atters *ay e so rounda out as to see* like involve*ent in a totally different cultural !roove. +n any case, )hen featurin! the pri*arily 5literary5 aspects of the )riters )ho* he selects as e'a*ples of the 5Pro*ethean5 te*per, @ono!hue has done enou!h, and a*ply, in pa!es vi rantly su!!estive. But + canFt do his ook #ustice in detail, for + have contracted to keep *ovin! on as one thin! leads to another. 8o)ever, here is an ideal passa!e to help *e on *y )ay. Blake, he says, is 5dedicated to the pri*acy of vision.5 </ote that 5pri*acy of vision5 is another 5Providence5 ter*.= But this faculty is a strictly hu*an po)er superhu*an in its ori!in: he feels no loyalty to :ords)orthian reco!nitions and ackno)led!*ents, that is, to the :ords)orthian cult of loyalty to nature, since these are tokens of a la) that *an has not esta lished. Blake elieves that the natural )orld *ay e redee*ed y *anFs i*a!ination, *ay e rendered hu*an and therefore transfi!ured. :ords)orth elieves that the natural )orld is already lessed, and that *an has ut to reco!niBe that condition and live accordin!ly: such a life )ould *ean *anFs rede*ption. BlakeFs *ost co*plete relation is to his o)n i*a!ination N his relation to the !iven )orld is defiant N n Blake, the Pro*ethean i*a!ination is a for* of ener!y O)hich is pro#ectedP into the other)ise *erely natural )orld. -his visionary i*a!ination is 5the distinctively ori!inal po)er, the alpha of hu*an history N the secular *anifestation of divine po)ers N Dod and the i*a!ination are one.5 But not only does the notion of the poetic i*a!ination as a creative po)er provide an aesthetic su stitute for the theolo!y of Providence as a principle of Coreordination. 9ie)in! the foresi!ht of BlakeFs prophetic !ospel no) fro* the standpoint of historio!raphic hindsi!ht, )e can realiBe that an ans)er to his call for the transcendin! of natural la)s y pere*ptory *odes of purely hu*an affir*ation )as even then takin! shape. Cor already, in keepin! )ith )hat 8enry (da*s )as to propound as the 5la) of the acceleration of history,5 the pace of the +ndustrial ,evolution )as e!innin! to speed & 2;7 & up, )e *i!ht al*ost say 5trau*atically.5 -he advances of -echnolo!y had attained a sta!e of develop*ent that invited *any ne) aspects of pure scientific speculation6and the conditions )ere such that the i*a!inin!s could e practically i*ple*ented, even to the e'tent of i*perialistic a!!randiBe*ent. + have een told that + a* )ron! in *y vie) of )hat people !enerally think, )ith re!ard to the relation et)een pure science and applied science. Cor + )ould stress the fact that the state of -echnolo!y itself provides the conditions )hich open up avenues of 5pure5 speculation. +nstru*ents and *ethods are like i*a!es, in su!!estin! ne) sets of i*plications, variants of the Didean for*ula, 5)hat )ould happen if NL5 a species of !ratuitous sophistication not confined to Didean ethical a errancies.

9. &,'!"#' O+ CO,+!#'6+A!,'#
:hen Blake )as )ritin!, develop*ents )ere already under )ay )hich no) pro*ise such transcendin! of natural conditions as can e provided y advances in !enetic en!ineerin!. 2uch a real* of CounterA /ature is to e distin!uished fro* )hatever *i!ht e called a 2upernatural real*. Cor )hereas such a real* is, y definition, outside the natural, the ter* 5CounterA/ature5 <to desi!nate the resources *ade possi le y the anthropo*orphiBin! !enius of -echnolo!y= has the ety*olo!ical a* ivalence of the ?atin preposition 'ontra, fro* )hich the prefi' 5counter5 is derived. +t can *ean 5a!ainst5 oth in the sense of 5opposed to5 and in the sense of 5in close contact )ith,5 as in the sentence 5-o race hi*self

he leaned a!ainst a tree5G and the sa*e root, 'ontra, !ives the patriot his proud e'pression, 5*y country.5 + previously Iuoted a passa!e in )hich + discussed the difference et)een 5natural5 and 5technolo!ical5 po)ers. Perhaps + should say *ore on that point, )hich co*es to a head in *y pleas for the ter*, 5CounterA/ature.5 :e are not concerned here *erely )ith the choice of a wor(# -he i*portant thin! is: -he proposed ter* points up a *atter of (erivation that is concealed )hen )e have ut the contrast et)een 5natural5 and 5supernatural5 real*s, a contrast )hich the ter* 5CounterA /ature5 is specifically desi!ned to o viate. -o adapt a it *ore fro* the article + already *entioned: -he flat distinction et)een 5ideas5 as derivative 5fro* the otto* up5 accordin! to the !enealo!y of >ar'ist dialectical *aterialis*, and 5fro* the top do)n5 in 8e!elFs dialectical idealis*, invites a kind of 5!enetic fallacy5 )here y overstress upon the origins of so*e *anifestation can deflect attention fro* )hat it is, re!ardless of )hat it ca*e fro*. & 2;3 & -he difference et)een technolo!ical po)er and ra) natural po)er is )er se evidence of the )ay in )hich the transfor*in! potentialities of sy* olis*Fs 5ideas5 can 5transcend5 nature )ithout ein! either orthodo'ly supernatural or rooted in a 8e!elian ( solute. -hou!h the chan!e fro* the hu*an or!anis*Fs )holly 5natural5 condition, as an ani*al like other ani*als, e!an )ith the *ost pri*itive uses of lan!ua!e in assistin! the develop*ent of tools and in reinforcin! the i*itation of ne) procedures, + )ould assu*e that only )ithin the last t)o centuries the i*ple*entin! of such inventiveness <cul*inatin! in la oratory techniIues for the ever *ore efficient invention of further inventiveness= has produced a revolutionary e'plosion in the correspondin! real* of CounterA/ature <usually referred to as the a ility of hu*ankind henceforth to !uide its o)n evolution rather than ein! su #ect to the instincts and la)s of natural selection, a develop*ent )hich @ar)in studied and )hich >ar' heralded as the rise of 5ne) needs5 under *odern *ethods of production=. + call that a real* of 5CounterA/ature5 in the sense that, if all such *anA*ade eIuip*ent )ere suddenly !one, youFd have to try *akin! a livin! under 5natural5 conditions, thou!h )e eco*e accusto*ed to our 5unnatural5 )ays as a kind of 5second nature.5 .nce our kind of physiolo!ical or!anis* e*er!es fro* infancy <speechlessness= into fa*iliarity )ith a sy* olAsyste* such as a tri al lan!ua!e N it is characteriBed y a property, or faculty, that infuses all e'perience )ith its hu*an nature6)hence the 5anthropo*orphis*5 inherent in )hat, over half a century a!o, + Iuaintly called 5the thin! added6the little )hite houses in a valley that )as once a )ilderness.5 By identifyin! such sy* olic pro)ess )ith an 5entelechial principle5 + have in *ind the notion that inherent in it there is the incentive to 5perfect5 itself y coverin! *ore and *ore !round. Cor such a potentiality is sayin! in effect: 5:hatever the nonver al, there are )ords for it, ran!in! all the )ay fro* the technically, scientifically couched analysis of a situation or process to a sheer e'pression of attitude, as )ith the poetFs feelin! that sprin! reIuires co*pletion in a sprin! son! or a devout elieverFs J!estureK of reverence in his sy* olic act of prayer.5 -he rudi*ent of 5Purpose5 in this re!ard + )ould !round in the sheerly physiolo!ical needs for food, shelter, and se', ut the 5anthropo*orphic5 ran!e is the e*pirical eIuivalent of unfinishedness, )hat has een called hu*anityFs 5divine discontent.5 .n the side of sy* olis*, it all e!ins )ith the purely for*al fact that a sentence is fully a sentence only insofar as it has a meaning, and such a meaning is its purpose. & 2;4 &

2o )e 5naturally5 start fro* there and ai* to endo) everythin! in nature )ith the kind of 5*eanin!fulness5 that a sentence has. -he pra!*atic perfectin! of the entelechial principle itself in ter*s of *ediation <Dermittlung= y in!eniously e'tendin! the real* of CounterA/ature ever further into the real* of nonsy* olic nature is <take your choice= either an overall hu*an purpose, particularly in its attendant needs to )orry a out its side effects, or a kind of neoA2chopenhauerean co*pulsion. N ?o!olo!y *ust confront history, first of all, not in ter*s of historical chan!e, ut in ter*s of the Iuestion, 5:hat is it to e the typically sy* olAusin! ani*alL5

1E. C'O)1#%% O+ .P'O2I*#+C#. A+* +#C#SSI!$

:ith re!ard to the ter* 5Providence5 itself, rather than its *anifold 5radiations,5 here is an instance )hich does co*e close <thou!h )ith a difference= to the 9ico for*ula. <+ discuss it in *y 4hetori' o$ 2otivesO"%70P, ""2 ff= +t is in connection )ith a speech delivered y .liver Cro*)ell efore the 8ouse of Co**ons, Hanuary 22, "377. Cro*)ell refers to the ,evolution as an instance of 5Dod *anifestin! 8i*self.5 -he fact that the ,evolution succeeded is cited as per se evidence of DodFs )ill. 8e sees in it a 5necessity5 i*posed y 5Providence.5 -he 9ico touch fi!ures thus: ,eli!ion )as not the thin! at first contested for 5at all5: ut Dod rou!ht it to that issue at lastG and !ave it unto us y )ay of redundancyG and at last it proved to e that )hich )as *ost dear to us. (!ain, after assertin! that 5they do vilify and lessen the )orks of Dod5 )ho accuse hi* of 5havin!, in these !reat ,evolutions, *ade /ecessities,5 he says: -here is another /ecessity, )hich you have put upon us, and )e have not sou!ht. + appeal to Dod, (n!els and >en,6if + shall no) raise *oney accordin! to the (rticle in the Dovern*ent, )hether + a* not co*pelled to do itQ -he role of 5Dod5 or 5Providence5 here <as )e *ay refer either to Dod as Providence or the 5Providence of Dod5= is stressed in ans)er to the char!e that the success of the ,evolution depended upon his special skill as a conspirator: 5+t )as,5 say so*e, 5the cunnin! of the ?ord Protector,56+ take it to *yself,65it )as the craft of such a *an, and his plot, that hath rou!ht it & 2;; & a outQ5 (nd, as they say in other countries, 5-here are five or si' cunnin! *en in 0n!land that have skillG they do all these thin!s.5 .h, )hat lasphe*y is thisQ Because *en that are )ithout Dod in the )orld, and )alk not )ith 8i*, kno) not )hat it is to pray or elieve, and to receive returns fro* Dod. (nd he clinches *atters thus: +f this e of hu*an structure and invention, and if it e an old Plottin! and Contrivin! to rin! thin!s to this +ssue, and that they are not the Births of Providence,6then they )ill tu* le.

11. )O'# O+ +A!,'# A+* CO,+!#'6+A!,'# SO)#1"#'#

<+ for!ot )here, and +Fve never een a le to find so*eone )ho could tell *e )here= in references to scholastic theolo!y + ran across a definition of Dod as 5the !round of all possi ility.5 +t al)ays see*ed to *e that, if such a 5!round5 )ere not defined as 5personal5 or 5intellectual5 <a Bein! )ho *i!ht *ake

Covenants )ith us=, even a confir*ed atheist could !o alon! )ith that definition. +tFs so*e)hat in the sa*e !roove )ith the definition of politics as 5the art of the possi le.5 + )ould introduce it here as a rid!e to a ter*inolo!y of a Iuite different te*per. -he secular analo!ue of )hat Cro*)ell calls 5the Births of Providence5 in connection )ith the success of a ,evolution that put the deposed *onarch to death )ould e, in the >ar'ist no*enclature of dialectical *aterialis*, the pri*e e*phasis upon the 5necessities5 of the 5o #ective situation,5 the 5scientific5 instruction that the ,evolution could succeed only )hen the ti*e )as ripe. ?o!olo!ical doctrine !oes alon! )ith Cro*)ell and >ar' here, in notin! that technolo!ical po)ers can 5succeed5 only to the e'tent that they acco**odate the*selves to the 5necessities5 of the situation as 5deter*ined5 y the natural conditions )hich are the *aterial 5!round5 of their operation. 5Coreordination5 of so*e sort is i*plicit in the fact that the fetus of one ani*al does not develop into the offsprin! of another. (nd if the presently e*er!ent skills of io!enetic en!ineerin! develop to the point )here transfor*ations of e'actly that sort can e proposed <)ith, say, further insi!ht into the resources of reco* inant @/(=, the sa*e underlyin! la)s of *otion that *ade such a develop*ent i*possi le )ithout the intervention of hu*an ioen!ineerin! )ould still circu*a* iently prevail, #ust as the natural conditions that *ade possi le the accu*ulation of thirty to fifty thousand che*ical )aste disposal du*ps <*any of the* to'ic= across the country )ere not & 2;% & 5a olished5 y technolo!ersF 5free5 acts )hen settin! up a real* of CounterA/ature in those areas. /ature can do no )ron!, for )hatever it does is nature. +ts role as 5CounterA/ature5 fi!ures only )ith reference to its *anA*ade plastic effects upon nature. (t present, only )ith the aid of sy* olA!uided technolo!ic po)ers could sheerly natural po)ers do a !rand #o of )orld)ide !enocidal pollution. +ncidentally, althou!h + canFt resist hecklin! no) and then, in rin!in! out the suicidalA!enocidal aspects of technolo!ical po)er !one )ron!, + do not #ud!e *y position as outside the technolo!ical or it. +n fact, + take it that ?o!olo!yFs )an *ethodolo!ical analo!ue of 8.P0, its involve*ent )ith 5the trackin! do)n of i*plications,5 is at every point follo)in! i*plications that -echnolo!y itself rin!s to the fore, throu!h the su!!estiveness of its concepts and ideas, of its things as a kind of imagery, and particularly )ith re!ard to possi le relations et)een artificial +ounter Nature and the odyFs ori!ins in nature oldstyle6ori!ins that are not a)ay ack and no) a andoned, ut are still imme(iately )ith us every ti*e )e reathe6and they had etter e, unless each *e* er of our species is to e supplied )ith an artificial respirator like those provided in hospitals <5provided56thereFs that )ord a!ainQ=, provided for patients )hose odies suffer fro* the privation of an aptitude nor*al and natural to our species. ?o!olo!y is vi!ilant )ith ad*onitions <and correspondin! perspectives= that the resources of -echnolo!y have rou!ht into ein! y e'actly those conditions6hence a )hole ne) set of *oot Iuestions arises. +tFs not inconceiva le that full technolo!ical develop*ent could e the flo)er of :estern culture !one to seed in a desert of its o)n *akin!. .r, other)ise put: 2o far as + can *ake out, a co*puter has no *ore 5sense of principles5 than does a stone rollin! do)n a hill. +ts i*itation of the 5rational5 is an 5efficient5 reduction of hu*an 5reasona leness5 to the ed!e of a surdity. +t canFt distin!uish one +s* fro* another. +t could distin!uish et)een a >ar'ist and a nonA>ar'ist only if one could say 5shi oleth5 and the other had to say 5si oleth56or y so*e other such distinction purely in the real* of *otion <as those t)o sounds are=. +tFs useful, ut Iuite dan!erous if too *any decisions <Iuestions of *otivation= are dele!ated to such devices as surro!ates for 5 rains.5

1/. )A'@<S CO,+!#'PA'! O& *I2I+# P'#*#S!I+A!IO+

-he >ar'ist dialectical counterpart of @ivine Predestination is, of course, the theory of successive transfor*ations in the nature of class & 2%0 & conflict, )ith each sta!e rin!in! a out the conditions that prepare the )ay for the ne't sta!e. >ar' e'plicitly says that althou!h the stress upon class conflict is usually associated )ith his na*e, he !ot such leads fro* the our!eois econo*ists. 8is contri ution )as the version of history desi!ned to foretell <+ have to check on the specific 5Providence5 )ord he uses here, ut + think it )as 5prove5= the inevita le develop*ent of the class stru!!le until the ulti*ate sta!e of class society, the dictatorship of the proletariat, )hich )ould in turn inevita ly lead to the a olition of all class conflict. .n this score ?o!olo!yFs stress upon the purely ver al <sy* olic= nature of the ne!ative points out a strate!ic transfor*ation of the dialectical desi!n in ter*s of )hich the various transfor*ations of the class stru!!le throu!h its successive sta!es are said to have taken place. :hen turnin! 8e!elFs idealistic dialectic into the contrary ter*s of dialectical *aterialis*, >ar' in effect 5reified5 the ne!ative, as thou!h it )ere real in the sense of a *aterial thin!. -he ter* 5ne!ativity,5 as applied y 8e!el to the positive )orld of *aterial 5o #ects,5 )as a meta)hysi'al concept *uch like 2pinoBaFs for*ula, omnis (eterminatio est negatio# :hen you scrap 8e!elFs idealistic rationale, and apply the ter* Iuasiscientifically to relations in the )orld of tu*ultuous historic details, *uch that is actually a *atter of o))osition<as )ith the concept of 5classAconflict5 itself= !ets treated in ter*s of 5ne!ation,5 as one *i!ht loosely speak of rivals in a !a*e or of political factions as 5ne!atin!5 each other )hereas a >ar'ist narrative of such historic transfor*ations involves a vast )elter of such positive details as characteriBe all actual contests <that is, oppositions=. (nd althou!h they *ay e su**ed in ter*s of 5antithesis,5 that ter* itself is ety*olo!ically the Gree* )ord that corresponds e'actly to the ,atin )ord 5opposition.5 -hus, a >ar'ist history of the past ristles )ith positive descriptions of constantly chan!in! oppositions, or antitheses that lead to ne) ad#ust*ents, or transfor*ations )hich, in keepin! )ith the sa*e ety*olo!ical root, can e classified as 5syntheses.5 +n rief, old o) positions can eco*e transfor*ed into ne) 'om positions, )hich are )os itions that lead to ne) o) positions, Iuite as the sta!es of !ro)th fro* seed to sprout to stock to ranch to ud to flo)er to seed are not a succession of 5ne!ations5 ut aseIuence of trans$ormations, as )ei!hts in &alan'e<for )hich a synony* could e 5in o))osition5= are not 5ne!atin!5 each other. But holdQ -he dialectical desi!n itself under!oes a nota le transfor*ation )hen it turns fro* the records of the past to 5providential5 discussion of the future, )hich y the nature of the case can have no )elter & 2%" & of positive docu*entary details, e*pirical data, to )rite the history o$ and thus to )rite history with# :hereat loQ of a sudden a !enuine negative enters the desi!n. -he past has een a succession of class conflicts <oppositions=, all capa le of description y research and or!aniBation of details. But in the ideal future, class conflict disappears and is replaced y a state that is classAless. 8ere is an outri!ht ne!ative, !ot y the a&olition of classes. :ith re!ard to the our!eois version of secular providence in foretellin! the a olition of slavery, the >ar'ist dialectic interpreted this develop*ent in accordance )ith the principle of trans$ormation# -hat

is, it dia!nosed the historic develop*ent as a chan!e fro* slavery e'plicitly so called to 5)a!e slavery.5 But )hen confrontin! the possi le future a$ter capitalis*, instead of askin! )hat ne) kind of classification *i!ht develop out of the chan!e in property relationships the >ar'ist dialectic a ruptly chan!ed the rules and disposed of the issue y then, for the first ti*e, introducin! an a&solute ne!ative. ?o!olo!ically, the issue )ould e siBed up thus: -he pro*ises of the Crench ,evolution )ere slo!aniBed in keepin! )ith ,ousseauFs distinction et)een freedo* <independence= and slavery <su #ection=. -he inadeIuacies of so lunt a distinction still fi!ure, even after the step fro* 5)a!eA slavery5 has, y definition, een cul*inatively taken na perfectly socialiBed society that )as functionin! )ell, the individual citiBen )ould not e in(e)en(ent of his fello)s <that should e an out!ro)n our!eois ideal=. (ll are *utually interdependent upon the co*petence and !ood)ill of one another. (nd the $i'tions of private property )ould e replaced y the a'tualities of control <a develop*ent already Iuite evident in the conditions of social la or, as contrasted )ith in dividual enterprise, that are *anifested in the corporate or!aniBations of capitalis*=. (d*inistration is controlled not y the o)ners <the stockholders= ut y the *ana!ers, )ho usually o)n ut a s*all proportion of the stock. +n fact, the *ore )idely the stock !ets distri uted, the easier it is for insiders to keep control in their o)n hands, since the )ider the distri ution of o)nership a*on! s*all stockholders the harder it is for the o)ners to unite in the control of ad*inistrative policies )hich )ould rin! a hi!her proportion of the corporationFs profits to the o)ners, and less to the *ana!ers. +n the case of an ideal co**unist future, even if one !rants for the sake of the ar!u*ent that it is )orkin! #ustly, there )ould still e !rounds for contendin! that such a social order should not e defined as individual independence <freedo* fro* su #ection= ut as *utual su #ection of all & 2%2 & to all in a )ay that is !ratifyin! to all. +n fact, itFs hard to i*a!ine ho) any society that )ould involve so e'tensive and *anifold *odes of interaction as advanced -echnolo!y necessarily does could, y sheer definition, involve not *a'i*u* independence ut *a'i*u* interdependence, thou!h the )ord spontaneously su!!ests a riot of pro le*s.

14. P'O2I*#+C# I+ SAI+! !"O)AS AG,I+AS

(t this point )e confront a *a#or *o*ent, perhaps the *a#or *o*ent, in this ra* lin! survey <necessarily 5ra* lin!,5 since the 5radiations,5 or 5ripples,5 that follo) fro* the ter* 5Providence5 as a startin! point are so *anifold, ur!ent, and directly or fra!*entarily relevant to the 5eschatolo!ical5 aspects of the su #ect=. -he >ar'ist theory of history <past and predicted= re*inds us that 5Providence5 in the sense of thou!hts on first and last thin!s is e'plicitly treated in Iuestion 22 of 2aint -ho*asFs /umma -heologi'a and in chapter 3$ of his /umma addressed 5to the Dentiles.5 (nd ehind those there are 2aint (u!ustineFs *a#or )ritin!s on *atters of 5Predestination.5 <+ have especially in *ind that astoundin! )ork of !enius, -he +ity o$ Go(# ,ecall also the urnin! )ords on the ?ast Hud!*ent in the last ook of the /e) -esta*ent.= But *y ,ogologi'al approach to a te't per*its *e to *ake no #ud!*ent, )hatever a out the truth or falsity of -heologi'al teachin!s. 8ence + can discuss such te'ts only as for*s of 5sy* olic action5 that are to e analyBed purely as e'a*ples of ver al ehavior. Consider, for instance, the doctrine of *ete*psychosis, 5trans*i!ration of souls,5 in so*e 0astern reli!ions. +t i*plies different relations et)een the natural and supernatural orders than those propounded in connection )ith :estern tradition. +n the 0astern rationale, a person orn su #ect to !reat hardships and privations is thou!ht to have *erited these conditions as the result of evil )ays in his previous e'istencend if he ehaves etter

this ti*e, he )ill *erit correspondin!ly etter conditions on 5his ne't ti*e around,5 )hen his soul )ill have *i!rated into another ody. . viously, a theolo!ical rationale of that sort )ould e at odds )ith the (u!ustinian desi!n of Predestination, involvin! Providential *odes of Coreordination on DodFs part that )ould call for Iuite different ter*inistic ehavior on the part of the authorFs te't. (nd )ithin the necessary confines of ?o!olo!y, + could not properly choose et)een those t)o kinds of eschatolo!y. + could ut o serve ho) each desi!n is )orked out )ith re!ard to its o)n internal consistencyG and ho) it fi!ured in the shapin! of its elieversF attitudes to)ard conditions in this )orld, a kind & 2%3 & of speculation that )ould e so'iologi'ally relevant, )hether one or the other or neither rationale or Weltanshauung, or orientation or perspective or paradi!* happened to e theolo!ically true. -his position y no *eans elittles the !ravity of the issues ulti*ately involved. But ?o!olo!y, in the secular sense of the ter*, is y its o)n definition totally incapa le of *akin! a sin!le state*ent a out the real* of the supernatural. +ts or it ein! confined to the study of the )ordAusin! ani*al <or, *ore roadly, the sy* olAusin! ani*al= as orn )ordless and learnin! lan!ua!e in 5infancy,5 it can ut *ake state*ents a out the em)iri'al real* of sy* olic action, )hich does, ho)ever, include wor(s for the supernatural6and in *y #ud!*ent that ?o!olo!er is a poor one indeed )ho is not profoundly i*pressed y the su tlety, profundity, rilliance, and scope of the !reat theolo!ical and theolo!ically tin!ed te'ts that *ark the history of :estern thou!ht and :estern social or!aniBation. >ean)hile, these develop*ents see* to e approachin! a te*porary cul*ination of sorts in a state of affairs not 2upernatural, ut CounterA/atural, hu*an natureFs selfAportraiture via the in!enious innovations i*posed y hu*an enterprise upon the real* of nonhu*an nature, thou!h there are the pro le*s that ?o!olo!y )ould su* up under the head of the 5instru*entalist fallacy,5 5instru*entalist Iuandary,5 the constantly recurrin! te*ptation to i!nore the fact that every device or operation has a nature of its o)n, Iuite outside its nature as instru*ental to so*e particular hu*an purpose6and loQ there is the PandoraFs o' of pla!ues let loose in the *ultifarious !ifts connected )ith the Pro*ethean fire and thus Providentially i*plicit in the Dreek *yth of -echnolo!yFs e!innin!s <no) speedin! up e'ponentially in )hat 8enry (da*s called 5the la) of the acceleration of history5=. :ith re!ard to the no*enclature of -ho*asFs te'ts <vie)ed as )hat they ?o!olo!ically are, to e!in )ith, a set of ter*s dialectically adapted to one another= the 5radiations5 that *ost directly su!!est the*selves concern the relations of these te'ts to (u!ustine, (ristotle, and @uns 2cotusG and, of course, the ter* 5Providence5 is inte!rally inter)oven )ith the other ter*s in the te't concernin! Dod and DodFs po)ers, plus the fact that the key ter*s, 5intellect,5 5)ill,5 and 5!ood,5 in connection )ith @ivine Providence *ust e used not literally, ut analo!ically, as co*pared )ith their application to the field of hu*an psycholo!y, )here the ter* 5prudence5 <of the sa*e derivation ety*olo!ically as 5providence5= is, as + think -ho*as indicates, a etter fit ecause it applies to a kind of #ud!*ent, or )ay of siBin! thin!s up, that )ould have & 2%$ & no place in an allAseein! +ntellect. 8o)ever, in Iuestion 22, article ", -ho*as does offer reasons )hy, 5thou!h to take counsel *ay not e fittin! to Dod, insofar as counsel is inIuiry into *atters that are dou tful,5 the ter* 5prudence5 can e applied analo!ously to Dod. -he issue as to )hether +ntellect precedes :ill is *uch like the Iuestion of procession in the three

Persons of the -rinity. +t is, y definition, not a te*poral pro!ression, since the ti*eless nature of a 2upre*e Bein! )ould preclude te*poral succession a*on! such Po)ers. (t first + lo!olo!ically lined up the key ter*s thus: +n Dod Providence )ould necessarily e in itself an act of Creation, and hence of Coreordination. Cor the very act of Coreseein! the Cuture )ould e tanta*ount to Creatin! that future. By definition a @ivine +ntelli!ence cannot e )ron!, and nothin! that is understood y such a -i*eless +ntellect to e there could have een there )rior to the understandin! of itG thus the understandin! of it )ould e one )ith the )illin! of it, that is, the creatin! of it. (nd since Dod is y definition si*ple, DodFs +ntellect and 8is :ill are one )ith each other and )ith DodFs Providence. (lso, )hat is understood to e there and is )illed to e there )ould also necessarily e Dood, since an act i*plies a purpose, and DodFs universal act of Creation )ould necessarily e Dood, since as (ristotle says in the Ni'oma'haean Ethi's,5-he !ood has ri!htly een declared to e that at )hich all thin!s ai*.5 But here the act )ould e the Creation of the Dood rather than the pursuit of it. 8ence that )ould e supre*ely so in the case of Dod and in the Book of Denesis it is e'plicitly said that Dod found 8is Creation !ood. But there )as the controversy )ith the 2cotists, )ho )ould feature the :ill <hence the Cranciscan for*ula 5-he !ood is !ood ecause Dod )illed it,5 as distinct fro* the @o*inican for*ula, 5Dod )illed the !ood ecause it is !ood5=. (lso, -ho*as added a Iualification of this sort: DodFs :ill is rational, hence it acts in keepin! )ith the kno)led!e of the +ntellect. -hose )ho )ould feature the :ill over the +ntellect *i!ht hold that any i*putin! of a *otive for DodFs creative act i*plies a li*itation of DodFs freedo*. +t is, y definition, a pro le* eyond the ran!e of ?o!olo!ical co*petenceG and in any case, the issue has een decided historically in -ho*asFs favor. But an account of hu*ans in purely te*poral situations involves a considera le departure fro* the theolo!ical nature of intellect, )ill, and foresi!ht. 8u*an 5prudence,5 alon! )ith 5re*e* rance of thin!s past5 5memoria )raeteritorum7, and an 5understandin! of the present5 <intelligentia & E9L F )raesentium=, fro* )hich )e !ather, con#ecture 5ho) to provide for the future5 5(e $uturis )rovi(en(is7 is Iuite fra!*entary, and haltin!, in contrast )ith the co*prehensive po)ers of Dod, operatin! si*ultaneously, 5in no ti*e,5 and o*nisciently. -hus, in the Ni'oma'haean Ethi's<"""" a= (ristotle lists the various )ays in )hich )e *ay not kno) the 5circu*stances of an act,5 and to that e'tent )e are not free, for 5that )hich is done N y reason of i!norance is involuntary.5 +f there are three salads, and )e have a choice of one, and do not kno) that t)o of the* happen to e conta*inated, )e are not really free to *ake a 5rational5 choice unless )e kno) )hich t)o of those salads )e a solutely must not choose. -his is the sort of situation )hich )ould clearly fit 0n!elsFs precept, pro a ly an adaptation of 2pinoBa, that 5freedo* is the kno)led!e of necessity.5 :hen )e vote, )e are 5free5 to cast a allotG ut )hat do )e kno) a out the circu*stances of the act involved in this vote, as a 5free5 choiceL 2everal of our )ars )ere fou!ht under ad*inistrations that had e'plicitly contracted to keep us out of )ar. -here is no need to vie) such develop*ents si*ply as cases of deception. :hen votin! for the future, there is a sense in )hich no ody kno)s the circu*stances of the act, e'cept as confined to the *ere *atter of *arkin! a allot. But y definition the case of a 2upre*e .*niscient +ntelli!ence, )ith a Po)er of Providence that Corekno)s do)n to the last detail, the (ct of Predestination is a solutely free and one )ith Creation and its *odes of .rdination. -ho*as is Iuite e'plicit a out the difference et)een the literal and analo!ical uses of a ter*. But one canFt for*ulate a !eneral rule specifyin! e'actly )hat the difference is in particular cases. :here speculations involvin! such ter*s as +ntellect, :ill, and Corekno)led!e <Providence= are concerned,

)e *ust keep in *ind the o servations in (ristotleFs Ni'oma'haean Ethi's to the effect that an act is 5involuntary5 insofar as the a!ent does not kno) enou!h a out the 5circu*stances5 of that act. Cor DodFs Po)ers of +ntellect and :ill are those of an a solutely o*niscient (!ent, in co*parison )ith )hich the analo!ous co*petence of hu*an a!ents )ould e as the tiniest fraction of a fraction is to infinity. (nd + )ould have us keep this consideration in *ind ecause *y theory of ?o!olo!y involves *e in speculatively foretellin! a purely te*poral cul*ination, our )orldFs /e't Phase, althou!h the desi!n, like >ar'Fs, *akes no clai* to tell of such ulti*ate eschatolo!ical fulfill*ents as are so po)erfully and ur!ently, even a!!ressively, depicted in 2t. (u!ustineFs +ity o$ Go(# & 2%3 &

17. SAI+! A,(,S!I+#<S CITY OF GOD

:hereas *y #o is lar!ely ut to ask #ust )hat are the te*poral circu*stances that *i!ht #ustify a tract on ?o!olo!y as *y sy* olic act, in (u!ustineFs case the issue )as clear, and he treated of it )ith profusion and effusion of erudition and rhetorical drive enou!h to hu*iliate any ody )ho )ants to advocate anythin!. +Fd put his ook in the sa*e in )ith the ardent apocalypse that the /e) -esta*ent ends on. (u!ustine had lon! een e*phatic in his resistance to any heresy that looks for)ard to an eventual unfoldin! )here y thin!s )ill ease up for the sufferers in 8ell, )ho )ill eventually e #ud!ed to have suffered intensely enou!h and lon! enou!h. .n that score, incidentally, Deor!e -ho*son, in his Aes'hylus an( Athens, offers a*ple !rounds to assu*e that the Pro*ethean trilo!y )as of that desi!n. -hus the first play, the one that survived and that Percy Bysshe 2helley )as so deli!hted )ith, starts thin!s out )ith Reus as a ra) tyrant and Pro*etheus as a ra) re el, the plan ein! that, y the end of the third play, they oth had eased up, and eco*e reconciled. ?enin, alon! >ar'ist lines, foresa) a 5)itherin! a)ay of the 2tate5 such that class conflict )ould eventually su side. (nd 2hakespeare has in principle <sy* olically= retired fro* his role as a play)ri!ht, )hen Prospero a andoned his *a!ic y freein! (riel and Cali an, perfect surro!ates for the antitheses that dra*a feeds on. 9ie)ed ?o!olo!ically, the Christian threat and/or pro*ise of eternal 8ell, !oin! at top speed, and )ith full force, is a 5perfect5 refle' of the pri*e ethical distinction et)een 5do5 and 5donFt,5 t)o *a#or 5topics,5 )hich *eans in Dreek ety*olo!y 5places,5 for )hich the (fterlife )ill esta lish places actually, actual locations for those ulti*ate principles of discri*ination, Mes and /o, 5perfectly edified,5 that is 5co*prehensively structured.5 (nd an ulti*ate irony )ith re!ard to the contrast et)een the Christian and >ar'ist theories of transfor*ation )here y 5the @o)n shall e Up5 <as foretold in -he 2er*on on the >ount and the +ommunist 2ani$esto= is that, in the Christian desi!n those )ho ear )itness <that is, )ho are *artyred, 5*artyr5 ein! the Dreek )ord for 5)itness5= )ill thrive forever, )hereas those )ho die for the >ar'ist ,evolution )ill e 5!one for !ood.5 (nd the re)ards of their efforts )ill e reaped y later !enerations )ho suffered not at all for the Cause, an ironic situation )here y the pro*ises held out to the revolutionary *otivated y the rationale of dialectical *aterialis* are in one sense *uch *ore 5idealistic5 <as *odes of selfAsacrifice= than those held out to the Christian *artyr. & 2%4 & :ith re!ard to the desi!n developed in -he +ity o$ Go(< ook 2", chapter 23= esides Iuotin! i lical authority <>atthe) 27:3= (u!ustine offers an e'planation )hich co*es close to sheerly lo!olo!ical

ookAkeepin!. +n the passa!e Iuoted, Christ foretells oth 5eternal punish*ent5 for the sinners and 5life eternal5 for the saints. (u!ustine co**ents: +f oth destinies are 5eternal,5 then )e *ust either understand oth as lon!Acontinued ut at last ter*inatin!, or oth as endless. Cor they are correlative6on the one hand, punish*ent eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. (nd to say in one and the sa*e sense, life eternal shall e endless, punish*ent eternal shall co*e to an end, is the hei!ht of a surdity. :herefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall e endless, so too the eternal punish*ent of those )ho are doo*ed to it shall have no end. -here are rationales that could allo) for oth these destinies, as )ere the repro ates si*ply to fade out of e'istence. But the desi!n as (u!ustine kne) it, he elieved in )ith an i*plicit conviction that contri uted nota ly to the ur!ent eloIuence of his presentation. -he invasion of ,o*e y (laricFs ar arian horde fro* the north had een a startlin! event, thou!h one could ar!ue that it )as ut a ne) variant of the *any ti*es )hen ,o*eFs o)n ar*ies returned after a victorious ca*pai!n, and the soldiers had to e paid off so*eho), as usual )ith such *ove*ents. (lso, (laric )as a sort of order politician, )ell acIuainted )ith the )ays of ,o*an i*perialis* and its ar!ainin!s. (nd he )as even identified )ith a Christian heresy, the (rians )ho elieved that the 2on follo)ed the Cather in te*poral succession <for unlike oth Hohannine and secular ?o!olo!ists, they )ere una le to distin!uish et)een priority in time and priority in )rin'i)le7# -he Dentiles, the nonAChristian and nonAHe)ish citiBens of i*perial ,o*e <)hich had traditionally erected a te*ple to every !od of every duesApayin! province, thou!h that particular for* of the 5'u:us regio, eius religio5 desi!n )as fadin! fast= had itterly accused the Christians of rin!in! on the pu lic disaster y their *onotheistic disdain of the *any pa!an deities. But rather than *erely defendin! his fello) Christians a!ainst these char!es, (u!ustine in effect assu*ed the role not #ust of an accuser, ut of an educator y his version of the historical situation <his tale of t)o cities, conceived after the desi!n of the Chosen and the ,epro ates, thou!h they )ere not locally separate populations as )ith other cities, ut oth kinds of citiBens )ere scattered )ithin each ody politic=. (nd thanks to his eloIuent co**and of )hat, )ithin the conditions of the ti*es, )ould e the *ost relevant and persuasive erudition, he also )rote <)e *i!ht say, orro)in! fro* Cro*)ell, 5 y & 2%; & a undance5= the very prototype of a history conceived in ter*s of ( solute Predeter*ination. Cittin!ly the ?ast Hud!*ent of the @a*ned is the su #ect of the penulti*ate ook, the )ork endin! in the si!n of the saints and their eternal lessedness. But as co*pared )ith the pa!eant like, esoteric unfoldin!s in the Book of the (pocalypse that ends the /e) -esta*ent, the statuesIue )ork is rather of a practical, even ad*inistrative nature, since (u!ustine, follo)in! his conversion, eca*e as *uch en!rossed in the correlation et)een doctrine and *atters of ecclesiastical or!aniBation as the )riter, or )riters, of the Pauline 0pistles. 8e has a chapter, for instance, 50'a*ples fro* /ature Provin! that Bodies >ay ,e*ain Unconsu*ed and (live in Cire,5 e!innin! )ith the fact that 5the sala*ander lives in fire, as naturalists have recorded.5 -hou!h ?o!olo!y can *ake no #ud!*ent doctrinally a out (u!ustineFs doctrinal conclusions concernin! a ?ast Hud!*ent, it can )holly reco!niBe the intellectual *usculature of his efforts in ehalf of his Cause.

1=. "#+'$ A*A)S A+* SP#+(%#'

(*on! such te'ts as )e have een considerin!, all of )hich could strictly or loosely e called 5Predestinarian5 after their fashion, t)o *odern ones that particularly i*pressed *e <and oth in *uch the sa*e )ay= )ere -he E(u'ation o$ Henry A(ams and 2pen!lerFs 3e'line o$ the West# -he distinction

et)een a stron!ly a!rarian )ay of life and the later centuries *arked y the e'ponentially e'pandin! scope of the +ndustrial ,evolution <su**ed up fi!uratively y 8enry (da*s in ter*s of 59ir!in5 and 5@yna*o5= had its analo!ue in 2pen!lerFs distinction et)een 5culture5 and 5civiliBation5 <)hich )ere related so*e)hat as the ody in vi!orous years in contrast )ith that sa*e ody )hen !ro)in! old, and conseIuently *arked y hardenin! of the arteries=G a certain pliancy is !one. +n an early ook, <Attitu(es towar( HistoryO"%34P= conceived under the influence of those te'ts, and )ith that pattern in *ind, + uilt around a concept + called 5the ureaucratiBation of the i*a!inative.5 ( plan or pro#ect, in its early sta!es )ould have imaginative )lian'y ut insofar as it !ets or!aniBed <for )hich the dyslo!istic synony* is *y for*ula )as 5 ureaucratiBed5= it eco*es rigi(i$ie( y the accu*ulation of incidental details. (nd considerations of that sort are i*plicit in *y provisional ?o!olo!ical sche*atiBin! )ith re!ard to the destiny of the relation et)een & 2%% & lan!ua!e and -echnolo!y, due to -echnolo!yFs radical role in !eneratin! a real* of CounterA/ature. + shall try to *ake this closin! state*ent as rief as possi le, y reduction to a series of propositions.

16. CO,+!#'6+A!,'#- .&,%&I%%)#+!. 2IA !#C"+O%O($

". :hatever *ay e the ori!ins and end of hu*an e'istence, ?o!olo!y contracts to say only )hat can e ased on the definition of )hat, at the very least, )e undenia ly areG na*ely: physiolo!ical or!anis*s that are orn )ordless, and nor*ally learn )ords durin! the early years of our e*er!ence fro* infancy <that is, 5)ordlessness5=. 2. -hou!h the a&ility to learn such a *ediu* <of 5sy* olic action5= is in us as individual or!anis*s, the me(ium itself is a social product, and is *atured y its use in 5conte'ts of situation5 that are !rounded in the real* of nonsy* olic *otion, to )hich the real* of sy* olis* al)ays, *ore or less directly or indirectly refers. 3. :e can learn lan!ua!e only ecause its nature is such that )e can apply the sa*e )ords to different situationsG for )e learn )ords y hearin! the* said a!ain and a!ain in different situations6and all situations in their details are uniIue. $. -hus i*plicit in the applyin! of the sa*e )ords to different conte'ts there is a principle of analo!ical e'tension <)hich )e also in so*e cases call a 5*etaphorical5 e'tension=. 7. -hus lan!ua!e oth sharpens our attention to )hat a !iven situation univocally is<insofar as )e have the e'act )ords for it=G or )hat it is li*e<in case the actual or i*a!ined situation is strainin! at the outer ed!es of a !iven usa!e, hence relies upon the *ore latitudinarian, that is, analogi'al, aspects of speech=. .r if so*ethin! *o*entously ne) turns up, the nature of attention *ade possi le y lan!ua!e *ay help de*arcate it as a nota le detail, )orth repeatin! and even i*provin!. 3. :e no) have said enou!h to indicate ho) the kind of attention *ade possi le y lan!ua!e could help hu*ans to sin!le out the instrumental aspects of situations <as )ith the e'plicit a)areness that an operation perfor*ed )ith a rock in oneFs hand )ould e & 300 & *ore effective than y the fist alone=, to )hich add the fact that lan!ua!e lends itself so )ell to the 'ommuni'ating of all such innovations, and hence to their distri ution. 4. :hatever the interruptions in such distri ution, the slo) develop*ent at the start has y no) attained di*ensions that, in the last t)o centuries, are *ore like an e'plosion than a !ro)th. ;. -he interaction et)een sym&oli' pro)ess and the products of 'ra$tsmanshi) leads to an ever

increasin! ran!e of situations to serve as *aterial for analo!ical e'tension <like *etaphor, the seein! of one situation in ter*s of another=. %. 0ach specialiBed no*enclature, )ith its correspondin! *odes of attention and su!!estion, is the technical eIuivalent of a vision, and thus !oads to further unfoldin!s, each tentative effort ein! like an ans)er to a call. "0.-he conditions rou!ht a out y the advances of sy* olA!uided -echnolo!y <that is, y *anA *ade transfor*ations of nonhu*an natural conditions= have eco*e an authoritative *otivational di*ension in their o)n ri!ht, !eneratin! the conditions that !oad hu*an enterprisers to the !eneratin! of further conditions that in turn serve to perpetuate the sa*e cycle so far as the necessary *aterials are still availa le or further advances in -echnolo!y can rin! other resources to fall )ithin the ran!e of e'ploitation for the !iven purpose. "".0ven the 'orre'ting of the pro le*s produced y -echnolo!y *ust e acco*plished y technolo!ical *eansG they cannot e solved y a andonin! the technolo!ical )ay of life, since our *odes of livelihood are already so dependent upon its resourcefulness. -he 5second nature5 of CounterA/ature is here to stay, cul*inatively. 0nviron*entalis* is ut an intelli!ent species of -echnolo!yFs selfAcriticis*. "2.-he ?o!olo!ical concept of our species as the 5sy* olAusin! ani*al5 is not identical )ith the concept homo sa)iens, the 5rational5 ani*al6for )hereas )e are the 5sy* olAusin! ani*al5 all the ti*e, )e are nonrational and even irrational some of the ti*e. 2o*e)hat alon! Creudian lines + take it that the very process of learnin! lan!ua!e lon! efore )e have reached the soA called (!e of ,eason leaves upon us the *ark & 30" & of its necessarily i**ature e!innin!sG and only so*e of these can e called 5childlike5 in the idyllic sense of the ter*. (lso, since lan!ua!e has so *any )ords for so *any thin!s that )e donFt kno) enou!h a out, it often e'tends our )ays of ein! stupid, and talkin! out of order. "3.But i*plicit in its very nature there is the principle of co*pletion, of perfection, of carryin! ideas to the end of the line, as )ith thou!hts on first and last thin!s6all told, !oads to)ards the trackin! do)n of i*plications. (nd 5rationality5 is in its )ay the very 5perfection5 of such lan!ua!eAinfused possi ilities. (nd )hat *ore 5rational5 in that respect than our perfectin! of instruments desi!ned to help assist us in the trackin!Ado)nAofi*plications, the rational !enius of -echnolo!y thus ein! in effect a vocational i*pulsiveness, as thou!h in ans)er to a callL (nd ho) or )hy turn a!ainst the s)e'i$i'ally human incite*ents to develop such astoundin! po)ers further and furtherL (nd )here else can you turn anyho) since, *ay e like Creon in 2ophoclesF Antigone, even if )e )ould retract our past decrees, )e have already rou!ht a out a situation )hich )ill drive on of itself. >ay e itFs here to stay <and )hy not, )hen it is the very portrait of ourselves, ourselves flatterin!ly enlar!ed evenL=6here to stay, re!ardless of )hether to our !reat enefit or to considera le disaster. Met there is also the fact that the resultant real* of CounterA/ature, for all of its strivin!s to)ard perfection, is in itself, y the sa*e token, still i*perfect. ( ove all, there is the pro le* of its freedo*. +n t)o hundred years our nation eca*e te'hnologi'ally the !reatest on 0arth, thanks to three freedo*s, na*ely: -80 C,00@.> -. :(2-0, -80 C,00@.> -. P.??U-0, -80 C,00@.> /.- -. D+90 ( @(>/. +ndications are that )ithin the oundaries of that cultural frontier all is no) settled, and accordin!ly, 5-he @ialectic5 ein! )hat it is, )e confront a state of *uch ne) unsettle*ent. +t is the clai* of ?o!olo!y that, for an a( interim desi!n, our cultural task is to uild a tentatively Providential ody of speculations around the specific Iuestion: 5Hust )hat is involved *otivationally in the possi le likelihood that the real* of CounterA/ature produced y sy* olA!uided <hence *anA*ade= -echnolo!y

is a kind of 'ulmination, a $ul$illment of specifically hu*an self en!ross*ents, conceived as an ironic version <a urlesIueL= of the Je!otistical su li*e,K the *irrorAi*a!e of a spirit in this case materiali?e(<5 & 302 & (nd )hy 5ironic5L Because any instru*ent has a nature of its o)n eyond its nature as an instru*ent desi!ned for a !iven purpose6and therein lies the 9ast /e) ,eal* of CounterA/ature and its Unintended ByAProducts, to e studied )ith re!ard to its possi le relations and disrelations to the natural order, includin! the nature of our species as developed out of the prehistoric past <a past &o(ily, )hysiologi'ally still )ith us now= in relation to the natural order.

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in the Notre 3ame English Hournal "3 <su**er "%7"=: "77E;3. Per*ission to reprint !ranted y the University of /otre @a*e. & 303 &

7. 9.5.
& 307 &

14. #ye6Crossing0&rom 5rooklyn to )an3attan

An #ye6Poem for t3e #ar :1it3 Prose Introduction, (losses, and After61ords; 19 4
?i ie Burke died on the >ay 2$, "%3%. Before !oin! to the poe*, here is )hat Kenneth Burke )rote to >alcol* Co)ley the day after she died. Poor 2horty is !one. 2he left in her sleep last ni!ht. (t least, she escaped the year or t)o of hellAonAearth that )as in store for her, had the disease run its 5nor*al5 course. ( !ood deal of *y reason for e'istence has !one )ith her. (nd, + fear, also a siBa le portion of *y reason. Cor her co*panionship )orked constantly to redee* *e fro* *y nature as a orn loner. +t is so !ood to e surrounded y oneFs fa*ily at such a ti*e. +t does help. -here )ill e no funeral. -his is our understandin!G this is our dealG and it !oes for all of us. :e )ill deal )ith our !rief in our o)n )ay. +n a -an!le, K.B.

Paul Hay, /ele'te( +orres)on(en'e o$ Genneth %ur*e an( 2al'olm +owley, p. 33; -his lon! poe* is vinta!e Burke. +t elon!s )ith other, late lon! poe*s like 5+ntroduction to :hat5 and 5.n Cloodtides of 2inkership, ( @iaristic Cra!*ent.5 -hese poe*s are all )ritten in a :hit*anian kind of verse, all are *editative and deeply personal. But these poe*s are also antiA:hit*anian and antitechnolo!y and are part of BurkeFs sustained attack on the creative !enius of hypertechnolo!y durin! his later years. -here is hardly an essay in this collection that does not address this antitechnolo!y /pollution the*e directly or indirectly. & 303 & But this poe* is a lot *ore than #ust a diatri e a!ainst technolo!y <represented y the City 6>anhattan= and !lo al pollution. +t is a hi!hly personal, firstAperson poe* )hich takes us ack, a!ain and a!ain, to the situation out of )hich the poe* ca*e: BurkeFs )ife, ?i ie, is nearly at the end of her days, physically i**o iliBed and *ovin! ine'ora ly to)ard paralysis and death6as Burke )atches and )aits, hopelessly. -his situation is so char!ed that one cannot read the poe* apart fro* Burke and his o)n theory of sy* olic action. -he poe* has a hu!e inside content that it !ets fro* this personal situation, )hether i*plicitly or e'plicitly. <2ee 2ection T and the co**entary, for e'a*ple.= -he openin! lines esta lish the course the poe* )ill follo). BurkeFs ver al hi!h #inks not )ithstandin!, he is !oin! to encounter one 2cylla and/or Chary dis after another and )ill have to try to deal )ith the*: -here is ?i ieFs i*pendin! death, the itter, accusin! letter fro* the friend !one sour <++ and +++, T9+=, the city <the to)ers of >anhattan= )hich is )hat they look at fro* their apart*ent, the city )hich is oth stupendous and disastrous, a *onster of )aste and pollution <+9=, the cold )ar et)een the U2( and the U22, <9=, the do! shit he encounters durin! his )alks <9+, T+=, the fractious custo*ers in the super*arket <9++=, the past, and, al*ost )orst of all, his terri le loneliness after ?i ie is !one <T=. But there is *ore, especially )hen he returns a!ain and a!ain to the city, the chief o #ect of their eyeAcrossin!. (ll ?i ie can do is eyeAcross, a fact that )e need to re*e* er durin! BurkeFs !oin!s out and returnin!s and *usin!s durin! the poe*, and the *any crossin!s that occupy his *ind in the course of the poe*. ?i ie *ay e physically i**o ile and Burke psychically i**o ile, ut this poe* is full of *ove*ent. Burke !oes out to the esplanade, to the ar, to the super*arket, for lon! )alks. (nd his *ind !oes out to various Iuestions: the unnatural city uilt y hi!h technolo!y, or!an transplants *ade possi le y *odern *edicine )hich )ill keep a president alive <T+9=, the failure of :alt :hit*anFs drea* of unity and his drea* of a !lorious future for (*ericaG the si*ilar failure of 8art CraneFs drea* of transcendent unity as )e !et it in -he Brid!e, the future of (*erica <T9 and T9++6see the violent ne!ative out urst at the end of T9=. (t the center of this poe* is the city to )hich Burke returns a!ain and a!ain in the *any eyeAcrossin!s, and all that it represents as a catastrophe6that is, as a product of technolo!ical !enius. -here is no conclusion or resolution to the pro le*s and threats in the poe*. +t ends )ith a last vie) of the city at sunset as Burke and ?i ie do a last eyecrossin!. /one of the pro le*s, e'cept *ay e the local ones such as the episode in the super*arket and )hat Burke encounters in his )alks <the #o!A#o! lady, do! shit6a urlesIue of the *assive pollution caused y the city= are ever resolved. ?i ieFs illness can only e resolved y her

death, )hich then creates a ne) pro le* for Burke ecause he )ill e alone and )ithout her !uidance for the first ti*e since he *arried her in "%336*ay e even earlier. (t the end of the poe*, the city is finally characteriBed as a 5catastrophe5 <T9++=, a ter* Burke has loaded up y Iuotin! the line fro* ,e*y de Dour*ont that 5intelli!ence is an accident, !enius is a catastrophe.5 -he pro le*s of the city6all *a#or cities, not #ust >anhattan6 )ill only !et )orse, as they !et i!!er, 5 etter,5 and eco*e even !reater consu*ers of po)er and producers of pollution. Cinally, ack to 2cylly dis and Chary dylla, the transposed threats )ith & 304 & )hich the poe* e!ins: .dysseus plu!!ed up his ears and those of his cre) in order to lock the son!s of the t)o sirens and *ake the perilous voya!e throu!h the straits. -here is nothin! co*para le to this in the poe* e'cept BurkeFs )ay of !ettin! throu!h his o)n perilous strait. 8e does this y follo)in! his o)n advice, )hich )as to )rite a poe*, to deal )ith it y *eans of )ords, to transfor* his lia ilities into assets y the application of his o)n creative !enius <2ee T+++=.

I+!'O*,C!IO+
-he author spent the )inter of "%3;E3% on Brooklyn 8ei!hts, in a hotel apart*ent overlookin! /e) Mork 8ar or and the skyscrapers of lo)er >anhattan. +t )as a fateAladen season. 8is close co*panion of *any years )as still )ith hi*, ut physically i**o iliBed y an ine'ora ly 5pro!ressin!5 illness. (nd )hile the couple could ut )atch it !ro) )orse, in response to her condition he developed an attitude )hich he thou!ht of as ein! 5psychically5 i**o iliBed. -hey )ere livin! on the sa*e street )here 8art Crane had lived )hen in Brooklyn. Belo) the* )as the river )hich :hit*an had crossed y ferry. (ccordin!ly the relation et)een :hit*anFs sy* olic crossin! on the river and 8art CraneFs sy* ol of crossin! on a rid!e a ove the river su!!ested a third step, a *ental state in )hich a Poetic 8&utloo*e( across. 8encethepoe*Fstitle:50yeACrossin!6Cro* Brooklyn to >anhattan.5O"P >arianne >oore had already *oved fro* Brooklyn to >anhattan, ut she !raciously a!reed to let the author honor hi*self y dedicatin! the poe* to her. 8o)ever, )hen it )as printed in -he Nation <Hune 2, "%3%= lastA*inute editorial e'i!encies resulted in the o*ission of all ut her na*e. + take this opportunity to restore the dedication in full: -o >arianne >oore )hose e'actin! yet kindly verses !ive us e'ceptionally *any t)ists and turns to re#oice a out even in a lean season +n one re!ard at least, it is especially fittin! that + should contri ute these particular pa!es to this particular ook. Before the poe* )as pu lished, 8enry 2a*s had kindly distri uted copies of it to a !raduate class of his at Pennsylvania 2tate University, and had sent *e copies of the studentsF co**ents, )hich they )rote efore receivin! any infor*ation a out the )orkFs authorship. & 30; &

/eedless to say, + personally )as *uch en!rossed )ith the co**ents, )hich ran!ed fro* very friendly ones to so*e that )ere Iuite rou!h. + had fully intended to send an ans)er insofar as the various o servations and #ud!*ents <)hich, as is usual in cases of this sort, )ere often at considera le odds )ith one another= provided opportunities for a !eneral discussion of related critical issues. -he ups and do)ns reached their e'tre*e )hen one student, )hose paper had een on the !ruff side, parenthetically re*arked: 5+f there ever )as an oral poe*, this is it56and + cannot conceive of a co**ent +Fd e *ore happy to hear, as the title of this offerin! ears )itness. But not until no) could + find the ti*e to )rite thus elatedly the intended reply, )hich loses y the delay, thou!h it *ay profit y so*e considerations + encountered )hen readin! the poe* to audiences in the course of *y #ourneyin!s on the 5(cade*ic Circuit.5 But to the poe* itself, interlarded )ith so*e Dlosses.

I
2che*in! to pick *y )ay past Chary dylla <or do + *ean 2cylly disL= cau!ht in the *idst of ein! nearly over, not 5*id)ay on the road)ay of our life,5 a septua!enarian valetudinarian thro)n into an airy ospreyAeyrie )ith a vie) *ost spacious <and every it of it our countryFs pri*al !ate)ay even=, althou!h, dear friends, +Fd love to see you later, after the )hole thin!Fs done, co*parin! notes, us co*ically tellin! one another #ust )hat )e kne) or thou!ht )e kne) that others of us didnFt, all told )hat fools )e )ere, every last one of us6 +Fd love the thou!ht, a hu*ane afterAlife, *ore fun than a l. of *onkeys, ut )hat )ith ein! sick of )ooin! 2lu* er, +Fll settle !ladly for . livion. & 30% &

(loss I
-he openin! distortion of 2cylla and Chary dis is *ildly an annunciation of so*e sort, the va!ue si!n of a te*pera*ental inclination. .r it is like pointin! )ith a s)eep of the ar* rather than )ith the inde' fin!er. Count *e a*on! those for )ho* not the least of their deli!ht in Chaucer is the fact that his voca ulary has so*e)hat the effect of *odern 0n!lish deli erately distorted, a kind of 5protoA Hoyceanis*.5 (s re!ards *y allusion to the openin! line of -he 3ivine +ome(y: 2ince @anteFs line is so 5su**ational,5 *y reference to it fro* the standpoint of a 5septua!enarian valetudinarian5 is *eant to e su**ation y contrast. + like to pronounce 5 l.5 as 5 A Al.5

II
:eep, 8ypochondriasis <hell, + *ean s*ile=: -he ell ran!, + laid *y te't aside, -he day e!ins in earnest, they have rou!ht the *ail. (nd no) to a!e and ail*ents add a thirteenApa!e sin!leAspaced typed *issileA*issive, to start the /e) Mear ri!ht. .n the first of t)oAfaced Hanuary, 5N the in#uries you inflict upon *e N persecution N such le!al felonies N unre*ittin! efforts N *alice, raids, slander, conspiracy N your spitefulness N5 6#ust )hen + talked of !ettin! throu!h the narro)s, no) +F* not so sure. 2*ile, 8ypochondriasis, <her, + *ean )anly )eep=.

III
2o letFs e!in a!ain: Crossin! y eye fro* Brooklyn to >anhattan <:altFs )as a ferryAcrossin!, 8artFs y rid!e=6 to those historic pri*i donni, no) add *e, and call *e )hat you )ill. Cro* Brooklyn, no) deserted & 3"0 & y oth >arianne >oore and the @od!ers6 an eyeAcrossin! )ith *e knocked crossAeyed or cockeyed y a saddenin! ve'in! letter fro* a dear friend !one sour. + think of a PandoraFs o' uncorked )hile + )as tryin! to untie ?aocoZnFs hydraAheaded Dordian knot, entan!led in a *aBe of @aedalus, plus *odern traffic #a* cu* lackout. ?etFs e!in a!ain.

(loss III
5Pri*i donni.5 (n invention re*otely in the tradition of the classical satiric usa!e <as )ith Catullus= )here y, since the *ale sect of Dalli <priests of Cy ele= resorted to castration as one of their rites, they )ere referred to in the fe*inine for*, Gallae. But *y *ale plurals for the +tal ian )rima (onna otch thin!s t)ice, y ein! *ade as thou!h +talian fe*inine (onna )ere *atched y a ?atin )ord of *asculine !ender, (onnus. >y only ar!u*ent for this solecistic neolo!is* is that there is a cryin! need for it )ith re!ard to artistic psycholo!y, even )here *atters of se'ual persuasion <as )ith :alt and 8art= are not involved.

I2
-he architectural piles, erections, i*positions, *onsters of hi!hApo)ered real estate pro*otion6 fro* a roo* hi!h on Brooklyn 8ei!hts the !aBe is across and UP, to those thin!sF peaks, their arro!anceQ :hen *easured y this scale of vie)s fro* Brooklyn they are as thou!h deserted. (nd the oats )orryin! the har or they too are visi ly deserted s*oothly and silent *ovin! in disparate directions each as ut yieldin! to a trend that ears it & 3"" & like sticks )ithout volition carried on a con!eries of crossin! currents. (nd void of hu*an ha itation, the cars on >adhatterFs 0astern driveAa)ay for*less as stars speedin! slo)ly close y the feet of the !oda* *ystic !iants 6 a restlessness unendin!, ack and forth <!li*pses of a drive, or drivenness, fro* so*e)here underneath the roots of reason= *e lookin! :est, to)ards >anhattan, /e)ark, :est 0yeAcrossin! + have seen the sunrise !lea*in! in the splotch and splatter of :estern )indo)s facin! 0ast.

2
0astL :estL Bet)een U22, and U2(, their BVhe*oth and our BehV*oth, a dialo!ue of sortsL -)o da*ned un!ainly easts, threats to the entire hu*an raceFs race ut for their *easured dread of each the other. 8o) !ive or !et an honest ans)erL Cor!ive *e for this oustrophedon *ood

!oin! fro* left to ri!ht, then ri!ht to left, pullin! the plo) thus ack and forth alternately a di!!in! of furro)s not in a field to plant, ut on *y o)n dis!runtled du* Ao' forehead. >y Da)dQ Be!in a!ainQ & 3"2 &

(loss 2
8ere the 0astA:est shiftin! of the previous stanBa, *ovin! into the political di*ension, takes advanta!e of the fact that the )ord 5 ehe*oth5 can e accented on either the first or second sylla le. /ot all readers are likely to kno) <as the author didnFt kno) durin! *ost of his lifeti*e= that 5 oustrophedon5 is an ad#ective or adver for a kind of )ritin! that proceeds alternately fro* ri!ht to left and left to ri!ht. +deally the reader should consider not only the meaning of the )ord <here applied y analo!y to political Iuandaries=, ut also its etymology should e taken into account: as the o' turns in plo)in!G fro* Dreek &ous, o', and stro)hos, turnin!, plus an adver ial suffi'.

2I
-urn ack. /o) #ust on this side:. By keepin! your )its a out you,. you can avoid the voidin!s,. the do!Asi!ns scattered on the streets and side)alks. <you *eet the* face to faeces=. and every)here the si!ns of people. <you *eet the* face to face=. -he :alt*an, )ith ti*e and tide efore hi*,. he sa) thin!s face to face, he said so. then there ca*e a i! lo). the pave*ents !ot scoured drastically. 6e'alted, + ho)led ack. into the teeth of the itin! )ind. *e in Klondike Beal. inhalin! po)dered do!Adun!. <hereFs a ne) perversion=. no) ut an essence on the fitful !ale. 2till turnin! ack. 2ur*arket6*ockAheroic confrontation at 6. <(n +nterlude=.

& 3"3 &

(loss 2I
5/o) #ust on this side.5 (lthou!h the e*phasis in the poe* is upon the vie) of >anhattan and the har or <in the atte*pt to profit y the su**ational connotations of a panora*a= there arises secondarily the need to uild up so*e sense of the terminus a 6uo, in Brooklyn 8ei!hts. -o this end a characteristic 5civic issue5 is chosen. +t is at once trivial and serious. +n keepin! )ith the the*e, the adver 5drastically5 is to e reco**ended for its ety*olo!ical e'actitude. (s re!ards the su stitution of 5sur*arket5 for 5super*arket5 <after the analo!y of 5surrealis*5 for 5superArealis*5=, + plead poetic license.

2II CO+&'O+!A!IO+ A! 5O"AC9S :A+ I+!#'%,*#;

/ear closin! ti*e, )eFre Beroin! in. +!natius Panaller!icus <thatFs *e= his cart ut *oderately filled <less than five dollars uys the lot= he picks the likeliest Iueue and !oes line up then )aits, )hile for one shopper far ahead the lady at the counter tickAticks off and tallies ite*s enou!h to !or!e a re!i*ent. -hen, loQ a possi ility not yet disclosed sets in. :hile Panaller!icus stands )aitin! ne't into line a further cart )heels up, )hereat +!natius Panaller!icus <*yself, unkno)in!ly the very soul of -rou lous 8elpfullness= su!!ests: 5+t see*s to *e, *y friend, youFd co*e out est on that line rather than on one of these.5 (nd so <letFs call hi* 5Pri*us5= Pri*us shifts. @evelop*ent atop develop*ent: Up co*es another, o viously 52ecundus,5 to take his stand ehind +!natius, sunk in thou!ht. /o sooner had 2ecundus #oined the line & 3"$ & than he addressed +!natius Panaller!e appro'i*ately thus: 5Dood nei!h or, of this te*porary #unction, pray, !uard *y ri!hts in this arran!e*ent )hile + race off to !et one further ite*,5 then pro*ptly left, and so thin!s stood. But no. Precisely no) in *ankindFs pil!ri*a!e )ho suddenly decides to chan!e his *ind ut Pri*us )ho, a andonin! his other post,

returns to enroll hi*self a!ain in line ehind +!natius. 2ince, to that end, he acts to shove aside 2ecundusF cart and car!o, Crisis loo*s. Uneasy, Panaller!icus e'plains: 5( certain N+a*sorry N ut you see N + )as entrusted N to)ards the preservation of N5 ut no need protest further6 for here is 2ecundus ack, and )rathful of his ri!hts as ever epic hero of an epochA*akin! )ar Both a!in! cha*pions fall into a flurry of fish)ife fury, even to such e*phatical e'tent that each e!ins to #ettison the otherFs car!o. :hile the contestants ra!e, pale Panaller!e !rins helplessly at others lookin! on. But Pri*us spots hi* in this very act and shouts for all to hear, 5+tFs all his fault N he )as the one N he rou!ht this all a out N5 and Panaller!icus no) sa) hi*self as others see hi*, )ith a traitorFs )iles. + spare the rest. <-here )as *uch *ore to co*e= 8o) (n (uthority ca*e s)in!in! in, t)isted 2ecundusF ar* ehind his ack and rushed hi* u* lin! fro* the store. 8o) further conseIuences flo)ed in turn, + leave all that unsaid. (nd al)ays no), )hen ed!in! to)ards the counter, his car!o in his cart, & 3"7 & our +!natB Panaller!e Bru'isticus <!nashin! his costly, poorly fittin! dentures= feels all a out his head a !lo)erin! antiA!lo)in! counterAhalo N +s that a *illstone hun! a out his neckL /o, it is ut the pressin!Ado)n of si'ty plus eleven annual *ilestones. <+t )as efore the da*nin! letter ca*e. 8ad those !ood ur!hers also kno)n of thatQ=

(loss 2II
(s the reader *i!ht suspect, this episode is the account of an incident that did actually take place.

.n the assu*ption that 5 ru'is*5 *eans an inclination to !rind or !nash the teeth, as the result of his agon Panaller!icus is endo)ed )ith a transfi!ured identify appropriately na*ed 5Bru'isticus.5 ( out the ed!es of the line, 5and rushed hi* u* lin! fro* the store,5 the author <perhaps too privately= hears a reference to the 5 u*Fs rush.5 -he )ord 5counterAhalo5 )as intended to dra) on t)o Iuite different *eanin!s of 5counter5: <"= as )ith the ad#ective 5opposite5G <2= as )ith the noun for the checkAout desk )here the encounter took place. -he inclusion of this episode *ay present so*ethin! of a puBBle to those readers )ho do not share the authorFs apprehensive attitude to)ard super*arkets. -hou!h he shops at the* re!ularly, he never enters one )ithout thinkin! of the )hole reed as the flo)erin! of a civiliBation in decay. -here is the cri*inal )asta!e due to sheer tricks of packa!in! <and the correspondin! a*ount of trashAdisposal involved in such *erchandiBin!=. But first of all there is the fantastic a*ount of poison that is no) looked upon as 5nor*al5 to the processin! and *arketin! of foods. -oss it. .n one side up co*es the -9 co**ercials for indi!estion. .n the other side up co*es the -9 dinners.

2III
But noQ -urn ack fro* turnin! ack. Be!in a!ain: of a late fall evenin! & 3"3 & + )alked on the 0splanade lookin! across at the laBe of :altFs >adhatter and north to 8artFs !raceful rid!e, all li!hted in a cold, fitful !ale + )alked on the 0splanade in Brooklyn no) deserted y oth >arianne and the @od!ers. -hin!s see*ed spooky6 ei!ht or ten lone )anderin! shapes, and all as afraid of *e as + of the*L :e kept a )holeso*e distance fro* one another. 8ad you shrieked for help in that luster )hoFd have heard youL >e and *y alky in that cold fitful luster on the 0splanade that ni!ht a ove the tiers of the *u* lin! unseen traffic +t )as scary it )as ecstactic

(loss 2III
-his section toes not do #ustice to the 0splanade, )hich is uilt a ove hi!h)ays, yet is like a park that is in turn like the e'tension of ackyards. (nd there is the fantastic vista. -he 0splanade is an architectural success, )ell )orthy of civic pride. But the )ords 5>e and *y alky5 e'plain )hy our a!onist had the coura!e, or ravado, or sheer foolhardiness to !o there thus late at ni!ht.

I@
2o*e decades earlier, efore *y Pap fell on evil days <)e then )ere perched atop the Palisades, lookin! 0ast, and do)n upon the trafficAheavin!s of the 8udson= + still re*e* er Dra**a <there fro* Pitts ur!h for a spell= )atchin! the tiny tu!s tu! *onsters. .ut of her in orn s)eetness and *e*ories of strivin!, puffin! all that to!ether, 5-hose poor little tu!sQ5 sheFd say. & 3"4 & Dod only kno)s )hat all she *i!ht e ein! sorry for. (nd no), frontin! on sunset, repeatedly )e )atch the tu!s, 5poor little tu!s,5 and hear the*6 their si!nals ack and forth as thou!h co*plainin!. -he t)o tu!s help each other tu!!in!, pushin! <a!ainst the current into place= a slu!!ish ship to e ali!ned alon! a dock, a un!lin!, u* lin!, ul!in!, overAladen frei!hter. -heir task co*pleted, the t)o tu!s toot !oodA ye, !o trippin! on their )ay, leanin! as li!htly for)ard as )ith a hiker suddenly divested of his knapsack. 5DoodA ye,5 re#oicin!ly, 5!oodA ye56 )hereat + )onder: >i!ht there also e a via le al eit risky )ay to toot 5+f you should drive up and ask *e, + think you da*n near otched that #o 5L 5+ think you stink.5 :hat *i!ht co*prise the total ran!e and nature of tu! oatAtootin! no*enclatureL

(loss I@
-his section happens to have a su**ational develop*ent that is touched upon in the poe*, ut that

)ould not e as pointed, or poi!nant, for the reader as it is for the author. /early half a century efore, )hen first co*in! as a oy to /e) Mork, he had lived )ith his fa*ily on the Palisades overlookin! the 8udson. -hus, as re!ards his later 5vista vision5 that is the urden of this poe*, he )as Iuite conscious of the sy* olis* i*plicit in the chan!e fro* an outlook facin! sunup to an outlook facin! & 3"; & sundo)n. +n the apart*ent on the Palisades the tu!s could not e heard. But their industriousness <the sturdy little fello)sF )ays of *aneuverin! *onsters= )as #ust as apparent, and as invitin! to an onlookerFs 5e*pathy.5

@
a plunkAplunk #ukeA o' #oint hi* hunched on a stool peerin! eyond his drink at ottles lined up, variously pre!nant <thereKs a !lea*in! for you= (*on! the !ents a scatterin! of trick flooBies. >ay e they kno) or not #ust )here theyFll end, co*e closin! ti*e. 8eFll e in a roo* alone hi*self and his *anyA*irrored other. +t )as a plunkAplunk #ukeA o' #oint its li!hts in shado)

(loss @
-his is one of the episodes that, o)in! to e'i!encies of space, )ere o*itted fro* the previously pu lished version of the poe*. (*on! other thin!s, it )as intended to introduce a chan!e of pace. Cor )hereas thin!s had een !oin! alon! Iuite riskly, these lines should e su dued, and slo). But thereFs no sure )ay of *akin! a readerFs eyes ehave6and the printin! of verse lacks the orthodo' resources of a *usical score, )hich )ould readily allo) for such instructions as ada!io, pianissi*o. -his episode is the closest the poe* as a )hole co*es to representin! <sy* oliBin!= the essence of the purely )ersonal !rounds for an 5i**o iliBed5 crossin!A yAeye, as distinct fro* the various kinds of )u&li' threats dealt )ith in *y e'hi its. & 3"% & Considerin! this episode a& intra, + can report on firstAhand authority that the a!onist of the verses corresponded 5in real life5 to a citiBen )ho, havin! dropped into that #oint, alone after a lon! ni!htA )alk alone, )ould not actually have !one ho*e alone. ,ather, heFd return to a hotel apart*ent and a

physically i**o iliBed co*panion )ho, in earlier days, )ould have shared the )alk )ith hi*6and theyFd have stopped in to!ether, for a drink or t)o, )hile touchin! upon one or another of the *any interests they had in co**on. -he lines )ere so*e)hat *or idly anticipatin!, as thou!h it )ere already upon hi*, a state of loneliness not yet actual yet <he took it for !ranted= ine'ora ly on the )ay to)ards his /e't Phase unless so*e sudden illness or accident disposed of hi* first. -he details of the episode also dre) upon the *e*ory of occasions )hen, off so*e)here lecturin! <in a one or t)oAni!ht stand on the acade*ic circuit= he had dropped into such #oints, there to co**une )ith his )atchful aloneness efore !oin! to his roo*, )ith the likelihood that, efore s)itchin! off the li!hts, he )ould confront, in several *irrors, passin! fra!*ents of hi*self. 2ince this episode, )hatever its deflections, does pro a ly co*e closest to the !eneratin! core of the )hole enterprise so far as *otivations local to the author personally are concerned, *y reason for rin!in! up this fact, fro* the purely technical point of vie), is that it illustrates a *a#or concern of *ine as re!ards speculations a out the nature of sy* olic action in the literary real*. :ithin the poetic use of a pu lic *ediu*, + take it, there is a private strand of *otives that, )hile not necessarily at odds )ith the pu lic real*, is at least not identical. +tFs as thou!h so*e of the poetFs )ords had secondary *eanin!s not defined in a dictionary. But in sayin! so, + a* )ell a)are that a dishonora le opponent could use *y o)n state*ent a!ainst *e6and honora le opponents have al)ays een a rare species.

@I
But turn a!ainst this turnin!. + look over the )ater, >eA+ crossin!. + )as ut )alkin! ho*e, so er as a han!Aover )ith a flutterin! heart and ho*in! as a pi!eon. & 320 & -here co*es a dolledAup Ho!AHo! to)ards *yself and *e. :eFre #ust a out to pass )hen !on!Q she calls6 and her police do! <or )as he a *ountain lionL= he had een lin!erin! so*e)here, sniffin! in the shado)s co*es oundin! loyally for)ard. .h, !reat >ilton, )ho )rote the asic *asIue of Chastity Protected, praise Dod, once *ore a ladyFs )hatAyouAcallAit has een saved6 and + a* still out of prison, free to )end *y )ay, thou!h )atchin! )here + step. + fra*e a socialA*inded ad: 5(pt. for rent. +n ideal residential nei!h orhood. CityFs hi!hest incidence of do!Asi!ns.5

@II
Profusion of confusion. :hat of a tunnelA crossin!L :hat if y *ail, phone, tele!raph, or aircraft, or for that *atter, hearseL MouFre in a su )ay car, tired, han!in! fro* a hook, and you )ould !et reliefL 8ereFs all + have to offer: 2in! out our national anthe*, loud and clear, and )hen in deference to the tune the seated passen!ers arise, you Iuickly slip into )hatever seat see*s safest. <+ fi!ured out this sche*e, ut never tried it.= Pro le*s pile up, like the uildin!s, 0ven as + )rite, the hi!hest to the left soars hi!her day y day. /o) ut the skeleton of itself <these thin!s e!in as people endQ= & 32" & all ni!ht its net)ork of naked ul s keeps flickerin! to)ards us here in Brooklyn N then dyin! into da)n N or are our N are our )hatL

(loss @II
+ oasted to a collea!ue a out 5or are our5 on the !rounds that, thou!h the )ords didnFt *ean *uch, they couldnFt e pronounced )ithout !ro)lin!. 8e o served that + could have done pretty *uch the sa*e )ith 5aurora56and there y he *ade *e )onder )hether, since + )as on the su #ect of da)n, + had een feelin! for that very )ord. (nd + have often puBBled a out the possi le ulti*ate i*plications of our structuralAsteel uildin!sF reverse )ay of !ro)th: $irst the skeleton, the sta!e that )e en( on.

@III
(s )ith an a!in! literary *an )ho, kno)in! that )ords see ut )ithin yet findin! hi*self i*pelled to uild a poe* that takes for !eneratin! core a startlin! 9ie), a novel visual 2paciousness <he asks hi*self: 5-hose )ho have not )itnessed it, how tell the*L6and why tell those )ho haveL

Can you do *ore than say Jre*e* erKL5= and as he learns the ceaseless *arch of oneAti*e *odulatin!s uniIue to this, out of eternity, this oneAti*e co* ination of pri*al nature <0arthFs= and ur an, technic second nature there !lea*in!, to)erin!, spreadin! out and up there y the *anyAcolored, chan!in!Acolored )ater <)hy all that urnin!, all throu!hout the ni!htL so*e say a !ood percenta!e is ecause the cleanin! )o*en leave the li!hts lit. & 322 & But no6itFs the co*puters all ni!ht lon! no) they !o on !ettin! fed.= as such a *an *ay ask hi*self and try, as such a one, kno)in! that )ords see ut inside, notin! repeated throu!h the day or ni!ht the flash of a* ulance or parked patrol car, )onderin!, 5+s it a ticket this ti*e, or a )reckL5 or *ay e settin! up conditions there that helicopters land )ith !reater safety, so puBBlin! +, eyeAcrossin! N and find *yself repeatin! <and hear the )ords of a no) dead once .ly*pian leper=, 5+ntelli!ence is an accident Denius is a catastrophe.5 ( #u* le of to)erin! to* stones hollo)ed, not hallo)ed, and in the ni!ht incandescent strivin! ever to outstretch one another like stalks of )eeds dried rittle in the fall. .r is it a *i!hty pack of *ausoleu*sL .r po)erhouses of decay and death6 to)ards the poisonin! of our soil, our strea*s, the air, roots of unhappy )ars a road, *iraculous *edicine, a*assin! eyond i*a!ination the *eans of pestilence, *adly )asteful #ourneys to the *oon <)hy !o at all, e'cept to sho) you can !et ackL= + recalled the )anly )in!ed )ords of a no) dead !racious

leper. <>y o)n )ords tan!le like our entan!led )ays, of hopin! to stave off destruction y pilin! up *a!ic *ountains of destructiveness.= & 323 &

(loss @III
-he poe* co*es to a focus in one !reat line: 5+ntelli!ence is an accident, !enius is a catastrophe.5 2ince the )hole is )ritten in the spirit of that oracle, + feel that, ho)ever perversely or rounda out, its du ieties are Iualified y a siBea le strand of appreciation. Cor after all, the poe* is talkin! a out the fruits of intelli!ence and !enius, al eit that they are visi ly eset y sinister 5side effects.5 :hen the poe* )as first pu lished, + )as asked, in an anony*ous phone call, )ho the author of the line is, and )hy + speak of hi* as an 5.ly*pian leper.5 + ans)ered, 5+ call hi* J.ly*pianK ecause in his )ritin!s he see*ed so li!htly to transcend his *isfortune. + call hi* a leper ecause he )as a leper.5 8e )as a )riter to )ho*, only in later years, + have co*e to understand the depths of *y inde tedness: ,e*y de Dour*ont. ,e!retta ly, the 0n!lish version li*ps, in co*parison )ith the Crench ori!inal: ,Bintelligen'e est un a''i(ent, le g@nie est une 'atastro)he. -he co*parative li*p see*s inevita le, since )e canFt pronounce our foursylla le 5catastrophe5 like the Crench threeAsylla le 5catastr[hf.5 Hi**y @urante !ot the feelin! in his co*ic t)ist, 5catUstastr[hf.5 2ince this section unfolds an epic si*ile that deli erately !ets lost alon! the )ay, + *ust a!ain plead poetic licentiousness.

@I2
@o + foresee the dayL Callin! his counsellors and *edicos, do + foresee a day, )hen Unus Pluriu* :orld ,uler ( solute, and yet the au!ust hulk is )earin! out6do + foresee such ti*eL Callin! his counsellors and *edicos to!ether, 5-hat lad )ho )on the race so valiantly,5 he tells the*, and 8is :ord is ?a), 5+Fd like that ri!ht ladFs kidneys6 and either honor hi* y chan!in! his )ith *ine or find so*e others for hi*, as opportunity offers.5 /o sooner said than done. -hus once a!ain -he 2tate is rescued6 and Unus over all, dra!s on till ne't ti*e. & 32$ & @o + foresee that day, )hile !aBin! across, as thou!h that real* )as alien

Corfend forfendin! of *y prayer that if and )hen and as such thin!s should e those <fro* here= silent *onsters <over there= )ill have y then !one cru* led into ru le, and nothin! all a road ut ancient 0!yptFs pyra*idal piles of e*pireA uildin! hierarchal styliBed dun! re*ains. .h, + have ha!!led nearly si'ty years in all the seventies +Fve *oved alon!. >y country, as *y ai*less endin! nears, oh, dear *y country, *ay + e proved )ron!Q

(loss @I2
-he conceit on )hich this section is uilt is not offered as 5prophecy.5 + include it on the !rounds of )hat + )ould call its 5entelechial5 aspect. Cor instance, a satire )ould e 5entelechial5 insofar as it treated certain logi'al 'on'lusions in ter*s of re(u'tion to a&sur(ity. -hus, )hen confrontin! pro le*s of pollution due to un)anted residues of hi!hly developed technolo!y, one *i!ht logi'ally advocate the develop*ent of *ethods <)ith correspondin! attitudes= desi!ned to reverse this process. But a satire could treat of the sa*e situation 5entelechially,5 y proposin! a urlesIued rationale that 'arrie( su'h )otentialities to the en( o$ the line, rather than proposin! to correct it. +n the na*e of 5pro!ress5 one *i!ht slo!aniBe: 5?et us not turn ack the clock. ,ather, let us find )ays to a''elerate the technolo!ical pollutin! of the natural conditions )e inherited fro* the days of our pri*itive, i!norant past. ?et us instead *ove for)ard to)ards a new )ay of life5 <as )ith a real* of interplanetary travel that transcended *anFs earthA ound ori!ins=. But also, at several places in *y .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form, + discussed such 5end of the line5 thinkin! in other literary *odes <Ha*es HoyceFs later )orks, for e'a*ple=. + did not until *uch later decide that + had een !ropin! to)ards an ironically nonA(ristotelian application of the (ristotelian ter* 5entelechy,5 used y hi* to desi!nate a *ove*ent to)ards the $ormal $ul$illment of potentialities peculiar to so*e particular species of ein!. & 327 & -hus the conceit infor*in! this section )ould e 5entelechial5 <thou!h !rotesIuely rather than satirically so= in that it i*a!ines the 5perfectin!5 of certain trends already 5i*perfectly5 present a*on! us, thou!h first of all )ould e the need for further purely scientific pro!ress in the techniIue of or!an transplants, )here y the healthy parts of hu*an speci*ens could e o tained either le!ally or ille!ally and stored in 5 ody anks,5 to e used on de*and. -he *ost 5perfectly5 !rotesIue su**ariBin! of such conditions )ould prevail if: <a= the )orld eco*es 5one )orld5G < = as )ith the step fro* repu lic to e*pire in ancient ,o*e, rule eco*es headed in a central authority )hose )ord is la)G <c= the 5irreplacea le5 ruler needs to replace so*e of his )ornAout parts. -he purely 5for*al5 or 5entelechial5 #ustification forth issu**ational conceit is that it )ould e the 5perfectin!5 of these ele*ents already indi!enous to our ti*es: dictatorship, or!aniBed policeAprotected cri*e, the technical resourcefulness already e'e*plified in the /aBi doctorsF e'peri*ents on He)s, and in the purely pra!*atic contri utions of applied science to the unconstitutional invasion and ravish*ent of +ndochina.

@2
50yeAcrossin!5 + had saidL -he har or space so sets it up. +n :altFs ferryAcrossin!, esides the #u* le of thin!s seen <they leave hi* 5disinte!rated5= even the sheer wor(s 5see,5 5si!ht,5 5look,5 and 5)atch5 add up to 33, the nu* er of a *a#or *ythic crossAifyin!. +n the last section of the :alt*anFs testi*ony there is ut 5!aBe,5 and throu!h a 5necessary fil*5 yet N 5DaBe5 as thou!h gla?e(< +tFs not unlikely. 52uspend,5 he says, 5here and every)here, eternal float of solution.5 (nd the talk is of 5(ppearances5 that 5envelop the soul.5 Bet)een this cul*inatin! ritual translation and the sheer recordin!s of the senses there had een inter*ediate thou!hts of 5lookin!5 for)ard to later !enerations 5lookin!5 ack. :alt the visionary, prophetically seein! cro)ds of cronies & 323 & crossin! and recrossin! on the ferry that itself no lon!er crosses. 2i' is the pro le*atic section. -here he takes it easy, catalo!uin! all his vices as thou!h askin! on a co*forta le each. 8is tricks of ideal de*ocratic pro*iscuity include his tricks of ideal *anAlove. +n section si' he does a slidin!, it *akes hi* feel !ood. Blandly lind to the pro*otion racket stirrin! already all a out hi*, he 5 athed in the )aters5 )ithout reference to their i**inent defilin! </o) even a sin!le one of the *any *onsters since accu*ulated could conta*inate the strea* for *iles.= 8e san! as thou!h it )ere all his6 a continent to !ive a)ay for kicks. (nd such crissAcrossin! *ade hi* feel pretty !oda* !ood. Clo) on, filthy river, e in! )ith floodAtide and )ith e Atide floodin!. 2tand up, you feelin!less 0rections, C+y on, . Cli!ht, e it to fly or flee. -hrive, cancerous cities. ?oad the once lovely strea*s )ith the clo!!ed filter of your

filth. 50'pand,5 even to the *oon and eyond yet. 5-here is perfection in you5 in the sense that even e*pireAplunder canFt corrupt entirely.

(loss @2
(s re!ards this section, uilt around :hit*anFs 5Crossin! Brooklyn Cerry,5 + have not dared to check *y entries, )hich add up to thirtythree. +f + have *issed the count y a little, please at least let *e keep the su* in )rin'i)le. +n any case, i*plicit in the Iualitative difference ete)een & 324 & those ter*s and 5!aBe5 there is indeed a crossin!, a transcendence. 2o*ethin! critical, crucial, has happened en route.

@2I
(nd )hat of 8artFs crossin! y the rid!eL 5+nviolate curve,5 he says. :ho rou!ht that upL -he tri ute !ets its *aturin! in the penulti*ate stanBa, 5Under thy shado) y the piers + )aited.5 8art too )as lookin!. But thin!s have *oved on since the days of :alt, and 8art is tunnelAconscious. (nd fittin!ly the su )ay stop at :all 2treet, first station on the other side, !ets na*ed in the *iddle Iuatrain of the 5Proe*5 <:all as fateAladen as Hericho, or no) as *ad >adison of *a!ic >adhatter +sland.= (hQ + acheQ 8art lets you take your pick: 5Prayer of pariah and the loverFs cry.5 <+f crossin! no) on Brooklyn Brid!e y car, e sure your tires are sound6 for if one lo)s out you *ust keep ri!ht on ridin! on the ri*. -hatFs ho) it sets up no) )ith )hat 8art calls a 5curveship5 lent as a 5*yth to Dod.5 + speak in the li!ht of su seIuent develop*ents.= 0lse)here, 5-he last ear, shot drinkin! in the @akotas,5 8artFs thou!hts havin! !one eneath the river y tunnel, and 5fro* tunnel into field,5 )hereat 5iron strides the de).5

8art sa) the !lory, turnin! to decay, al eit euphe*iBed in ter*s of 5ti*eFs rendin!s.5 (nd y his rules, slidin! fro* 8udson to the >ississippi, he could end on a ton!ued *eetin! of river there and !ulf, a 5Passion5 )ith 5hosannas silently elo).5 & 32; & -reatin! of our cultureFs tendin!s as thou!h its present )ere its o)n pri*eval past, *akin! of se'ual oddities a 5reli!ious5 !un*anship, strivin! y a 5lo!ic of *etaphor5 to span )hole decades of division, 5+ started )alkin! ho*e across the rid!e,5 he )rites6 ut he couldnFt !et ho*e that )ay. .nly )hat flo)s &eneath the rid!e only that )as ho*e N (ll told, thou!h :alt )as pro*issory, 8art )as nostal!ic, 8art )as futureAlovin! only insofar as driven y his need to hunt <to hunt the hart=. (nd as for *e, an apprehensive )hosis <cf. Bru'istes Panaller!e, -ra'tatus (e /tra&ismo=, +F* still talkin! of a crossin! on a river )hen three *en have #u*ped over the *oon, a pro#ect )e are told co*puterA)ise involvin! the social la or of 300,000 specialists and 20,000 usinesses. 2uch are the si!ns one necessarily sees, !lea*in! across the )ater, the li!hts cuttin! clean all throu!h the crisp )inter ni!ht. 5.Q 0!o, the pity of it, 0!oQ5 5>alice, slander, conspiracy,5 the letter had saidG 5your spitefulness N5

(loss @2I
+n this, 8artFs section, + couldnFt resist the !ruff contrast et)een the idealistically sy* olic rid!e and the *aterialistic one )ith its current e'i!encies of traffic. N-he reference to *en )ho had #u*ped over the *oon )as )ritten )hen )e had ut sent astronauts aroun( the & 32% &

*oon. N+ hope + can e for!iven for *y *ost a* itious pun, that puts 50!o5 in place of .thelloFs 5+a!o.5 N -e'ts differ as to )hether the author of the -ra'tatus (e /tra&ismo is na*ed Bru'istes or Bru'isticus.

@2II
Crossin!L Hust as the roads !et #a**ed that lead each )eekAday *ornin! fro* ?on! +sland to >anhattan, so the roads !et #a**ed that lead that evenin! fro* >anhattan to ?on! +sland. (nd *anyFs the driver that crosses cursin!. >ean)hile, loQ the 9istaAvie)in! fro* our )indo)s at urnin! ni!htfall: -o the left, the scattered li!hts on the )ater, haBin! into the shore in Hersey, on the horiBon. -o the ri!ht, the card oard sta!eAset of the laBin! uildin!s. :hich is to say: -o the left, *e lookin! :est as thou!h lookin! Up, it is )ith the li!hts in the har or as )ith stars in the sky, #ust li!hts, pure of hu*an filth6 or is itL -o the ri!ht, the to)erin!s of ?o)er >anhattan aA laBe at our )indo)s as thou!h the to)n )ere a catastrophe as dou tless it is N

A&!#'61O'*S
+n A Grammar o$ 2otives <"%$7= + e'pended Iuite so*e effort tryin! to sho) ho) philosophic schools differ in the priority they assi!n to one or & 330 & another of the different ut overlappin! *otivational areas covered y the five ter*s: act, scene, a!ent, a!ency, purpose. -here is no point to *y restatin! any of those speculations here. 8o)ever, the ter*s *ay lend the*selves to so*e differently directed re*arks )ith re!ard to the poe* a out )hich + have een prosifyin! <possi ly at *y peril, since so*e readers )ill resent such co**ents either ecause they are needed or ecause they are not needed=. (pplyin! the ter*s differently here, first, +Fd )ant to !o alon! )ith the position in (ristotleFs .oeti's, )hich features the ter* a't )ith re!ard to dra*a <in keepin! even )ith the sheer ety*olo!y of the

)ord=. -he real* of agent <or character= see*s to *e *ost at ho*e in the novel <of Hane (usten cast=. 2o*e overall )ur)ose serves )ell to hold to!ether epics like -he 8lia( <)here the ai* to fi!ht the -ro#an )ar can also readily acco**odate episodes of interference, as )ith (chilles sulkin! in his tent=, or -he O(yssey <a nostos that piles up one deflection after another, an or!aniBational lure that is dou tless also at the roots of a literal report of ho*eco*in! such as TenophonFs Ana&asis=. ( !roup of pil!ri*s )ith a co**on destination <as per -he +anter&ury -ales= )ill supply overAall prete't enou!h 6or even the inertness of a oat ride in co**on </hi) o$ Fools=. 2tein eckFs Gra)es o$ Wrath is interestin! in this re!ard. -here )as *ove*ent enou!h so lon! as the *i!rants )ere on their )ay to California, ut the plot eca*e a it ai*less as soon as they arrived. .ne is re*inded of that in!enious conceit a out ho) )e settled this country y *ovin! :est until )e !ot to the coast, then all )e could do )as #u*p up and do)n. :ould that it had een so, rather than as )ith our Beal to *ake the Pacific mare nostrum. -he notion of derivin! all narrative fro* a 5*ono*yth5 !enerically called 5the *yth of the Iuest5 o)es its appeal to the fact that, i*plicit in the idea of any act, there is the idea of a purpose <even if it e ut 5unconscious,5 or like the 5 uiltAin purpose5 of a ho*in! torpedo, desi!ned to 5contact its tar!et5=. 0ven an . lo*ov could e fitted in, )hen not !ettin! out of ed. /'ene fi!ures hi!h in historical novels <such as 2cottFs=. Rola )orks the sa*e field, thou!h in Iuite a different fashion, and CaulknerFs re!ionalis* in another. -hou!h + have read little science fiction, +Fd incline to say that its fantasies <in ein! a response to the vast clutter of ne) instru*ents )ith )hich *odern technolo!y has surrounded us= endo) the real* of agen'y <or *eans= )ith an i*portance that it never had efore as the locus of *otives. & 33" & But all this is preparatory to the discussion of a ter* that has not een *entioned, ut that ears stron!ly upon so*e issues no) at hand. +f + )ere no) to )rite *y Grammar over a!ain, +Fd turn the pentad into a he'ed, the si'th ter* ein! attitu(e. (s a *atter of fact, even in its present for* the ook does discuss the ter*, 5attitude,5 and at Iuite so*e len!th. + refer to a chapter entitled 5 J+ncipientK and J@elayedK (ction.5 +t is included in *y section on (ctG for an attitu(e is an incipient or inchoate act in the sense that an attitude of sy*pathy or antipathy *i!ht lead to a correspondin! act of helpfulness or a!!ression. But + also had to consider so*e a* i!uities i*plicit in the ter*. (nd to this end + discussed its uses in Deor!e 8er ert >eadFs .hiloso)hy o$ the A't, in contrast )ith +. (. ,ichardsFs treat*ent of attitudes as 5i*a!inal and incipient activities or tendencies to action5 <in his .rin'i)les o$ ,iterary +riti'ism=. + also introduce related o servations )ith re!ard to (lfred KorBy skiFs concern )ith 5consciousness of a stractin!.5 (nd in *y essay, 52y* olic (ction in a Poe* y Keats5 <reprinted in an appendi' to the Grammar= +tell )hy + find it si!nificant that Keats apostrophiBes his Drecian Urn as a 5Cair (ttitude.5 But esides i*pin!in! upon the real* of 5act,5 attitude also i*pin!es upon the real* of 5a!ent5 in the sense that, )hile inchoately an a't, it is one )ith an agentBs <a characterFs= *ood or feelin!. (s applied specifically to literature, +Fd say that 5attitude5 co*es *ost to the fore in the lyric <or in a short story of pronouncedly lyrical cast=. +n this connection, +Fd like to Iuote a relevant passa!e fro* Keats, as pointed up in *y auto io!raphical divul!in!, 5-he (naesthetic ,evelation of 8erone ?iddell5 <a piece uilt around so*e hi!hly attitudinal e'periences in a sickAroo*=: (n attitu(e to)ards a ody of topics has a unifyin! force. +n effect its unitary nature as a response 5su*s up5 the con!lo*erate of particulars to)ards )hich the attitude is directed. 2ee a letter of Keats <>arch "4, ";"4=, *odifyin! a passa!e in (ct ++, 2cene iv, of first part of Henry 8D: 5Banish *oney6

Banish sofas6Banish :ine6Banish >usicG ut ri!ht Hack 8ealth, honest Hack 8ealth, true Hack 8ealth6Banish 8ealth and anish all the )orld.5 8ere, he is sayin! in effect: -he feelin! infuses all thin!s )ith the unity of the feelin!. -he lyric stri*es an attitu(e. -hou!h the feelin! is not often so a solute as )ith the healthAsickness pair that here e'ercised poor Keats in letters )ritten )hile he )as hurryin! on his )ay to death, any attitude has so*ethin! of that su**ariBin! Iuality. (lon! those lines, + once proposed <-he Genyon 4eview, sprin! "%7"= this definition for the lyric: & 332 & ( short co*plete poe*, elevated or intense in thou!ht and senti*ent e'pressin! and evokin! a unified attitude to)ards a *o*entous situation *ore or less e'plicitly i*plied6in diction har*onious and rhyth*ical, often ut not necessarily rhy*ed6the structure lendin! itself readily to a *usical acco*pani*ent stron!ly repetitive in IualityG the !ratification of the )hole residin! in the nature of the )ork as an ordered su**ation of e*otional e'perience other)ise fra!*entary, inarticulate, and unsi*plified. +n co**entin! on the various clauses of this definition, )ith re!ard to the )ords 5a unified attitude,5 + o served: -he 5lyric attitude,5 as vs. the 5dra*atic act.5 (ttitude as !esture, as posture. N 2trictly speakin!, an attitude is y its very nature 5unified.5 0ven an attitude of hesitancy or internal division is 5unified5 in the for*al sense, if the )ork in its entirety rounds out precisely that. :hen *akin! that last re*ark + had in *ind (ristotleFs recipe in chapter "7 of the .oeti's )here he says that a character )ho is represented as inconsistent *ust e consistently so. (s the attendant discussion of the definition *akes clear, )hen referrin! to 5thou!ht and senti*ent5 + also had in *ind 5the conte*porary stress upon the purely sensory nature of the lyric i*a!e,5 and noted that the )hole process )ould involve 5the Jsenti*entsF i*plicit in the Jsensations,K and the Jthou!htsF i*plicit in the Jsenti*ents.K 5 (s re!ards a situation 5*ore or less e'plicitly i*plied,5 + added: -he lyric attitude i*plies some kind of situation. -he situation *ay e of the va!uest sort: -he poet stands alone y the seashore )hile the )aves are rollin! in, or, the poet is separated fro* his elovedG or, the poet is old, re*e* erin! his youth6etc. .r the situation *ay e !iven in !reat detail. +ndeed, a lyric *ay e, on its face, ut a list of descriptive details specifyin! a scene6 ut these images are all *anifestations of a sin!le attitu(e. :hile holdin! that 5the lyric Jtends ideallyK to e of such a nature as )ould adapt it to rondoAlike *usical for*s,5 )ith stanBas 5 uilt a out a recurrent refrain,5 + proposed that a poe* 5need not preserve such a structure e'plicitly, to Iualify as a lyric,5 thou!h it *i!ht e studied 5as a departure fro* this JUrfor*,K or archetype.5 <Hust think: -here )as a ti*e in 0n!land )hen *usic could e authoritatively defined as 5inarticulate poetry.5= :here then are )e, )ith re!ard to the 50yeACrossin!,5 vie)ed as a lyricL Mou ask: 5+t is, then, to e vie)ed as strikin! so*e kind of overall attitudeL5 >e: 5Mes, sir.5 Mou: 5(nd )ould you kindly tell *e #ust )hat attitude your <letFs hope= lyrical lines )ill e takin!L5 >e: 5Please, & 333 & sirQ5 Mou: 52tand upQ :hy the !rovelin!L5 >e: 5-here is no na*e for the attitude, sir.5 -hen in sudden

hopefulness, >e adds: 5Unless, that is, you )ill accept the title of the poe* itself as a su**ariBin! na*e for the su**ariBin! attitude.5 Mou: 5Mou *ean that there is no )ord in the dictionary, such as JhappyK or JsadK or Jcynical,K to desi!nate the poe*Fs attitudeL5 >e: 5+f there already )ere such apt )ords in our dictionaries, + dou t )hether thereFd e any incentive for the sy* olAusin! ani*al to )rite poe*s.5 Mou: 5L5 >e: 5+ *ean there is a sense in )hich each poe* strikes its o)n specific attitude5G then hastily, 5not throu!h pride, ut ecause it canFt do other)ise5G then )inso*ely, 52o it says in effect JCo*e attitudiniBe )ith *e.K 5 Mou: 5+n that case, could you at least !ive us a first rou!h appro'i*ate, y selectin! one )ord or another that at least points va!uely in the ri!ht direction <for instance, like pointin! )ith a s)eep of the ar* rather than )ith the inde' fin!er=L5 >e: 5:ell, there is a spot )here the narrator, or a!onist, havin! referred to :alt as pro*issory and 8art as nostal!ic, calls hi*self Japprehensive,K and he fits that notion into his overAall sche*e. 2o, for a first rou!h appro'i*ate, +Fd propose that the su**ariBin! lyric attitude e called Japprehensive.K 5 Met to say as *uch is to encounter a pro le*. ( state of apprehension can e variously *odified. .ther)ise put, the ad#ective ad*its of *any adver s. Cor instance, one can e sole*nly apprehensive, or sullenly apprehensive, or sportively apprehensive, or e'peri*entally apprehensive, or ar itrarily apprehensive <as )hen i*a!inin! so*e !rotesIue possi ility that has a kind of for*al appeal ecause it )ould 5carry to the end of the line5 certain tendencies already o serva le thou!h not likely to attain actual dire fulfill*ent or 5perfection,5 if + *ay use the )ord in an ironic sense=. .r one can even e deflectively or secondarily apprehensive, as )hen referrin! to a ti*e )hen tendencies that are no) found to have turned out adly )ere, in their incipient sta!es, vie)ed in pro*issory rather than ad*onitory ter*s. <:ould the +ndians, livin! in )hat )as to eco*e /e) 0n!land, have had the attitude that led the* to help the Pil!ri*s survive a first critically severe )inter if those +ndians had foreseen ho) their hospitality )as to e repaidL= -o )hat e'tent can an attitude see* ad#ectivally consistent )hen it is adver ially variedL Crench neoclassic dra*a, for instance, could not have found consistency enou!h in the !rotesIuely tra!ic aspect of 2a'&eth, )hich readily allo)s for the stron! contrast et)een the >urder scene and the Porter scene <)hile, if you are so inclined, the knockin! at the !ate can su!!est the knock of conscience, and the PorterFs ri aldry can su!!est an (ristophanic analo!ue of odily incontinence due to & 33$ & fri!ht=. -hus, there are varyin! de!rees of tolerance, )hen adver ial diversity tu!s at the outer li*its of an attitudeFs ad#ectival unity. Cor so*e readers *ore than others the sense of a !eneral apprehensiveness can !et lost in a sense of the diversity a*on! the )ays of ein! apprehensive. .r, the poe* *ay e #ud!ed, not as a lyric, ut as a lyric se6uen'e. (lso, there is a kind of typical consistency, *ore easily sensed than defined, in a )orkFs style. (nd insofar as le style, 'Kest lKhomme mMme, there *ay arise a sense of the narrator, or a!onist, as a character, a )ersona prevailin! )illyAnilly throu!hout the )orkFs chan!es of *ood. 2uch a fiction within the conditions of a poe* *ay or *ay not accurately represent the character of the author, as citiBen and ta'payer, outsi(e the conditions of the poe*. But inas*uch as the real* of attitu(e !reatly overlaps upon the real* of agent the attitudiniBin! nature of a poe* *i!ht derive assistance fro* the fact that the poe*Fs style *ay !enerate the sense of a sin!le )ersona )ith )hose i*puted character all the ran!e of e'pressions in the poe* could see* to confor*. -hus the sense of a sin!le fi!ure as the constant attitudiniBer *ay help e'tend the ran!e of variations )hich strike the reader as relevant to the pro le*atical nature of the si!hts )hich are the o #ects of the poetic )ersonaKs conte*plation. But in the last analysis, the sa*e issue arises. 2o*e readers *ay feel that the )hole ran!e of

styliBations contri utes to the definition of the fictive narratorFs characterG other readers *ay not. +n the letter he sent *e alon! )ith copies of the studentsF co**ents, 8enry 2a*s succinctly thou!h differently touched upon this point )hen referrin! to the 5*an side5 of the poe* 5as opposed to the city side.5 8enry kne), as his students could not kno), the da*na le )ersonal situation at the roots of *y ein! in Brooklyn that season )hen the poe* )as )ritten. 2o he could *ore easily approach the poe* in attitu(e agent ter*s, )hereas his students )ould e *ost e'ercised a out the shifts of attitude to)ards the pu lic s'ene. +n keepin! )ith *y theories of 5sy* olic action,5 these )ords after)ards are ut desi!ned to present the issue. .f course, +Fd love to talk ack and forth a out every sentence the students said, )hether it e for or a!ainst. But o viously -i*e @oes /ot Per*it. Met efore closin!, +Fd like to *ention an article, 5.n @oin! W 2ayin!,5 uilt around an o viously and ad*ittedly over lunt distinction et)een one ho*inid )ho is plantin! seeds and another <the 5*yth*an5= )ho 5co*pletes5 the task y enactin! the appropriate ritual of a plantin! son! </almagun(i "7, )inter "%4"=. + )as consciously concerned )ith a ran!e of associations clustered a out the ter* 5cross.5 But + had to ad*it that 5not until + had finished & 337 & the poe* did + realiBe ho) another di*ension had crept in )ithout *y sli!htesta)areness.5+ have in *ind *y recurrent references to the5the*e of li!ht,5 connected )ith the fact that 5at all hours of the ni!ht + had )atched the fantastic !lea* of the li!hts across the river.5 :hereupon: ?oQ an archetype had crept up on *e: the 5city of li!ht,5 no lessQ But hold. 8ere )as an archetype )ith a difference. Cor *any of the connotations surroundin! *y i*a!es and ideas of li!ht )ere of a sinister sort, involvin! 5for*ida le thin!s5 <thou!hts of e*pire, )ar, and i**inent decay=. 8o)ever: 2ince the 5city of li!ht5 does not attain its 5perfection5 as a 5*a!ic5 vision !lea*in! throu!h the ni!ht until the poe* has uilt up an attitude of apprehension, o viously a 5universal5 interpretation here as archetype )ould e ut a 5first rou!h appro'i*ate.5 But at that point + had to add: 5Met, after all, there )as J?uciferQK 5 (t this point the author interrupted his )ritin! lon! enou!h to !o into the ne't roo* and )ind his ei!htA day clock )hich no) has to e )ound t)ice a )eek. -he day )as dark, )ith *uch do)npour. /o *ail ca*e6 and thou!h he did !et one phone call, it )as a )ron! nu* er. 8e could !o on and on6until the last ti*e N

+O!#S
5(n 0yeAPoe* for the 0ar <)ith Prose +ntroduction, Dlosses, and (fterA:ords=5 appeared in co*plete for* in 3ire'tions in ,iterary +riti'ism: +ontem)orary A))roa'hes to ,iterature, ed. 2tanley :eintrau and Phillip Moun! <University Park: Pennsylvania 2tate University Press, "%43=, 22;E27". -he poe* appeared ori!inally, in a shorter version, in -he Nation 20; <Hune 2, "%3%=: 400E40$. ". -he poe* itself, )ithout !losses and introductory *atter, first appeared in -he Nation, and the author and editors are inde ted to Carey >c:illia*s, editor of -he Nation, for per*ission to reprint it in a sli!htly different te't than its ori!inal appearance.

& 333 &

17. Counter6(ridlock
An Interview wit3 9ennet3 5urke 19>EH>1
-his intervie) is an editedAdo)n version of a nu* er of taped intervie)s that took place durin! "%;0 and "%;" in (ndover, /e) Hersey. ?on! as this intervie) is, )e finally decided to include the )hole piece ecause there see*ed to e no )ay to cut it )ithout seriously di*inishin! it. (s the intervie)ers say, they covered a lot of !roundG and as Burke points out, he had covered a lot of this !round else)here. -he pu lished intervie) included a lot of )onderful pictures of Burke, his fa*ily, his collea!ues at the 2chool of ?etters, and of /e) Mork City, )here Burke lived and )orked for *any years. +t is )ith re!ret that )e o*it the* here. -he intervie) has een edited so that it reads like a continuous docu*entG ut in fact Burke )ent throu!h the ori!inal a nu* er of ti*es, deletin! and chan!in! thin!s, and the intervie)ers did a *asterful #o of co*pressin! hours of intervie)s into a coherent docu*ent. Burke )as fortunate in havin! such !ood, )ellAinfor*ed intervie)ers. .ur collection of essays ends )ith it ecause it contains so *any )onderful insi!hts into Burke: the *an, the )riter, the thinker and tinkerer, the lo!olo!er, the co*ic, the selfAIuoter and selfAanalyBer, the storyteller6still vi!orous and still seekin! at ei!htyAfour. -he repetition is not really a ad thin!G Burke often rephrased the *ain points to chan!e the* sli!htly, and he al)ays spontaneously added ne) e'a*ples, ne) stories, even ne) points )hen he )as talkin!. Portions of the intervie) are !ood e'a*ples of Burke, live, as different fro* Burke in print. 8e )as a fa ulous talker, )hich is *ay e a !ood )ay to re*e* er hi*, )ith his a*aBin! eyes and incredi le ener!y. 8e could drink and talk all ni!ht and even fit in a fiveA*ile )alk on the country roads around his place in (ndover, talkin! all the )ay. 8e lived for )ords. 8e lived in )ords. 8e )as his o)n ?o!os. Cor a ,otinese, the pleasure of life is talk6not si*ply an idle chatter that passes ti*e, ut the *ore for*al takin! of sides in endless dispute, ar!u*ent, and repartee or the rivalin! of one another in eloIuent and alanced phrases on cere*onial occasions. 2peeches, ser*ons, and rhetorical state*ents are a deli!ht. But in this class society, )ith hierarchies of order, there are nota le constraints on speech. +n !atherin!s, no les speak *ore than co**oners, *en *ore than )o*en, elders *ore than #uniorsG yet co**oners, )o*en, and youth, )hen !iven the opportunity as they invaria ly are, display the sa*e prodi!ious ver al pro)ess. ?ack of talk is & 334 & an indication of distress. ,otinese repeatedly e'plain that if their 5hearts5 are confused or de#ected, they keep silent. Contrarily, to e involved )ith so*eone reIuires active ver al encounter and this often leads to a for* of liti!ation that is conducted *ore, it )ould see*, for the sake of ar!u*ent than for any possi le !ain.O"P -his intervie) is the result of several visits )ith Kenneth Burke durin! "%;0E;" at his ho*e outside (ndover, /e) Hersey, )here he has lived since "%2". Burke is no) ei!htyAfour years old and, as he e*phasiBed in a recent letter, 5hurryin! like craBy to !et thin!s cleared up.5 Crank Dillette and + *ade

each visitG t)ice )e )ere acco*panied y >onte @avis, coauthor of a ook on ,ene -ho*Fs catastrophe theory,O2P and once y Pelle!rino @F(cierno, a 9ico and Dra*sci scholar )ho teaches at Colu* ia University. :e )ere introduced to Kenneth Burke y *y friend 2tevie ChinitB )ho has re*ained close to hi* since he )as her teacher at Bennin!ton. :e drove out fro* >anhattan throu!h a landscape Burke has descri ed in )ritin! on his friend :illia* Carlos :illia*s: 5that hateful traffic elchin! sIuanderin! of industrial po)er atop the tidal s)a*ps.5 -hen past Paterson and *uch further out alon! ,oute ;0, )e turned north to)ard (ndover, throu!h an area #ust e!innin! to sho) the si!ns of 5a cancerous !ro)th of haphaBard realAestatin!5O3P and drove up to BurkeFs far*house, still relatively isolated on (*ity ,oad. -here, suddenly, fro* around the ack to !reet us )as Kenneth Burke: active, de*onstrative, and )elco*in!. Burke selected portions of a transcript + prepared, revised his ans)ers <5you can tell the* + struck all the !odda*s. -heyFre such a !odda* oreQ5= and added several notes )hich are indicated y rackets. :e covered a lot of !round: 5:ith several other spots itFs stuff +Fve discussed else)here, and )ith the rest itFs stuff +F* involved in else)here now.5O$P -he intervie) e!ins )ith a turn to)ard io!raphy, *otivated y our ein! to!ether one ti*e on the last day of "%;0. +t ends )ith BurkeFs )ritten su**ary of a pro le* that had lon! concerned hi*, )ith the date of his solution. .ther)ise dates are not indicated, and the intervie) reads as one seIuence. @escri in! the nature of these occasions, y reference to the auto io!raphical hero of one of his stories, Burke su**ariBes: -his can turn out to e a fairly *ello) te't, in keepin! )ith 8erone ?iddellFs hu*anistic ideal of ein! 5as *ello) as an overAripe cantaloupe.5 <-he nearest + can co*e to that is )hen !uys like youenB turn up in not too & 33; & cold )eather, and )e can ha!!le ackandforth in the roo* )here real lo!s are urnin! in the fire place.= +n a "%34 addendu* to +ounter /tatement, Burke alluded to the 5inchoate possi ility of an avo)al involvin! literal *e*ories, deli erate fictions, and diaristic accidents.5 + asked hi* a out his, and he said such a )ork )ould necessitate facin! 5the return of the repressed,5 and he continued to concentrate on the present. But no) he )as havin! difficulty finishin! t)o epilo!ues for ne) editions of his other t)o ooks )ritten in the thirties: .ermanen'e an( +hange and Attitu(es towar( History# -hrou!hout the ti*e )e visited, he read us e'cerpts of these essays )hich )ere !oin! off in unanticipated directions. By strate!ically coinin! a )ord to enco*pass this situation, Burke de*onstrated for us one practical use of his *ethod of 5perspective y incon!ruity5 <5the !au!in! of situations y ver al Jato*Acrackin!K 5= and provided a title for the intervie): ,e*e* er the i! traffic #a* in /e) Mork )hen the su )ays stoppedL -hatFs )hen + learned the )ord gri(lo'*# Dridlock *eans you canFt !o any )ay. -he traffic is so #a**ed, it canFt !o for)ard, ack)ards, or side)ays. :hat + had )as 'ounter gri(lo'*# + )ent every )hich )ay. :hen + )rote those t)o ooks, + had #ust ar!ed in. But no), *ore than forty years later, all sorts of considerations that + had yApassed at the ti*e started turnin! up. ( lot )as due to thin!s of *y o)n and to others that had developed since then. 2o, +Fd )rite si' or seven pa!esG then another tan!ent )ould see* needed, and +Fd start over a!ain, )ith the sa*e afflin! outco*e. +nstead of no )ay out, there )as a clutter of )ays out, each in its o)n )ay runnin! into so*ethin! that cancelled it. 0very such turn )as like 5the

return of the repressed,5 for it involved considerations that, if + had dealt )ith the* at the ti*e, + couldnFt have done )hat + did do. -he title *akes clear ho) our conversation is BurkeFs ta le talk at a ti*e )hen he is near the co*pletion of his theory, ut it indicates, as )ell, an endurin! aspect of his style and thou!ht. 8e has always *oved at tan!ents, provokin! ad*iration and frustration. +n "%37, ,. P. Black*ur co*pared hi* to 5Charles 2antia!o 2anders Pierce for the uoyancy and sheer re*arka leness of his speculations,5 and contrasted his *ethod to +. (. ,ichardsFs: (s >r. ,ichards N uses literature as a sprin! oard or source for a scientific *ethod or philosophy of value, >r. Burke uses literature, not only as a sprin! oard ut also as a resort or ho*e, for a philosophy or psycholo!y of *oral possi ility.O7P & 33% & Black*ur also notes ho) >arianne >ooreFs description of 0d*und Burke as 5a psycholo!ist6of acute and raccoonAlike curiosity5 applies eIually )ell to Kenneth Burke )ho )orked )ith her at -he 3ial# (nother friend, Herre >an#ione, Iuotes an unidentified critic )ho appreciates BurkeFs a ility to keep *ovin!: BurkeFs thou!hts are as elusive as shado)s. Dettin! the !ist is like tryin! to put salt on the tail of a rilliantly plu*a!ed ird. .nce you think you have hi* fir*ly in hand, you find yourself clutchin! a vivid tailfeather or t)o )hile he has !one off a!ain.O3P +n conversation, he operates )ith the Iualities of a *aster co*edian, ironist, and dialectician. -he intervie) !ives a *ore sedate i*pression of our encounters, )hich )ere al)ays spirited, often hilarious, and so*e ti*es uproarious6as )hen Burke, discussin! 0*erson and :hit*an, suddenly ounded up fro* his chair to e'clai*: 5+F* a !iantQ (t five feet four inches + overAto)er BalBac y a )hole inch.5 :hereupon he )ent in search of this poe*: But for those lucky accidents :ere + not tall and suave and handso*e )ere + not fa*ed for *y !la*orous Byronic loveA affairs had not each of *y ooks sold riotously had not *y fists *ade stron! *en crin!e did not *y several conversions enlist further hordes of follo)ers and did not everythin! + turned to *ake *e i! *oney despite *y al*ost !lorious !ood heath of oth ody and *ind ho) in DodFs na*e could + throu!h all these years have held up and held out and held onL 8e e'plained: :hen + )rote that poe*, all of a sudden + understood :hit*an. ,i!ht there on his pa!e, he uilt hi*self a character. :as his fa*ily riddled )ith diseaseL /o pro le*: +n his poe*s he could re#oice

that he )as orn of a stock ideally healthy. -he for*ula is si*ple: (nythin! you )ish you )ere, & 3$0 & #ust &e it. ?et your 52on! of the 2elf5 e an invention such that even you yourself need not e clear to yourself #ust )hen you are confessin!, professin!, )ishin!, attainin!, and do)nri!ht lyin!6and the outco*e )ill e such that <like )ith *uch of 0*erson= you donFt care. 8t has a li$t# +f you )ant so*ethin!, #ust let your lines reach out and take it. (nd if not, )hy notL (nd insofar as a 5poetic5 part of us all !ropes in that direction, your plea to get a(mitte( is alrea(y in# Burke in person is *ost like his poe*s: i*pro*ptu, !no*ic, aphoristic, a le to daBBle his listeners and return the* to funda*ental kno)led!e )hile providin! )itness to the astonishin! *ores of daily life. +dentifyin! a central Iuality of BurkeFs *ethod as 5i*perviousness,5 Ben#a*in @e>ott )rites: -he sa!e of Bennin!ton ar!ues )ith endless invention for the necessity of seein! around the spoken or )ritten )ord, the announced intention, the 5successful5 enterprise in persuasion6in order to re!ister the e'tent of the )ord*anFs pro a le deflection fro* the T that is not )ords.O4P 5-he T that is not )ords5 Burke defines as 5the o #ective recalcitrance of the situation itself.5 :hen Crank Dillette asked hi* ho) he arrived upon the use of the )ord 5recalcitrance,5 Burke !ot up and )ent to the dictionary, sayin! 5+ elieve it co*es fro* the )ord *eanin! JheelK 5 and checked the ety*olo!y: 5Mes, 'al1 is heel, 'al'itrare is to kick so*e ody in the heel. (nother )ord is JinculcateK )hich rin!s it around the other )ay.5 Burke, like ,ichard Black*ur and Charles .lson, uses the dictionary, )hich he calls the !ood ook, for daily e'ercise. -his !oes ack to an incident in childhood )hich he also attri utes to 8erone ?iddell: -he first thin! of i*portance that had happened to 8erone ?iddell follo)in! the accident of his irth )as a nearAfatal tu* le he had taken a out the a!e of three. 2pittin! *editatively fro* the hei!ht of a second story, he lost his alance, and fell at an an!le on his head. 2u seIuently, he tended to assu*e that he hit the !round efore his o)n spit.O;P Burke couldnFt attend school for years, and carried around a dictionary in preparation for the event. -hus he started to eco*e an e'traordinary autoAdidact in the distinct (*erican tradition. :e found Burke to e, true to @e>ottFs description, 5that rarest of *en, a !ood hu*ored ori!inal !enius.5 Crank Dillette offered a faceAtoface ho*a!e: Mour le'ical freedo*, your un)illin!ness to fi' at any specific point, to use your ter*, 5a cluster of associations5 has een a constant source of li eration for *e, and + *ean li eration in the )ious sense of the ter*. & 3$" & Dillette is referrin! here to the chapter 5-he ,an!e of Piety5 in .ermanen'e an( +hange, )here Burke first Iuotes 2antayanaFs definition of piety 5as loyalty to the sources of our ein!5 and then provides a definition of his o)n: 5Piety is the sense o$ what )ro)erly goes with what.5 (lthou!h Burke has een preoccupied )ith the pro le*s of su**ation, as )ell as several difficult northern )inters to )hich recent poe*s testify, he has not een deterred fro* other lines of investi!ation, and he al)ays had so*ethin! fresh in hand. >ost of his recent )ork has appeared in +riti'al 8n6uiry, and no) he is )orkin! on a theory of narrative in response to a Chica!o sy*posiu*. 5Bodies -hat ?earn ?an!ua!e56a )ork in pro!ress6is the final reduction of his episte*olo!y

,ogology, )hich he distin!uishes fro* his ontolo!y 3ramatism# .ther articles he put into the record are: 59ariations on JProvidenceK 5O%P and 5(s .ne -hin! ?eads to (nother5 pu lished in an issue of 4ANA2<4e'her'hes Anglaises et Ameri'anes= that honors his )ork. Cro* the latter he read us a definition of lan!ua!e he atte*pted after Deor!e 2teinerO"0P had )ritten ho) difficult it )ould e to succeed at one: ?an!ua!e is: -he ar itrary conventional *ediu* of sy* olic e'pression and co**unication that is est eIuipped to discuss itself and all others. +ts three offices are: to infor*, please, and *ove those persons )ho are fa*iliar )ith its conventions. +n its a ility to infor*, it has proved itself the collective *ode of sy* olic action that has co*prehensively or!aniBed the study of its nonsy* olic !round <the real* of *otion= and of situations and processes involved in our relation to the co*ple' of sy* olic and nonsy* olic factors affectin! hu*an conduct. Burke adds this footnote: -he first clause is the only )ay + could find to differentiate lan!ua!e fro* other *edia <such as *usic, paintin!, dance, sculpture=. (nd this refle'ive function is i*portant )ith re!ard to the connection et)een lan!ua!e and 5thou!ht,5 and the notion of 5thou!ht5 as 5inner dialo!ue.5 0very *ediu* can co**ent on itself, ut lan!ua!e see*s *ost a le in this re!ard. N -he second clause is adopted fro* Cicero.O""P Burke is #ustly co*pared to ,oland Barthes, as he <t)o decades efore Barthes= *oved literary analysis decisively and playfully in the direction of the social sciences. Crank and + oth ca*e into si!nificant contact )ith another protean thinker )ho *oved at the oundaries of disciplines, Dre!ory Bateson. :e )ere an'ious to sound Burke out, since )e kne) the t)o had *et & 3$2 & in "%$% at a conference at the 2an Crancisco (rt +nstitute. <2ittin! et)een Burke and Bateson is >arcel @ucha*p, the artist )ho e'e*plified a ran!e of parado' )hich Bateson and Burke approach y *ore e'plicit *ethods.= Burke )rote, as lon! a!o as "%34, that 5a*on! the sciences, there is one little fello) na*ed 0colo!y, and in ti*e )e shall pay hi* *ore attention.5 Bateson, in the last decade of his life, considered 5the effects of conscious purpose versus nature.5 Bateson approaches Burke: ( peculiar sociolo!ical pheno*enon has arisen in the last one hundred years )hich perhaps threatens to isolate conscious purpose fro* *any corrective processes )hich *i!ht co*e out of less conscious parts of the *ind. -he social scene is no)adays characteriBed y the e'istence of a lar!e nu* er of selfA*a'i*iBin! entities )hich, in la), have so*ethin! like the status of 5persons56trusts, co*panies, political parties, unions, co**ercial and financial a!encies, nations, and the like. +n iolo!ical fact, these entities are precisely not persons and are not even a!!re!ates of )hole persons. -hey are a!!re!ates of parts of persons.O"2P Burke, )ritin! last year on his adopted state of /e) Hersey: +f *ore and *ore pollution is to e our stateFs future, all such polluters can !et the*selves the est erths on a sinkin! ship. (nd they can die rich in ripe old a!e, and even honored y their fello) citiBens. Cor the ship that is sinkin! is the ship of state, and indications are, fro* all over the nation,

that such a ship )ill never !o under, )holly. +t can #ust !o on sinkin! and sinkin! as a place to live in, )hile thereFs al)ays the likelihood that those )ith funds enou!h can invest in etter erths not yet so polluted, else)here.O"3P :e found that Burke had #ust finished a paper on Bateson, and then had i**ediately added several pa!es after readin! a revie) of BatesonFs 2in( an( Nature y philosopher 2tephen -oul*in.O"$P 8e also told us ho) he upsta!ed Dovernor Herry Bro)n at a dinner honorin! Bateson shortly efore his death. Burke )as the ne1t to last speaker and rou!ht do)n the house y sin!in! a son! heFd )ritten a out 5every)here the dou le ind.5 8e put us do)n in his calendar as 5the Bateson oys.5 >ost *e*ora le is ho) Burke still )restles )ith t)o of his *asters: Kant and /ietBsche, as he indicates here in one re*arka le series of parentheses that revie)s the foundation of his critical *ethod. But he is attentive to ne) )ork and pointed to ,ichard 8. Bro)nFs A .oeti' $or /o'iology, )hich proposes 5co!nitive aesthetics5 as a lo!ic of discovery for the hu*an sciences. BurkeFs response: 5+ #ust )elco*e hi*,5 and at another point: 5-he ookFs a !reat shoppin! list.5 Bro)n selects )ork & 3$3 & in nei!h orin! do*ains, as Burke did in .ermanen'e an( +hange, in order to de*onstrate parallel *otives in art and science. 8e atte*pts to esta lish criteria of adeIuacy for a unified theory: Co!nitive aesthetics, )e ar!ue, has four principal advanta!es. Cirst, it per*its us to *ove eyond copy theories of truth in oth art and in science. 2econd, it provides a fra*e)ork )ithin )hich the pioneerin! artist and the pioneerin! scientist are oth seen as involved in essentially the sa*e activity: *akin! paradi!*s throu!h )hich e'perience eco*es intelli!i le. -hese t)o advanta!es !ive irth to a third and fourthG for if art and science are seen to have an essential affinity, then the possi ility is opened for a fusion of the t)o principal ideals of sociolo!ical kno)led!e: the scientific or positivist one, stressin! lo!ical deductions and controlled research, and the artistic or intuitive one, stressin! insi!hts and su #ective understandin!. Cinally, insofar as such a fusion is possi le, co!nitive aesthetics provides a source of *etacate!ories for assessin! sociolo!ical theory fro* any *ethodolo!ical perspective. By doin! so he *akes clear ho) prophetic BurkeFs ori!inal investi!ation of ehavioris* and positivis* )as: -his essay takes an aesthetic vie), of rationality. Hust as scientific theories reIuire aesthetic adeIuacy, )orks of art present a kind of kno)led!e. Cor co!nitive aesthetics, oth science and art are rational in that they oth presuppose various criteria of econo*y, con!ruence and consistency, ele!ance, ori!inality, and scope. 2uch criteria are those y )hich )e or!aniBe e'perience into for*al structures of )hich 5kno)in!5 is constituted.O"7P BurkeFs 5poetic5 perspective or 5*ethodolo!y of the pun5 is the precursor of co!nitive aesthetics. ?ike Burke, Bro)n presents an anato*y of *etaphor as a pri*ary *eans of de*onstratin! ho) kno)led!e is perspectival. -hus Burke: -he *etaphorical e'tension of perspective y incon!ruity involves casuistic stretchin!, since it interprets ne) situations y re*ovin! )ords fro* their 5constitutional5 settin!. +t is not 5de*oraliBin!,5 ho)ever, since it is done y the 5transcendence5 of a ne) start. +t is not ne!ative s*u!!lin!, ut positive cardsAfaceAupAonAtheAta le. +t is desi!ned to 5re*oraliBe5 y accurately na*in! a situation already de*oraliBed y inaccuracy.O"3P + )as not surprised to find Burke readin! ,oy (. ,appaportFs E'ology, 2eaning, an( 4eligion,O"4P )hich co* ines the ecolo!ical perspectives of Bateson )ith BurkeFs analysis of ho) social action

deter*ines varieties of lin!uistic e'pression. 8e no) participates in a co* ined discipline of anthropolo!y and sociolin!uistics, as his oneAti*e student @ell & 3$$ & 8y*es *akes clear in an i*portant revie) of ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion# BurkeFs theory of lan!ua!e as !esture, first applied to poetry, is no) a su set of 5the ethno!raphy of speakin!.5 8y*es )rites: -he revival of interest in the ethno!raphy of sy* olic for*s <*yth, ritual, son!, chant, dance, and the like and the su tler for*s of daily life= N pro*ises develop*ent of )ork fro* )hich a truly co*parative 5rhetoric5 and 5poetics5 *ay yet e*er!e N such lin!uistic ethno!raphy )ill i*poverish itself if it does not uild on the insi!hts accu*ulated in the tradition Burke e'tends and enriches.O";P -he i*pression of ritual lan!ua!e on its hearers is one of so*e stran!eness. -he use of dialect variants contri utes to this stran!eness. :ords are used in a variety of )ays that *ake the* sli!htly discrepant fro* their ordinary usa!eG ut the concurrence of each of these )ords )ith another that si!nals its sense creates a kind of resonant intelli!i ility, an intelli!i ility that varies fro* individual to individual. -his ritual code, in its entirety, is pro a ly eyond the co*prehension of any of its individual participants. -o these participants, it is an ancestral lan!ua!e )hich they continue. +t is a lan!ua!e into )hich individuals 5!ro)5 as their a!e and acIuaintance increase. -his process should last a lifeti*e and tales are told of for*er elders, )ho6as they approached e'tre*e old a!e6 ceased to speak ordinary lan!ua!e and uttered only ritual state*ents.O"%P ( note on the photo!raphs: /o one has a finer sense than Kenneth Burke of ho) technolo!ical chan!e has revolutioniBed the cities and landscape of (*erica in this century, an acceleration of scale and event he analyBed and resisted in e'e*plary )ays. +t is appropriate to note here that Burke lived )ithout electricity and runnin! )ater in (ndover until the late si'ties. 8is position of 5a!roA ohe*ian5 anticipated y no) fa*iliar solutions to the current crisis, and like 2cott /earin!, ?e)is >u*ford, and Paul Dood*an, he is an e'e*plary fi!ure )ho lives his thou!ht fro* the !round up. Cro* the photo!raphy collection of the >useu* of the City of /e) Mork, )e selected *aterial that )ould !ive so*e sense of the city Burke kne) as a youn! *an, as #ackAofAallAtrades editor at -he 3ial durin! the t)enties, and as a social analyst durin! the decade of the thirties. :e discovered that Burke had shared an apart*ent in the villa!e )ith Berenice ( ott and other eIually nota le fi!ures, includin! @#una Barnes, 8art Crane, and *e* ers of the ori!inal Provinceto)n Players. -he photo!raphs fro* the 0dison (rchive )ere su!!ested y a discussion not included here, ut e'cerpts are used as captions. BurkeFs dau!hter, >rs. 0lspeth 8art, !raciously allo)ed *e to copy the photo!raphs of Burke as a child and youn! *anG others are fro* the collection at the (*erican (cade*y and +nstitute of (rts and ?ettersG the pictures of & 3$7 & Burke and 0*pson are fro* the Kenyon Colle!e (rchive. + )ould like to thank Crank Dillette, Hohn Hohnston, Brian -ho*as and, of course, Kenneth Burke for help in preparin! this intervie). ,. 2.O20P FG:e rou!ht so*e cha*pa!ne, k .

KB.h, Cha*pa!nyA)aterQ FG8ave you !ot the 9iennese crystalL :e #ust discovered Pely and + !re) up in the sa*e nei!h orhood in *ore or less the sa*e ti*e. Mou spent ti*e in :eeha)kenL KB.h, yes. FG:ell, here )e are. :eFre all fro* :eeha)ken in a sense. KB:ell, +Fll e da*nedQ + didnFt realiBe N )hen + first ca*e to /e) Mork, thatFs )here *y parents lived, on Boulevard 0ast. FG>y ho*e turf. :here Union City and :eeha)ken co*e to!ether. DMou kno) that hospital on the 8udsonL >y father used to run it. KB.ne of *y dau!hters )as orn in that hospitalQ D-hatFs na*ed after *y !rand*other. .nly an +talian )ould do that. KBMes sir, one of *y dau!hters )as orn in :eeha)ken. +tFs part of /e) Cu a no), isnFt itL + re*e* er )e )ere ri!ht over )here the tunnel !oes throu!h. -his )as durin! the Cirst :orld :ar. .f course, there )ere ar*y *en up there !uardin! that place. -here )as the risk that the Der*ans )ould lo) up the tunnel ecause of the )ar !oods !oin! throu!h there. :e had an old Der*an *usic o', a )onderful old ,e!ina *usic o', eautiful old structure. >y dad and + )ere sittin! in the ack roo*. (ll of a sudden )e heard *y *other put on 3ie Wa'ht am 4hein# :e rushed in and turned it off as fast as )e could. -here used to e *any old Der*an eer halls in that area, lovely old places. 2o*e )ere still around )hen )e )ere there. +f you )alked out fro* Boulevard 0ast half a *ile, you )ere in the country. .h

yes, and the old *an had an electric car, and he #ust couldnFt !et up that hill.

& 3$3 & FGBet)een :eeha)ken and 8o oken. KBMes. RSMou )ere at Colu* ia only a short ti*e. :hy did you IuitL KB+ )as a dropout o)in! to a situation of this sort. (ll the courses + )anted to take )ere there. + didnFt drop out ecause + )as dis!usted )ith school. But + only e'pected to take an (.B. de!ree and *any of the courses + )anted to take )ere availa le only for post!raduate )ork. +Fd already taken si' years of ?atin, and + )anted to take a little *edieval ?atin. /o, + had to do that in post!raduate school. /o) often colle!es donFt have DreekQ But + had taken t)o years of Dreek in hi!h school, and + )anted to do the Dreek (ntholo!y. /o, + couldnFt do that until later. 2o + told the old *an, 5Pap, +Fll save you so*e *oney. ?et *e !o do)n to the 9illa!e, and !ive *e #ust a fra!*ent of )hat it costs you to send *e to school there, and +Fll keep up )ith *y )ork.5 :ell, + did. + )ent do)n there and did keep up )ith *y )ork. RS:hat )as the 9illa!e like thenL KB.ne of the first !uys + *et there )as Hoe Dould. ,e*e* er old HoeL .h, he )as a fantastic creature. 8e lived on ooBe and ci!arettes and ketchup. 8e )as a *i'ture of N he )as half insane and half rilliant as hell. FG( rather lethal co* ination. :hat )as his de*iseL :hat did he doL KB8e )as )ritin! a history of our ti*es. 8e had )hole files of these thin!s. + donFt kno) )here they all disappeared to. 8eFd !o to places like insane asylu*s, )rite up little its of this and that. 0Bra Pound !ot so*e of that stuff pu lished at the ti*e. :hen *y +ounter /tatement ca*e out, Hoe ca*e around to see *e. 8e ca*e in and asked *e all a out the ook. -hat )as durin! prohi ition. :e *ade our o)n ooBe. :e *ade a rice )ine that )as pretty effective stuff. + started plyin! Hoe )ith the rice )ine, and

Hoe kept on discussin! the ook )ith *e. + kne) of course that he )as co*in! for a shakedo)n. But he )as discussin! the ook *akin! Iuite relevant co**ents a out it. Cinally after )eFd talked a out it for Iuite a)hile, he said, 5+ hate to flatter so*eone )ho +F* !oin! to ask for *oney, ut that sure is stron! )ine.5 RSMou ou!ht this place in the early t)entiesL

& 3$4 & KB+ ou!ht this place around F2". RS-hen you *oved outL KB+n the su**er +Fd stay out here, and in the )inter +Fd stay in to)n if + had a #o , like )hen + !ot tied in )ith -he 3ial# >y Dod, the kind of life you lived thenQ MouFd !o do)n to the 9illa!e around late 2epte* er or the e!innin! of .cto er and rent one of these old railroad apart*ents )here in the kitchen you had a sink and a i! tu . -here )as also a tu in the can out in the hall. But *y Dod, you couldnFt athe in thatQ -here )as no heat. Mou kept #unk in that. -here )as a i! vat in the kitchen )hich you used for everythin!. Mou did your laundry in it, your dishA)ashin! and athin!. (nd there )as a coal stove. (nd the rest of the house )ould e )holly )ithout heat. +Fd pick one of these places and pay y the *onth. MouFd !o in the fall, pick up one of these places6 and in sprin! put your little #unky stuff ack in stora!e and co*e out here. :e did this a!ain and a!ain. +tFs a totally different kind of life no)Q +f it took *e *ore than t)o or three hours to find a place, +Fd think + )as put upon. 2o*eti*es + )ould stay out here all )inter and heat the )hole place )ith )ood that + sa)ed and chopped up *yself. But thatFs only if + didnFt have a #o in /e) Mork. :hen + ou!ht this place + paid off the *ort!a!e the first year. 2o, durin! the da*n s*ashAup, + al)ays had this place to !o to. RS:hen you did that research on dru!s in the thirties, )ho )as that forL KB+ had a #o )ith the ,ockefeller Coundation ack in the t)enties. Colonel (rthur :oods )as the head of the ,ockefeller Coundation at that ti*e, and he )as also assessor in the ?ea!ue of /ations, the dru! co**ission. (rthur :oods had een a *e* er of a refor* ad*inistration in /e) Mork. 8e )as police co**issioner. ?ater he financed so*e studies on dru! addiction. 8e represented the U.2. co**ittee on dan!erous dru!s in the ?ea!ue of /ations, and he needed a !host)riter and + !ot that #o . + )orked on it for a year and a half. -he *a!ic )ord 5,ockefeller5 opened all doors for *e. + could ask

any Iuestion. 0ndocrinolo!ists, theyFd tell *e anythin!. +ronically enou!h, all *y notes on that stuff have disappeared. (ll that )ork +Fd done & 3$; & #ust vanished. -he stuff + used in -he .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form )as part of it. + )ouldnFt have any of it ut for the parts included there. +n those days people )ould #ust )alk in and sit do)n. + didnFt kno) )ho the hell they )ere. +t )as a craBy )orld then, of course, it )as nutty as hell. -rou le )as, as far as + )as concerned, + )as afraid + )as !oin! craBy anyho). FG-his is the early thirtiesL KBHust a out that ti*e. + even )rote fantasies of superA8itlerite villains, all kinds of stuff. 2o*e of it turns up once in a )hile, ut *ost of itFs vanished. >ay e itFs in the CB+ files for all + kno). -hat )as such a craBy period. Mou thou!ht you )ere !oin! craBy anyho), and + da*n near )as. Mou never kne) )hatFs natural and )hat isnFt natural. + )as !oin! to have lunch )ith a !uy +Fd kno)n Iuite )ell. 8e )as a leftist fello). +Fd rushed a shave and had had a drink esides. 8ad a little lood on *y face, and he asked, 5:hat happened to youL5 8e thou!ht +Fd een in so*e !odda* *essup or so*ethin!. + had to tell hi* + had a ne) lade in. -hat )as #ust nor*al. -hat )as the )ay every ody )as. 8onest to Dod thatFs the )ay every ody )as. +Fve had three stretches of *a!ic: )orkin! for Colonel :oods doin! the !hostin! #o , )orkin! for -he 3ial, and )orkin! at Bennin!ton. -hey )ere all )onderful. -he )hole three )ere #ust fro* a different )orld. 0veryone )as a different )orld. Mou do have those. RSCould you descri e your e'perience at Bennin!tonL KB(t Bennin!ton + found )orkin! )ith students. N + really understood the actual N itFs a stran!e situation. +Fd !et to )orkin! )ith a student, and *y Dod, )e )ere so involved in her )orkQ +t )as really a )orld apart. -errifically. + once had a student6she )as a eautiful !irl, and she )as interested in dance. 2he )anted to )rite ori!inal stuff6and +F* not so keen on kids )ritin!. +Fd rather )ork so*e other )ay, translatin! or so*ethin! like that. + said, 5-ell *e so*e )riter you really like, a short story )riter, and letFs have you do a one act play, turnin! that stuff into a dra*a.5 2he )as in dra*a and dance and kne) that field. 2he liked Katherine >ansfield, so )e started to )ork on her stuff. + s)ear to Dod, )e learned thin!s +Fd never realiBedQ +n the & 3$% & story you see it all Iuite clearly. Mou start to turn it into a dra*a all of a sudden thereFs one sentence that

see*s to need a )hole e'tra s'ene# Mou !et so involved in such stuff youFre #ust livin! in itQ -he #oint )ork eco*es en!rossin!. :hen + first !ot there, + inherited a fantastic story. Bill -roy had a !roup of students )ho proved their !reat literary a ility y never producin! anythin!. .nly the vul!ar produced. -he lo)ly sociolo!y students6they could )rite. But the literary elect )ere eyond that. + had this )hole !roup, and + flunked every !odda* one of the*. But )ith the understandin! that they could co*e ack. -hey all finally did. -he last one ten years after + flunked her. -his )as one hell of a )ay for a student to prove herself a !reat literary cha*pion. Met + did discover this: -he real potential )riters (i( suffer. -he *utts could )rite any !odda* thin!Q + used to fi!ure thin!s out this )ay: + decided that +Fd divide *y 5counselees5 into three !roups: -he students you )ould think of as ein! set for *arria!e, the students you )ould think of as ein! set for careers, and the students you )ould try as *uch as possi le to help keep out of the nut houseQ -hose )ere the ones + inclined to love *ost. D-hey eca*e the facultyQ KBConsider the situation. 0very )ord that a student )rites you is there to e concerned )ith. -hen she !oes out and tries to )rite a ook6and )ho caresL -he rules are totally different. 2tudents really are *arvels. -hey start out )onderfully. But the situation is so da*ned uniIueG and it canFt !o on. Cro* the standpoint of etter*ent + e!an to talk a out findin! so*e )ay of easin! thin!s off. RS+ hadnFt kno)n you did all those translations. KB+ did all this )ork in Der*an, and *y translation of 3eath in Deni'e6(uden said, 5-his is itQ5 (nd that put it over. 8e )as part of the fa*ily too. -hen >ann ca*e over. (nd since + had done all this )ork translatin! hi*, his essays, his lectures, his letters, and so on, they put *e up there sittin! ne't to >ann6 and *y Dod, + couldnFt follo) his Der*anQ OBill -roy heard a out this incident, )hen >ann hi*self didnFt kno) 0n!lish very )ell. (nd Bill told in *y presence ho), )hen + e'plained to Crau >ann that althou!h + had done *uch translating of & 370 & Der*an + had trou le )ith it as s)o*en, Crau >ann said to -ho*as, 5Ni'ht s)re'hen, N&erset?en.5 Bill had een drinkin! strai!ht )hiskey out of a #elly !lass on a private occasion )hen + had !one to #oin in doin! hi* honor. +n an astoundin!ly fe) *inutes he had !one fro* ein! personally char*in! to the kind of eloIuent literary i*provisin! that he )as ri!htly fa*ed for, to this anecdote )hen the adrenaline that alcohol releases had e!un to take over, a sta!e follo)ed al*ost i**ediately y his passin! out totally stoned on the floor.P FG-

.ermanen'e an( +hange )asnFt pu lished until "%37. @id you )rite it out hereL KB+ )rote *ost of that out here. +t )as pu lished in "%3$ or "%37. (ctually, )hen + first )rote the ook N this is )hy + elieve in the )hole *atter of lan!ua!e as *otive N that your o)n voca ulary hypnotiBes you. +Fd )ritten all this stuff on )ers)e'tives, and )hen + !ot throu!h, it )as so *uch *ore real than the )orld. +f + )ould talk to so*e ody, + had a feelin! that there )as a piece of !lass et)een us N really terri le N it )as a really unpleasant notion. +n those days + )as playin! a lot of Pin!APon! at ni!ht. + )ould lie a)ake i*a!inin! a all !oin! ack across the net. -hat see*ed a )ay of *akin! the t)o sides nearer alike than the i*a!e of ein! on t)o sides of !lass. (nd finally thin!s did ease up. +n re)ritin!, redoin!, this )hole thin!, +Fve literally thro)n a)ay "40 pa!es as false starts. + finally decided that the *iddle section, 5Perspective y +ncon!ruity,5 is the essence of the )hole usiness, and + e!an to )ork on cuttin! it do)n. Perspective y incon!ruity is a )ay of seein! t)o )ays at once. +tFs the )hole principle of an ironic approach to so*ethin!. .ne of *y favorite e'a*ples is 9e lenFs concept of 5trained incapacity.5 -heyFre opposites N he introduced the e'pression )hen referrin! to those )ho in ein! co*petent as usiness*en )ere not co*petent to look at a situation other)ise. +n that *iddle section + have all kinds of variations on that the*e. (nd y Dod, + did start seein! dou le. + !ot )ild. + had to )rite t)enty pa!es, ut thin!s dra!!ed on and on. 2o in *y i*patience on havin! it pile up the *ore + tried to cut it do)n, + )ould drink a little it. + donFt drink )hile +F* )ritin!, ut + )ould take a drink. (nd & 37" & y Dod, you canFt i*a!ine )hat a sy aritic deli!ht it )as )hen, after !ettin! out of this tan!le, + could look do)n the road and see #ust one car co*in!. +t )as such a privile!e. + )as )orkin! here in the su**er. :hen + heard a car +Fd rush out lookin! to see if only one 'ar )as !oin! do)n the road N )onderful. FG8o) lon! did your period of dou le vision lastL KB:ell, it lasted a couple of *onths. :ith everythin! +Fve ever )ritten, so*ethin! of that sort turns up. + elieve, a solutely, you do !et hooked to a voca ulary. +f you really do live )ith your ter*s, they turn up tricks of their o)n. Mou canFt !et around the*. FG:hat dyna*ic is at )ork and responsi le for such a fi'L KB-hey do run you y voca ulary. :hen you finally !et do)n to )here youFre *akin! your o)n ter*inolo!y, then y Dod, youFre *akin! your o)n destiny too. MouFre pickin! the ter*s and they

al)ays have an an!le eyond )hich you use the* and then they use you. -hereFs no Iuestion a out it. 2o*eti*es a person )rites a ook and the ook sells )ell, and he )rites another ook N and itFs )onderful. 8eFs *akin! *oney. -hen it turns out that his )ay of )ritin! !ave hi* psycho!enic cancerQ -hatFs a part of the an!uish of your ody )hen you )ere )ritin! these ooks. -ake so*eone like 2ylvia Plath. 8ereFs a )o*an )ho really lives )ith her )ork, *eans it, every da*n thin! she )rites. 2he !ets *ore and *ore efficient on suicidal the*es. -hen youFre !oin! in that !roove N FGMouFre preparin! for suicide. KBBut the point is, youFre reducin! your ran!e. Cor instance, +Fve tinkered )ith that suicide line all *y life. But at the sa*e ti*e, + also )ork )ith ideas of ho) to contrast it, ho) to *ake it contain other sche*es. 2he *ust *ake it *ore efficient: ho) to e *ore suicidalQ FGBut thereFs dra*atistic ele*ent in PlathFs suicide as )ell. +t )as her third or fourth atte*pt, + elieve, efore she succeeded. D-he housekeeper didnFt co*e. FG-here )as so*e unconscious *echanis*. KBMou !et suicide so clearly in the Hapanese: hari *iri, su))u*u, t)o )ords they use on it. ( lot of suicide is accusation. -he technical, traditional )ay of doin! it is to kill yourself on the & 372 & doorstep of the !uy youFre after. N +t )as her relation to her hus andG she )as attackin! hi*. FGBasically accusin! hi* of *urder. KB?et *e read you *y suicidal poe*. FG2uicide is appropriate for the last day of the year.

KB! + )as out here t)o years in a ro). -hatFs )hy +F* so !odda* !lad to !et a)ay. -)o )inters in a ro) alone out here. -he first one )as a solutely incredi le. -here )as a series of rains that froBe. -his )hole section )as one i! chunk of ice. -hen the second year )as *ild. But t)o years of that, then ca*e sprin!. -he irony )as that sprin! )as at least the resolution, ut hereFs )hat happened: 5#%A!#* #+!'A+C# Mes, can fi!ht the other seasons, ut + canFt fi!ht sprin!. 2o no), late >arch, consider *e forci ly defenseless a!ainst the rava!es of a call, that, near ;3, + could not adeIuately ans)er eFen if they !ave *e ls. of *oney to sIuander on the pro#ect. ( Iuiet cal*, infiltratin! desolation settles in and a out the pro le*atical 2u #ect <the 2elph= ( 2pirit co*e to d)ell )ithin *e, saturatin! sa*e )ith its .FverA(ll Conte't of 2ituation 6 and all )ould e like to co**it hariAkiri e'cept for lack of !uts enou!h to cut oneFs !uts out. FG5(pril is the cruelest *onth N5 KB.h, yes, thatFs the idea. -he other seasons you can fi!ht. Mou kno), + )as the !uy )ho did the paste )ork on -he Waste ,an(, puttin! -he Waste ,an( to!ether for -he 3ial# + spent the )hole ni!ht on it ecause ODil ertP 2eldes )as so particular. Mou had to fi' it in such a )ay that you could kno) )here the spaces )ere. + put it one )ay, it )ouldnFt fit, and he )ouldnFt allo) it a little it. Meah, layout. 0liot )asnFt even around. 8e )as in ?ondon. RS@id you have any contact )ith PoundL

& 373 & KB-he pu lisher sent Pound a copy of *y +ounter /tatement, and + !ot a very friendly letter fro* Pound a out it, ut he e* arrassed the hell out of *e ecause, in the course of sayin! nice thin!s a out *y ook, he put *e in a ad li!ht )ith the pu lisher. 8e talked a out )hat a lousy pu lisher, so + didnFt

)ant to handle it. RS8o) did you !et to ,e*y de Dour*ont, throu!h PoundL KB,e*y de Dour*ont died )hen + )as )orkin! on hi*. + )as so da*ned du* in *y early days. -his article + )rote on >ann and Dide in +ounter /tatement A Dide sent *e one of his ooks, si!ned his o)n na*e, ut + didnFt even ackno)led!e it. -hatFs )hat + *ean y suicidal. 8o) stupid +Fve eenQ FG@id you ever take any dru!sL KB/othin! ut alcohol. + think )hat saved *e )as Prohi ition. (ll that !odda* stuff. 0very ni!ht + !ot sick so + !ot rid of it. + )asnFt proud. +f +Fd have kept *y liIuor, +Fd een !one a lon! ti*e a!o. >ost of it )as #unk, you kno). 0very it of it had che*icals in it. -hey denatured the denatured. 0veryone )ould put so*e denaturin! in it. -hen the ootle!!er )ould take so*e of the denaturin! out. >y ody )ouldnFt put up )ith it. FG+tFs all a seekin! for transcendence. (lcohol, all dru!s, )hatever, is an atte*pt to achieve transcendence. (uthority elieves you can control transcendence )ith do'olo!ical *ethods, throu!h cere*ony, throu!h ritual, throu!h lan!ua!e. But if they elieve that the e'pression of personal transcendence is pure escape e'ternal to their ritual, then itFs prohi ited. KB+ )as up at :esleyan. + )as !oin! to an alcohol party, and + )ent throu!h a roo* )here all the kids )ere !laBed in darkness. >y Dod, )hat a *uddle. -hey )erenFt doin! anythin!. But )e )ere !oin! to yell and drink. RS+t )as an interestin! *o*ent: the necessity of a andonin! lan!ua!e ecause lan!ua!e had een so reduced to control. FG+t )as synony*ous )ith the a)eso*eness of authority. +n this case, transcendence is associated )ith nonver al for*s e'clusively. -ranscendence is not associated )ith a poetic *essa!e, ut )ith a che*ical one, direct *ediation et)een your ody che*istry and so*e e'ternal influence. KB-

+ think so*eti*es itFs the atte*pt to e all ody. -he rule +F* *ost proud of is this one: -he only cure for di!!in! in the dirt is & 37$ & an idea. -he cure for any idea is *ore ideas. -he cure for all ideas is di!!in! in the dirt. -hatFs the )hole da*n thin!. Body ack to ody. -hatFs your relation et)een ideas N thatFs the ody talkin! for you. + think people )ho take dru!s frustrate the co*pletion of sy* olis*. -he dru!s cut cornersQ :hen + look ack over *y life, and all the hours +Fve spent under alcohol, + think thatFs *y lostness. FGMou associate it )ith loss N KB+F* tryin! to ans)er a call across a !ulf that canFt e crossed. + feel that. 0very once in a )hile, + hit a couple of notes on the piano that #ust !et the da*n thin!. -hey !et )hat + )ish + could do every ti*e. But not y accident, not y alcohol, ut #ust y doin! it that )ay. + )ish + could )rite a )hole thin! like that. +f you havenFt created the* spontaneously, you havenFt really done the*. +f you havenFt done the* )ith your )hole full self. + elieve that our ani*al, ideally, our ani*al N *ust really face these thin!s ri!ht up close. 2o*eti*es people )ill ask *e, 58ave you !ot this doneL MouFre tryin! to stop thin!s.5 + say noQ +Fve !ot out of this N + donFt kno) )hat you call it N the *ost terrifyin! develop*ent. :e have a lot of it here already, and that is )hat )e do fro* no) on. :e use these da*n *achines on us. N :hat is !oin! on in *e no) )hen +F* talkin! to youL :hat is !oin! up and do)n inside, and therefore )hatFs !oin! on in *e )hen + say the )ord that *akes *e horny, or say a )ord that *akes *e dis!usted. :hatFs !oin! on in *y odyL (nd + think for the first ti*e in the )orldFs history, our technolo!ical *achine has !ot the resources to check on that. (nd )hat )e have is a totally ne) kind of disassociation. + a* out there, recorded on a dial. :ho a* +L 8ere + a*, a person, and no) that stuffQ (nd + elieve it )ill !ive us an ulti*ate. + can even elieve6the irony of this6+ suddenly !et a little notion, all of a sudden, + can e pious a!ain. + can see eyond. -here is so*ethin!Q -here is so*ethin!Q FG-he ori!ins of a ne) pietyQ KB+ donFt kno). + !et a little !li*pse of it. + donFt kno) ut there it is. FG-hat little !li*pse is the intuitional !li*pse of a ne) opti*is*. KBMouFve !ot these si!ns on you, thin!s up and do)n, youFre #ust a unch of records on *eters. -hey are reportin! on you, #ust as )hen youFre readin! the dials on a car or an airplane. -he

& 377 & pro le* of identity !ets do)n to that. -he irony of this )hole usiness is that the future, a lo!olo!ical future of this sort )ould e6the irony of *y resistance to technolo!y6this )ould e a purely technolo!ical study. MouFd have a *achine recordin! you. Mes, the sort of 5processin!5 they do no), )orkin! on their o)n lood pressure as indicated on a screen and learnin! to control it. >y notion is that every it of us could e o #ectified that )ay. ,e*e* er )hen (ristotle speaks of the tra!ic pleasureL -his *eans youFre en#oyin! cryin!. But )hen youFre cryin! for so*eone you really have lost, thatFs not fun at allQ -herefore there are t)o kinds of cryin!. -hat sort of difference + )ould sho) on the screen. Under those conditions, a ody can e studied fro* the outside. + have thou!ht a out an e'peri*ent like this. -ake a *ovie or a play. Mou have fifty control people and fifty people in your theater. -he one fifty )ould all e to!ether and the control !roup )ould e isolated individually. + think you )ould have a recordin! of different vi rations )ith the individuals than the kind that happened )ith the one audience. FG9elocity of resonance, noL KB-hey fit into another, fit to!etherG and + think it could sho) not #ust in attitude that the fifty people *anifested a different kind of vi ratin! respondin! to!ether. FG:hen it reaches a *o state, the resonance has *elded into a coefficient of po)er. -hat e'plains *o psycholo!y. KB/o dou t a out it, and + think thatFs )hat 8itler )as )orkin! on. -he point is, as + see, youFd actually have for the first ti*e in history, pictures of all these thin!s !oin! on inside youQ :hen + had an e'a*ination so*e years ack6+ refer to this in the Grammar o$ 2otives6the !uy had *e )alk. 8e put various types of anodes on *e. (s + )alked they )ere checkin! *y !ait. -he record in itself didnFt represent *y !aitG ut if you had different kinds of people, their !aits )ould sho) up in different )ays. -he representations )ould sho) y co*parison )ith one another. MouFd have a co*plete dia!nostic attitude to)ard yourself. FGBut )ho is readin! the dia!nosisL KB:ell, you have different vie)s on that. +nterpretation is so*ethin! else a!ain. -he thin! doesnFt interpret itself. -his

& 373 & applies to the poly!raph test. -hese thin!s are not as accurate as people think. + like that story of the !uy )ho thou!ht he )as /apoleon. 8is analysts ar!ued )ith hi*, tryin! to convince hi* that he )asnFt /apoleon. Cinally he a!reed that he )as not /apoleon. -he ma'hine in(i'ate( that he was lying9 FG8o) a out Colerid!e and dru!sL KBColerid!e )as so pro*isin! in so *any )ays, he put up )ith it, ut he *oaned, he )as )retched in his last years. -here had een a honey*oon sta!e. -hatFs )hen he )rote his )onderful *ystery poe*s. (fter that he )as shot. (nd for several years he )as #ust do)n, no)hereG then he ca*e ack. Cro* then on he lived )ith hi*self as a disease, and he )as under a doctorFs care. But he retained his )onderful a ility to ver aliBe. -he record of the -a&le -al* is en!rossin!. FG:ould you say Colerid!e functioned in the reast of :ords)orth, the surface of the earth, nature. KBColerid!eFs !reat poe*s, the *ystery poe*s, + )ould class under the head of )hat he )ould call 5fancy.5 + think it )asnFt i*a!ination. + donFt think he thou!ht that )ay. But + think those poe*s )ere adu* rations of the surrealists. 5Ku la Khan5 )as their ideal: -o )rite a poe* out of a drea*, and he did. (ny one )ho snoots any of Colerid!e has ro ed hi*self. 8e )as one of the *ost profound )riters )ho ever )roteQ (nd there )as al)ays so*ethin! eatin! at hi*. FG:hat is the difference et)een :ords)orth and Colerid!eL Consta le said all his art can e found under any hed!e. -hatFs pure :ords)orth. KB-here )as a !reat a* i!uity et)een Colerid!eFs and :ords)orthFs relationship to the 5i*a!ination.5 Colerid!eFs *ystery poe*s )ere really not the )ay :ords)orth sa) it. :ords)orth )as tryin! to situate the ne)ness of lan!ua!e in its a ility to reflect reality itselfG Colerid!e )as seein! another real*, lan!ua!e that never )as on land or sea. Cro* the standpoint of Colerid!e, that e'pression )ould *ean so*ethin! that wasnFt there. :hat :ords)orth *eans is itFs really there ut you (i(nFt see it#

& 374 & D@id you see that ,. P. Black*urFs ook on 8enry (da*s finally ca*e outL Black*urFs stuff !ets etter

and etter. -he essay on =lysses, for e'a*ple, )hich everyone al)ays for!ets. KB-hereFs no Iuestion a out it. 8e has a real callin! all his o)n. (fter a couple of ps you !et into it, you feel it. :e had a stran!e relationship that )ay. :e )ere oth autoAdidacts and pretty *uch close to!ether. 8e )as *uch etter at acade*ic politics than + ever )as. .ne su**er, + )as !oin! to e at +ndiana, and + stayed )ith hi* and Hohn Cro)e ,anso*. :e rented a place, a eautiful little houseQ +t )as a lovely ti*e. (s a *atter of fact, that lovely little house is no) a parkin! lot. + did a revie) on one of his ooks. +t )as a dirty trick + did )hich no ody realiBed. 8e !ave t)o of *y favorite prover s, )hich + had already used: Fi(es 6uaerens intelle'tum and 'orru)tio o)timi )essima# O-he first )as an ideal state*ent of scholastic theolo!y. .ne took faith on trust, ut havin! accepted it, one proceeded to sho) )hy the position )as rational. + have discussed it in *y 4hetori' o$ 4eligion a*on! other places. 2ee there, pa!e "2. -he other, 5the corruption of the est is the )orst.5 is so far as + kno) a ?atin prover . + used it in *y essay on 8itlerFs 2ein Gam)$# @ick !ot the* oth )ron!. :hereas intelle'tum is in the accusative case, the o #ect of 5seein!,5 he *ade it a no*inative. + )rote as thou!h he had done this deli erately, to !ive so*e such other *eanin! as 5faith a seekin! intellect,5 or so*e such. (nd he *ade the other, 'orru)tio o)tima )essima, )hich could have een interpreted va!uely as possi ly *eanin! 5corruption <is the= est )orst.5 + for!et e'actly ho) + tinkered )ith the*G ut no ody kne) the difference, and Black*ur never *entioned it to *e. +t is a*usin! that, at the ti*e, + )as entan!led in the tan!le *yself.P RSMou tau!ht )ith 0*pson once at KenyonL KB+ found out )e !ave our classes at the sa*e ti*e, so )e didnFt even kno) )hat the other )as doin!. .ne ni!ht there )as a party on, and y !olly, + )asnFt invited and + felt pretty ad. 2till, they had parties all the ti*e. + heard the noise across the fields, the talkin!, people havin! a )onderful ti*e. + finally )ent to sleep and the ne't thin! + kne) so*eone )as poundin! on the door: Ban!, an!, an!. 5:ake up, >r. BurkeQ :ake up, >r. & 37; & BurkeQ >r. 0*pson is attackin! youQ5 + rushed over. (nd 0*pson )as sittin! in the kitchen under the kitchen sink. 8e )as !oin! in !ood for*, and every ti*e heFd *ake a point heFd toss his head and hit the pipe and *ake it rin!. + thou!ht he *i!ht knock hi*self outQ -hatFs one )ay to crash a party, ri!htL + )as in to stay. +t )ent on all ni!ht till five oFclock in the *ornin!. + never did find out )hat he had said thou!hG y the ti*e + !ot there he )as on another su #ect. :e had our classes at the sa*e ti*e, and )e discovered that )e )ere oth !oin! to !ive a talk on +oriolanus# 2o )e *ade an a!ree*ent )eFd toss up as to )ho )ent first6and )eFd never chan!e a )ord or refer to the otherFs talk at all. +t )as funny, ecause in one )ay students feel inclined to sho) their attitudes in these *atters. .ne !uy, another *e* er of the class, had a stunt )hich )as descri ed to *e. 0*pson had a Iuite picturesIue )ay of lecturin!. 8eFd e talkin!, then suddenly s)oop do)n and

!lance at his *anuscript, then race a out the roo*, or suddenly start )ritin! thin!s on the oard. Constant chan!es in te*po and style. -he student started actin! as thou!h he )ere ai*in! a !un all over the place. 8e said, 5Mou canFt !et a ead on hi*.5 +t )ould e like hi*. FG/even -y)es A KB+ think his other ook N RS/ome Dersions o$ .astoral< KBMes, is etter than that. -hatFs eautiful. FGBut the effect of /even -y)es o$ Am&iguity )as torrential. KB+ donFt kno) if itFs true ut +Fve heard that ori!inally he had ut si' types. FG@idnFt like the nu* erL KB,ichards )as said to have su!!ested *akin! it seven ut + donFt kno) e'actly )hy. FGCor Pytha!orean reasons alone. D2even is *ore co*plete. 2i' is an i*possi le nu* er. But three plus four N FGMou donFt settle on si', si' is N

& 37% & KB+ al)ays think si' in 0n!lish is se'. D@id you kno) :allace 2tevensL KB+ kne) hi* a little it. 8e )as !iven an honorary de!ree up at Bard. + )ent up there as a part of the outfit to honor hi*. >y )ife )as )ith *e, and at one of the *eals she sat ne't to hi*. 2he said later, 5Duess )hat :allace 2tevens asked *eL5 + said, 5:hatFs thatL5 5 J@oes your hus and have insuranceLK 5 + clai* that the asic idea of 2tevensFs )ork N )hatFs the )ord for itL -he first idea. + think )hat he )as really tryin! to do )as, y i*a!ination, to recall )hat it )as like to see so*ethin! &e$ore he had a )ord for it. +n a sense, thatFs ho) he did see thin!s ori!inally. :hat he really )as doin! )as ai*in! to re!ress. D-ryin! to e innocent a!ain. KBMes. CanFt eQ -he only )ay )as to do it. N +n one sense, your ody is al)ays that )ay, of course. But youFve lost it forever. O0ditorFs note: Herre >an!ione in An Ethni' at ,arge </e) Mork: Putna*, "%4;= su**ariBes the events to )hich the discussion elo) refers: (t the first (*erican :ritersF Conference in "%37, Burke scandaliBed the orthodo' Co**unists in the audience y proposin! that all future left)in! propa!anda su stitute the )ord 5people5 for 5*asses.5 8e ar!ued that )ords like 5*asses,5 5)orkers,5 and 5proletarians5 tended to e'clude so*e of the very ele*ents in society that the Co**unists )ere tryin! to )in over. (t the end of his presentation, he ackno)led!ed that his advice ore 5the telltale sta*p of *y class, the petite our!eoisie,5 ut held that the alle!iance of his class to the leftA)in! cause )as 5vitally i*portant.5 Cor this vie) he )as severely repri*anded in pu lic y such Co**unist i!)i!s as >ike Dold and Hoseph Cree*an, )ho !ave ela orate >ar'ist reasons for re#ectin! the use of 5people.5 .nly t)o *onths later oth *en )ere o li!ed to s)allo) their rationales )hen the Co*intern passed a resolution callin! for a 5PeopleFs Cront,5 in )hich Co**unist parties in all countries )ere ur!ed to ally the*selves )ith as *any li erals and our!eois, petit and other)ise, as possi le. BurkeFs paper 5,evolutionary 2y* olis* in (*erica5 is collected in Ameri'an WriterFs +on$eren'e </e) Mork: +nternational Pu lishers, "%37=. >alcol* Co)ley has a chapter on the conference in -he 3ream o$ the Gol(en 2ountain: 4emem&ering the -hirties </e) Mork: -he 9ikin! Press, "%;0=. .ther sources are: 5-hirty Mears ?ater: >e*ories of the Cirst (*erican :ritersF Conference,5 -he Ameri'an /'holar <su**er"%33=, a discussion

)ith Burke, Co)ley, Dranville 8icks, and :illia* Phillips, *oderated y @aniel (aron. (aronFs WritersF on the ,e$t: E)iso(es in Ameri'an ,iterary +ommunism </e) Mork: 8arcourt, Brace and :orld, & 330 & "%3"= has a valua le discussion. 2idney 8ookFs revie) of BurkeFs Attitu(es towar( History appeared in the .artisan 4eview <@ece* er "%34=, and an e'chan!e et)een Burke and 8ook appeared in the follo)in! issue. 8ookFs co**ents are reprinted in :illia* ,ueckertFs +riti'al 4es)onses to Genneth %ur*e, "%2$E"%33 <>inneapolis: University of >innesota Press, "%3%=.P RS+s it Hoseph Cree*an you descri ed as 5a loco*otive in pu lic and a nice !uy in private5L KB:ell it *i!ht have een >ike Dold too. -hey oth )ent after *e. >alcol* Co)ley o*itted so*e of the *a#or details, so far as + )as concerned. + thou!ht it )as a terrific e'perience. Cor instance + had the !odda*dest fantasies after that thin!, and + had een !oin! throu!h pro le*s of *y o)n esides. + really felt the ostracis*. 8 was out# :hen + )ent out of that roo* after that thin! )as over, + )alked ehind t)o !irls there and one of the* said to the other. 5But he see*ed so honestQ5 + )as #ust devastated, + felt that it )as horri le. >y Dod, the ne't day + )alked do)n the hall + sa) Hoe co*in!, + shrank. (nd he says hello. Mou did those thin!s. (nd the irony is )hen the slate ca*e up, it )as #ust as if nothin! had happened. RSMou )ere elevated to the co**ittee. KBMes. But in the *eanti*e + had !one ho*e, and it )as !hastly. (nd + lay do)n. + had een out the ni!ht eforeG and +Fd een shoved into this thin! on top of that, and + lay do)n and +Fd hear 5BurkeQ BurkeQ5 >y o)n na*e had eco*e a curse )ord. +Fd )ake up and finally, *y Dod #ust this side of an a solute hallucination *y ton!ue N shit drippin! fro* *y ton!ue. 8orri le. >y )hole devotion to 8arold ,osen er! ste*s fro* that ti*e on. 8e turned up )hen + )as lost. 8e thou!ht it )as funnyQ 8e took *e do)n to a unch of super, of su su splinters of a splinter !roup. -o take *e into reality. .n the asis of it, + sa) so da*n *uch a out the psycholo!y of the trials. -he irony )as that )hen they turned up, + could understand ho) the prisoners felt. Mou feel so !odda* N itFs a )orld of its o)n. Mou felt that the )hole place )as a!ainst you. + sa) so*ethin!. BoyQ (nd the irony of it in that )hole da*n usiness )as then, of course, 2idney 8ook thou!ht + )as #ust a sellout to 2talin. + didnFt elieve the !odda* char!es a!ainst 2talin at the ti*e. + really didnFt. + thou!ht the !uy )as strai!ht.

& 33" & FG-

UhAhuh. KB2o he thou!ht + )as #ust a sellout on that stuff. FG(t )hat point did you realiBe 2talin )as )hat he )asL KB?ater on N no, + didnFt N FG(fter thirtyAfiveL KB9ery *uch later. +t )as al*ost the ti*e of N fro* )hatFsAhisna*eL -he !uy that spilt the eans over here. FGMou *ean 0ast*anL KB/o, no, the ,ooshian, the current N )hatFs his na*e. KousevitskyL FGMou donFt *ean -rotskyL KB/o, no, not -rotsky N the official )ho spilt the )hole thin! on 2talin. FGMou donFt *ean 2olBhenitsyn. -hatFs too late. KB+nside, the i! !uy in the usiness itself. FG:hat year is this, in the fortiesL

KB+tFs the *an )ho ca*e over here, )ho sparred )ith /i'on. FG@urin! the hearin!s in the early fiftiesL KB:ho )as the fella )ho ran the N )ho eca*e the Pri*e N Pre*ier, )hatever you )ant to call hi*, the )hole outfit, the head of the state. RSKhrushchevL +n fiftyAfive youFre talkin! a outL KBMes. RSUntil then you didnFt think 2talin )as e'posedL KBMes. + thou!ht it )as still N FG-he evidence )as there since the *idAthirties. KB+ had )orked on the da*n stuff. + #ust didnFt think N + never thou!ht N + *ade a co*plete distinction et)een left totalitarianis* and the 8itlerite stuff. + didnFt think that the left N it didnFt !o that )ay. + #ust didnFt. 8t (i(nFt ma*e sense to me# FG8ave you read 2olBhenitsyn, -he Gulag< KB+Fve only read pieces of it. + elieve )hat these fellas are sayin!. + didnFt this other stuff that they )ere handin! out then.

& 332 & FG@id you think your !ood )ill )as in any )ay used y this in your )illin!ness to not see this distinction et)een 8itlerite totalitarianis*, as you put it, and totalitarianis* of the leftL KB+ donFt kno). 8ookFs attacks on *e )ere ased on the assu*ption that + )as #ust a sellout. + kne) that. FG-hat you )ere actively involved in deceit. :as that )hat 8ook )as sayin!L KBMes. :hat happened there )as this. -he )hole attack of the -rotskyites at that ti*e in /e) Mork N all of us on the frin!es of the )hole da*n thin!. N -here )as a !eneral tendency, -he New 4e)u&li' )ith 2talin and -he Nation )ith -rotskyG there )as al)ays a little alance et)een the*. + #ust )ove alon! )ithout havin! to say a lot a out it. :hen + )rote *y Attitu(es towar( History, + uilt the )hole thin! on *y for*ula, the &ureau'rati?ation o$ the imaginative# -rotskyFs attack on 2talin )as slo!aniBed as an attack a!ainst ureaucracy. >y assu*ption )as that if you had -rotsky, then youFd have a -rotsky ureaucracy. (nd that + donFt dou t at all. -hereFs no other )ay to run that sort of enterprise. (nythin! you kno) a out -rotsky !ives you reason to suppose that he )ould e as *uch of a slave driver as 2talin ever )as. FG8e )as far *ore so)histi'ate( than 2talin. KB>uch *uch *ore, ut itFs the sa*e da*n thin!. +f the situation de*ands such policies, youFre !oin! to !et the*. +n Con!ress, one )ay to kill a *easure is to propose that it e e'tended to enefit *any other !roups, too. Mou can kill it y *akin! it so road that it eco*es un)ieldy. 8ook thou!ht that + )as universaliBin! the principle of ureaucracy in order to steal it fro* -rotsky as a special slo!an a!ainst 2talin N )hereas actually + think the )ay + analyBed the ter* and correspondin! attitudes does apply it honestly in a universal )ay. -hereFs that )onderful story + Iuote in *y edition of Attitu(es pu lished y 8er*es. + used to resent that + !ot it fro* ?incoln 2teffens. But to *ake up a story as !ood as that and have it s)iped )ithout credit )ould have een pretty rou!hQ 2teffens, as the story !oes, )as enterin! the /e) Mork Pu lic ?i rary )hen a friend of his ca*e stu* lin! out. -he *an )as o viously in !reat a!itation. 5+Fve found itQ5 he shouted. (nd he & 333 & cla*orously called for 2teffens to !o )ith hi* and listen )hile he told of his discovery. 2teffens o li!ed. -he t)o u*ped alon! CortyA2econd 2treet and turned do)n Cifth (venue )hile the friend so*e)hat incoherently e'plained.

Dradually, despite his e'cite*ent, his )ords e!an to *ake sense6and 2teffens realiBed that his friend had found a plan for savin! the )orld. (nd the *ore the outlines of the plan e!an to e*er!e, the etter the sche*e sounded. -hen 2teffens eca*e a)are that so*eone )as )alkin! alon! eside the*, listenin! to the account. (nd finally, turnin!, he sa) a very distin!uishedAlookin! !entle*an6then, lookin! a!ain, he realiBed that it )as the devil. SteffensMou see* to e interested in *y friendFs plan. !3e *evil@ecidedlyQ Steffens:hat do you think of itL !3e *evil+ think itFs an e'cellent plan. SteffensMou *ean to say you think it )ould )orkL !3e *evil.h, yes. +t )ould certainly )ork. SteffensBut in that case, ho) a out youL :ouldnFt it put you out of a #o L !3e *evil/ot in the least. +Fll or!aniBe it. -hatFs as !reat in its )ay as that )onderful thin! + like so *uch fro* 9e len: +nvention is the *other of necessity. + use that over and over. + love it as thou!h it )ere the first ti*e + heard it. +tFs the )hole storyQ

FGCan you connect ureaucracy )ith a theory of ta'ono*yL KB>y for*ula: &ureau'rati?ation o$ the imaginative is that you start out )ith a drea*, you or!aniBe it, and youFre ne'essarily !oin! to !et so*ethin! else. MouFre !oin! to !et all kinds of unforeseen conseIuences. -he thin! uilds up a nature of its o)n. Mou see, one of *y asic la)s in this re!ard is the instrumentalist em&arrassment, or parado', or Iuandary. + donFt kno) )hat you call it, parado'L +tFs the e* arrass*ent of instru*ental thinkin!. -hat is, you assu*e that so*e policy, so*e instru*ent desi!ned for a certain purpose, has only the nature that you use it for. -hatFs a !reat *istake. 0verythin! has a nature of its o)n. -here are all these other potentialities that & 33$ & !o alon! )ith it. -hereFs your instru*entalist fallacy, or e* arrass*ent, or parado', or Iuandary. + still canFt decide )hat noun to settle on. -he funda*ental irony of the )hole situation is this: MouFre anthropo*orphiBin!, proclai*in! that Kin! Kilroy )as hereQ But )hatever you do, thereFs so*ethin! else !oin! on. (nd thatFs the scene of the )hole sho). (nd so*e of those une'pected conseIuences turn out Iuite )ell, ut others decidedly do not. .f course the i!!est ones to turn out lousy are our pollutions. :eFve uilt up a nature, ut itFs a counterAnature, in the sense that it has unforeseen conseIuences that not nature ut only hu*an in!enuity could rin! a out. Bucky Culler sees it as irreversi le, and he sees it as )onderful. + often see it as oth irreversi le and )onderful and Opoints thu* do)nP. FG+Fd like to turn to the relationship et)een purpose and *otive, )hich is of course your distinction, and your pentad in !eneral. 8o) does it overlap )ith a strict lin!uistic poetics as you find in Hako son and BarthesL +f you )ere to *ap your pentad of lin!uistic force on top of structural lin!uistics, )hat )ould surviveL (re there direct points et)een these t)o syste*sL KB+Fve never )orked )ith Hako son enou!h to *ake a decision on that. + donFt really kno). -he ter*s the*selves are really 6uestions rather than answers and so*eone else *i!ht )ant to define the situation differently. (ll + say is, ho)ever you do define it, i*plicit in the al!e ra of it, are certain )ays in )hich the a!ent )ill react, )ill e *otivated y the scene, and so on. (nd then the *otivation )ill e of a different sort dependin! upon the scope, or circu*ference of oneFs ter*s, if the scene has a !od. >y analysis of the pentad )as a )ay of sharpenin! up )hatFs !oin! on in a )ork thatFs already )ritten. FG( her*eneutic tool, an interpretive toolL KBMes. +t *akes *e understand the *usculature of the )ork. -hatFs )hat you look for in a )ork. +t tells

*e )hatFs there. -he theory of *y pentad <or he'ad= tells *e )hat kinds of Iuestions to ask of a )ork and y inspectin! the )ork + ena le it to !ive *e the ans)ers, not #ust y precept, ut y e'a*ple. +f + look at a )ork: :hatFs the scene/act ratio in thereL Mou )ant this !uy to love that oneG )ell, all ri!ht, +Fll look to see ho) the )ork proceeds to *ake you do that. + found this a !ood )ay of & 337 & )orkin! )ith students. +f they )anted to appreciate a )ork, + found such ter*s for *otivation a !ood )ay to start askin! a out the )orkFs style and structure, especially in the case of classical structure. Cor one can use classical structures as ench*arks )ithout necessarily de*andin! that there e no departures fro* such structures. FG@o you anchor do)n the pentad )ith other points of episte*olo!ical inference such that itFs not, to use your e'pression, 5a ter*inolo!ical screen5 unto itself ut a screen co*pati le )ith other syste*sL KB>ay e + can do it. + )as hearin! a fello) on CavettFs sho) this *ornin!, an anthropolo!ist, >cDuiness. 8e )as talkin! a out the 0ski*o situation in (laska. -hey are #ust a out destroyed. -heyFre drunk all the ti*e, and they canFt do a thin!. 8e !ot cau!ht in a little to)n )here there )ere only t)o *echanics )ho could fi' his car, and they )ere oth ste)ed. -he oil co*panies *ove in there, !ive the* all *oney, and all they do )ith it is drink. -heirs )as ori!inally a survival culture: -hey had to !o out and !et those )hales. -hatFs )hat they ha( to (o# /o) the )hole meaning of such a livelihood is lost. -hereFs a *oral in that situationG in a survival culture you had to do thin!s a certain )ay. /o) people !o out and run up and do)n the road to keep in !ood condition. But in pri*itive cultures the conditions keep the natives in !ood condition. -hey did )hat they ha( to do. FG0ski*os donFt #o!. KBMes. Mou do philosophy. itFs a moral act. But y Dod, if civiliBation )ere accurate, )eFd do it as a ne'essary a't9 -he funda*ental Iuestion in this *atter of counterAnature, it see*s to e, is: 8o) *uch of our culture is ased on )hysi'al necessitiesL :hat happens to those necessitiesL -he country )as uilt on necessity. + had it as far ack as .ermanen'e an( +hange# +t dealt )ith the rational and irrational, and + said the trou le )ith that )ay of linin! thin!s up is: ( )hole lot of thin!s happen that donFt fit either of the t)o cate!ories. 8o) a out metho(i'al< Mour sto*achQ +t has a metho( of di!estin!. ( tre*endous a*ount of culture is ased on this *ethodical usiness of fittin! into nature. 8o) far does that !oL RS-his !oes ack to your pro!ra* in +ounter /tatement# :hat do you do in the face of overproductionL -hatFs never een dealt

& 333 & )ith. :e #ust !o throu!h periodic crises. -hereFs never een an introduction of any dra*atistic critiIue of production. KB(nd + think itFs #ust Iuite possi le that it is a i!!er #o than )e can handle. + donFt kno). Because it does reIuire so *uch ethics. -hereFs too *uch ethics needed to run a state. +f + have to !o out and #o! and stuff like that in order to keep fro* fallin! apart N RS8as there een any)here )here the introduction of ethics is a rake on productionL KB(pparently in the 8a)aiian culture, ori!inally, they did a lot of it y si*ply s)i**in! so *uch and en#oyin! the )ater: Cishin!Q FGCan )e !et ack to the point of the e'chan!ea ility of syste*s )here co**on points knit to!ether to reproduce a reinforced episte*e N a reinforced *ode of kno)in! )here one syste* overlaps the other to *a!nify it N and ho) your pentad fits into any syste* you )ish to dra) on, )hich is separate fro* it, even alien to it, ut )hich $its it. +f itFs not structural lin!uistics, )hat is itL Cor e'a*ple, + see your )ork in O0rvin!P Doff*an skeletally, especially in the )hole issue of ritual interaction: as oneAtoAone seIuences of ehavior, the idea of scenic chan!e a*on! stran!ers, relations to inti*acy and ho) inti*acy relates to ritual interaction. -his all co*es fro* your pentad. KBMou see the ori!inal for*ula + used, the *edieval for*ula: 6uis< 6ui(< u&i< 6ui&us au1illis< 'ur< 6uo mo(o< 6uan(o< is a he'a*eter line. @ick >cKeon had not noticed that hi*self. +f the ter*s are put in e'actly that order, they *ake a line of verse in classical ?atin prosody. + cheated in a )ay )hen + )orked )ith it as a pentad, and + al)ays think that + did it as a pentad ecause + had only five children. +f +Fd had si' N FG+f youFd had nineQ KB.h DodQ 0aneads, that !oes ack to N FGPytha!orasL

KB/o, the )hole usiness that + )orked on )ith that is. N >y 5dra*atis*5 article in -he 8nternational En'y'lo)e(ia o$ /o'ial /'ien'es is classed under 5+nteractionis*.5 + notice that Dre!ory OBatesonP didnFt !et in there.

& 334 & FG+ donFt see you as a social scientist. + see you as more than a social scientist. KB+tFs one field + do decidedly )ork )ith. .ermanen'e an( +hange has a lot of sociolo!y in it. FGBut )erenFt you re oundin! fro* a kind of naive >ar'is* in that ookL KBMou kno) )hat + )as re oundin! fro*L -his is a drastic confession. Mou )ouldnFt elieve this. -hereFs an a)ful lot of that ook that )as really seculariBin! )hat + learned as a Christian 2cientist. (ll this psycho!enic illness stuff N thereFs no other secular ook in the )orld )here you find so *uch of that pu lished at that ti*e. + !ot that fro* >ary Baker D. 0ddy, and + seculariBed itQ FG-hatFs a revelation. + )ould never have !uessed that overlap. KBBut the point + started )ith: 6uis< 6ui(< u&i< etcetera N 5:hoL5 5:hatL5 5By )hat *eansL5 N the )ay + put the* in the ook ori!inally: 5)hat5 )as 5act,5 5)ho5 )as 5a!ent,5 5)hy5 )as 5purpose5 N + )orked the* all out that )ay. + had 5 y )hat *eans5 for 5a!ency,5 and + cheated in this )ay: +f + say that 5he did this,5 for e'a*ple, 58e uilt this )ith a ha**er )ith alacrity, )ith !ood )ill,5 +Fve used 5a!ency5 in t)o )ays, one literal, one fi!urative. + put 5ho)5 and 5 y )hat *eans5 to!etherG and )hat + did in *akin! it a he'ad )as to *ake a difference et)een the t)o. +t really is an i*prove*ent. 58o)5 is your attitu(e, and 5 y )hat *eans5 is your instrument# +Fll tell you the ulti*ate irony + found out. +t )as no )ise crack in this fiveAter* usiness. + )as )ritin! that ook A Grammar o$ 2otives# -he ook had een accepted and )as finished. + started teachin! at Bennin!ton, then + holed up in (ndover for the )inter. (ll + had to do )as verify a fe) references here and there. But + started rewriting itQ 0ven to the e'tent of chan!in! the order. -hereFs no one order reIuired for a ook of that sort. + could even have arran!ed the* alpha etically, an order + have used on other occasions. But if you do )rite the* up in a !iven order, all sorts of internal read#ust*ents turn up. + )as out here for the )inter. + had a hi!h chair and to keep in tri*, + put *y

& 33; & type)riter on that, and )rote standin! up. -he t)o oys )ere playin! on the floor around *e. +n so*e places the sno) )as up to the roof in drifts. -hen one day + discovered that + couldnFt !o on )ith the revisin!. <+ncidentally + realiBed later that all this ti*e +Fd een standin! on one foot, )ith *y other hooked on a chair.= +Fd !one throu!h three ter*s, + had t)o left: 5a!ency5 and 5purpose.5 But for the ne't step a )hole ne) kind of pro le* turned up. -here )ere two )ays to !o. +f + )ent one of those )ays, the style of the ook turned into a 5@ear @iary5 sort of thin!. (nd literally if + )ent that )ay, + felt as thou!h thin!s )ould dissolve into a siBBle, like an (lkaA2eltBer ta let. -he feelin! )as intolera le. But if + )ent the other )ay it )as as thou!h *y ar*s )ere ound ti!ht to *y sides, and that )as eIually intolera le. Both i*pressions )ere as near to hallucination as they could e )ithout ein! so actually. -hey )erenFt #ust *etaphors. + stopped )ritin! and started takin! notes on *y drea*s. :hen )ritin! these notes, of a sudden + re*e* ered a letter in )hich + had referred to *y children as *y 5five ter*s.5 (nd that )as the pro le*. + had e!un transfor*in! those a stract ter*s into personalities. +f + )ent *ore fully in that direction the ook )ould turn into a siBBle. But if + kept the* as a stract as the ori!inal plan of the ook de*anded, +Fd e as ound as if in a strai!htA#acket. Cor instance, + had ori!inally e!un )ith 5(ct.5 +n the revised version, + shifted that to third. (nd *y third dau!hter )as the sta!eAstruck one. -hus the tendency to)ard the personaliBin! of the ter*s had e!un to *ake clai*s as far ack as that. But )hen + !ot to 5(!ency,5 for *y fourth section, this shift e!an to *anifest itself intensely. >y elder son, Butchie, )as the ideal person for that ter*. 8eFs the !reat instru*entalist, e'ceptionally co*petent )hen dealin! )ith *achinery, )here +F* at *y )orst. -his fits 0*ersonFs idea of 5co*pensation.5 +n our fa*ily, heFs the !reat !ad!eteer. :e all rely on his a ility as a fi'er. :hen he )as a little kid, he desi!ned a )hole plu* in! syste* for this house efore )e had any such facilities. +t )as a *arvel of econo*ic efficiency. -he )ater )ould co*e fro* the old pu*p out there in the yard, !o throu!h the heatin! syste*, the kitchen and the & 33% & athroo*, and e drained off throu!h a pipe that )ent ack into the cistern that it had een pu*ped out of. FG+t sounds like ,u e Dold er!. KB-hatFs real efficiency for youQ (nd the instru*entalist ter*, 5(!ency,5 )as pressin! to eco*e Butchie in a i! )ay, )ith everythin! eco*in! a fiBBle if it did, and a strai!htA#acket if it didnFt. (s soon as + discovered )hat + )as up a!ainst, + kne) )hat + had to cancel and redirect6and )hy. 2tanley 8y*an had co*e to to)n, and he )as sta!in! a t)oAday drunk party in /e) Mork. + )ent, stayed up all ni!ht drinkin! and talkin!. + )ould talk to anyone as lon! as he )ould stand it, then +Fd talk to another. :hen + ca*e ho*e + )as talked out. :hile leavin! the ter*s in their 5personal5 order, + could no) other)ise !ive the* their proper a stractness, and the pattern is etter )ith 5ho),5 6uo mo(o, as attitude.

FG+t serves the la)s of sy**etryL KB.h yes, ut the point + started to tell you: +n this article on 5dra*atis*,5 +F* talkin! a out *y notion of this antithetical ele*ent, )hat + call 5con!re!ation y se!re!ation.5 Mou !et to!ether y all ein! a!ainst the sa*e thin!: +tFs us a!ainst the*. Mou find that every syste* has one of these t)ists in there so*e)here. +tFs not necessarily that one, ut thereFs al)ays the te*ptation for that one to !et in. +n the Christian syste*, Hesus is the victi*. 8ere the issue is technolo!y, )here everythin! is positive, free, and supposedly !ood. :e find that the victi* is the country itself, the nation. FG-he soil. KBCifty thousand du*p heaps no). 9icti*a!e is co*in! ack on us no). +tFs the *ost efficiently victi*iBin! syste* that )as ever uiltQ FG-he role of the victi* is placed in the future. KBMou !et your freedo*, thou!h. 0veryone of these !uys )ho *ade *illions is for freedo*, )hile victi*iBin! the structure. + !et around to a notion like this: ( olitionis* is a falsity. +f *y theory is correct, + can only elieve in transfor*ations. -he )hole issue !ets do)n no) to a distinction et)een i*plicit and e'plicit: an institution that is e'plicit over in one culture <thinkin! in ter*s of co*parative cultures= is i*plicit in anotherd & 340 & culture, or vice versa. +n other )ords, you ask yourself ho) so*e previous syste* is transfor*ed. +n older syste*s you had your scape!oat actually, for*ally e'pressed, e'plicitly there. +n this syste* it isnFt na*ed at all, yet you have the i!!est scape!oat *echanis* in history. 8ere is the strai!ht, assertive, doAasAyouA)ill syste*, and here is the !reatest victi*a!e principle, ut it is *oved over into the victi*iBin! of the econo*y itself. FG-here )ere *any fore)arnin!s of this. :e canFt say )e )erenFt )arned. KB,i!ht. + have to start on this asis: +F* definin! us as the sy* olusin! ani*al, and +F* sayin! the

resources of sy* olis* have al)ays een the sa*e. Mou can !et the* transfor*ed, not eli*inated. >ar' said, at the ti*e of the our!eois revolution, you )erenFt a olishin! slaveryG you )ere !ettin! )a!e slavery. Mou trans$orme( slavery, you didnFt a olish it. :hen a culture *arked y a *ore pri*itive technolo!y confronts a civiliBation *arked y a hi!h develop*ent of technolo!y, the *ore pri*itive one <like the 0ski*os in (laska= collapses rather than under!oin! transfor*ations. FGCould )e discuss )hy they couldnFt transfor* itL +s that lin!uisticL KB-hatFs a i! feature of it. But as the fello) on the Cavett sho) said, itFs a survival culture in the strictest sense. Mou !ive the* so*e *oney, and *oney destroys the*. +t )asnFt a *oney culture at allG it )as a survival culture. FGBut )hy does *oney necessarily destroy the*L :hy couldnFt the culture assert itself in such a )ay that so*ethin! that )asnFt it could destroy itL +f they had no history )ith *oney, ho) )as it allo)ed to enterL Clearly )eFre talkin! a out so*ethin! a ove the culture. KB+f you donFt !o out and hunt those )hales as necessity, then you shoul( do it like #o!!in!. >oney *akes it ethical as an 5ou!ht,5 )hile efore it )as ethical as a 5*ust.5 -here are t)o kinds of ethics involved. -he )ord *eans custo*. But there are t)o kinds of custo*s. .ne *eans that youFve !ot to do it, the other *eans that you ou!ht to do it. -hatFs a i! difference. (nd the *ore strain you put on the 5ou!ht5 kind of ethics, the tou!her & 34" & thin!s are. -he *ore of the culture that #ust !ro)s out of the necessity of livin!, the etter off you are. +t #ust takes too *uch conscientiousness to *ake an ad#ust*ent of that sort. FG-he 0ski*o culture never thou!ht in ter*s of sheer survival. 2heer survival )as al)ays !ranted. +t )as an assu*ption that )as central )ithin the culture. KB-hey didnFt have to see it in ter*s of anythin!. (s this fello) said, they have thirtyAseven )ords for sno) ut no )ord for love. -hey !ot alon! all ri!ht )ithout it. FG?ove in the sno), perhaps. .n the )ay here )e )ere talkin! a little it a out you and Charles Pierce,

his trinityAlike structure versus your pentad, the five and the three, or as you say no) your he'ad, the si' and the three. 8o) do you dra) our five, or si', fro* PierceFs threeL (re you fa*iliar )ith his ter*s for conceivin! the )orld as a continuityL Can you place this in reference to your scene/act ratioL -he physical universe displays an undeter*ined variety and spontaneity for Pierce initially. KB:ell the funda*ental notion + have N the )ay + cut all the corners of *y )hole pedantic he'adic process is this: + cut all do)n to these three thin!s: MouFve !ot e6uations <this eIuals that=G youFve !ot im)li'ations <if this, then that=G youFve !ot trans$ormations <fro* this, to that=. Dive *e lan!ua!e and + can sho) youG for instance, if you say insi(e, it i*plies outsi(e# +f you say u), it i*plies (own# +f + say, 5Dod our Cather,5 thereFs *y eIuation. +f + say insi(e, *y im)li'ation# FG0Iuations, i*plications, and transfor*ations. + !ot it. Pierce dra!s in the concept of love into his three, he does. ?ove is an ele*ent in the triple. KB:ell, love is in *y sche*eG love is a personaliBed )ord for co**unication. FG/ot a !eneraliBedL KB-hereFs co**union in love, shared co**union. -hatFs all there is to it. FG-here is a shared dyna*ic )hich is the necessary !round for all *eanin!ful activity, for all perception of continuity in the )orld. Mou need love, you need the presence of love, as an active dyna*ic *ore than the co**union of shared selves.

& 342 & KB@esire, if you )ant to *ake it a nice )ord. Mou need so*e kind of principle of desire. 2pinoBa says, 5+t is of the essence of *an to (esire.5 Mou !o after so*ethin!. (ctually, the irony of it is the eauty of it. -hatFs )hy the )orld is all !ood. Mou see, the )orld is !ood ecause the !ood is that at )hich you ai*. <-hatFs (ristotle.= MouFre after so*ethin!, and so is everythin! else in the )orld. -herefore, the rattlesnake has a different idea than you have of !ood. 8e thinks itFs !ood to take a shot at you. Mou *ay think itFs !ood to take a shot at hi*. But each of you is ai*in! at the !ood. -herefore, !ood, love, purpose, all the sa*e thin!.

O:e have purposes as )hysiologi'al or!anis*s, and purposes as sym&ol using ani*als. :e feel hun!er as physiolo!ical or!anis*s. But our )ays )ith sy* olAsyste*s are such that in order to feed, )eFre *uch *ore likely to seek for *oney )here)ith to uy the food than to !o directly in search of !a*e. (nd the indirect route via *oney en!a!es a real* of o li!ations and trick appetites far afield fro* the 5natural5 routes to food !atherin!. (nd our ooks, all of the* the*selves far afield fro* such a direct route et)een hun!er and physiolo!ical satiety, allo) for such rounda out )ays as are reflected in the various philosophic no*enclatures + atte*pt to characteriBe in *y Grammar o$ 2otives# -hatFs )hat + *eant y talk of puttin! one ter* for *otives in, turnin! the crank, and out co*es another.P 2ure, sure, sure. ?ove )ould e your nice )ord for purpose. -hatFs all you need. Chance, love, and lo!ic. +F* after so*ethin!G + rationaliBeG then luck is )hether + hit it or not. -hatFll fit. -hatFs all you need. +t fits into the sche*e and *ay e + can )ork with it. FGBoth Co!arty and 8y*an co*pare you to ,ichardsL + al)ays )ondered ho) you felt a out that co*parison. KB-hatFs all ri!ht. + !ive ,ichards credit as far ack as *y .ermanen'e an( +hange, + !ot !ood stuff fro* ,ichards, and + said so. FG-heory o$ ,iterary +riti'ism< KBMes. -hat )as a !ood ook. FG:hat do you *ake of -he 2eaning o$ 2eaning< KB+ !ot the *ost out of the supple*ent y >alino)ski. + found that *uch *ore useful for *y purposes than any of the rest. +Fve & 343 & een plu!!in! it for years. Cor so*e reason they )onFt !ive >alino)ski credit for that te't. + donFt kno) )hy people )ere so a!ainst hi*. + never follo)ed that. + find it one of the *ost su!!estive essays + ever read. 0ven the very thin!s he left out are there in a )ay. 8is )hole )ay of rin!in! out the te'ture of lan!ua!e as *ere part of a )ider act: -hat is, not sy* olis* in the sense of this ein! the )ord for that, ut )hen youFre usin! sy* ols as )art o$ a sheerly )hysi'al o)eration, as )hen youFre teachin! a kid ho) to tie his shoes. 8e talked a out the use of lan!ua!e )hen the illiterate tri es*en )ere catchin! fish, and ho) they called ack and forth to one another. -he anecdote see*s etter and etter the *ore closely you look at

it. +tFs *ore resonant than he had the sli!htest intention of *akin! it. Cishers of *en, fishers of fish and the initials, in Dreek, for 5Hesus Christ Dod 2on 2avior5 spellin! in Dreek i'hthus, the fish. .f course thatFs out of ounds ut any)ay: 8ere they are, catchin! fish, co*pletely cooperative, )orkin! to!ether in a plot against their victi*s. -hen on the )ay ack the tri es*en have a race. -hey have several oats, and these 'olla&orators turn their trip ack into a 'om)etition# -hen )hen they !et ack they start tellin! a out it. 8ere lan!ua!e turns to an out and out narrative. (nd that *oves into the )hole usiness of phatic co**union. :hereat you can !li*pse ho) the pro)ess of speech can develop as sheer art, like all !reat poetry takin! deli!ht in lan!ua!e for its o)n sake. -he te't also touches upon the co**e*orative aspect of lan!ua!e, that is, desi!ns on *u**ies and such. (ll these anecdotes are e'plicitly distin!uished fro* the kind of conte't involved in a ook, )hich defines its o)n conte't. -hese others donFt have the for*al structure that a ook has. 8eFs #ust a out !ot in there the )hole ran!e of the relationships et)een lan!ua!e and nonlin!uistic *otion. -he kind of speech used in the first anecdote involves pri*itive si!ns: 0verythin! has !ot to e )hat you call it )ith re!ard to the na*es for the instru*ents theyFre usin! and the distinctions that are !iven. +tFs a pri*itively s'ienti$i' aspect of lan!ua!e. -here is the narrative sortG then a ritualistic lan!ua!e around corpses and urns, little *a!ical si!ns. But althou!h >alino)ski says that the & 34$ & )ritten ook is for*ally selfAcontained, his o)n account of such sy* olic action !ives us !round to suppose that itFs only relatively selfAcontained. /o te't can e )holly selfAcontained. -hatFs )here the deconstructionist !uys are cuttin! in, on that sort of thin!. + )ant to stop half)ay there. @estroy it, yes, if you )ill. But first let us see it as havin! the for* it does have )ith its particular kind of e!innin!, *iddle, and end. RSMou had already e!un to think a out social conte't and lan!ua!e in +ounter /tatement, for e'a*ple )hen you de*onstrate in your analysis of Hamlet ho) for* can e understood as 5the psycholo!y of the audience.5 +F* interested in the prefi!urative *ove*ent of +ounter /tatement and ho) that is the foundation of your )ork. KB2o*e students )ho have )orked on *y stuff in !eneral have co**ented on ho) *uch of it is already there in !er* in +ounter /tatement# + started fro* poetry and dra*a )hereas *ost of such speculation starts fro* Iuestions of truth and falsity, pro le*s of kno)led!e. + started )ith other )ords for eauty. -he first )ord + thre) out )as eautyG ut + have *y eIuivalents, involvin! strate!ies desi!ned to induce cooperation. -he i! chan!e in *y life )as )hen + )rote those t)o essays, 5Psycholo!y and Cor*5 and 5-he Poetic Process5 in +ounter /tatement# + intended to round thin!s out )ith a third, 5Beauty and the 2u li*e,5 ut that fell throu!h, and +Fve een racin! around ever since. MouFll find little its of it in -he .hiloso)hy o$ ,iterary Form, ut it never !ot fully developed. +n so*e respects it involved a Iuarrel )ith Kant. Consider his +riti6ue o$ Hu(gment# -here is no indication that he ever read either (ristotleFs .oeti's or his 4hetori'# +nstead he sa) in ter*s of an 5aesthetic,5 stron!ly )i'torial in its e*phasis, in contrast )ith (ristotleFs stress upon a'tion# 8is )hole syste* is a (ramatisti' *ode of analysis. 8is for*ula for Dod )as 5pure act,5 )hich of course, (Iuinas could take over. Dod as technical eIuivalent is )hat it all adds up to.

+ clai* that the line + !ot fro* (ristotle co*plicates *y relation to the Kantian tradition, )hich uilds around not action, ut understandin!. (ristotleFs syste* )as ontologi'al, a theory of &eing <&eing as an act=. KantFs )as e)istemologi'al, rooted in a pro le* of *nowle(ge# -hatFs )here + !et *y & 347 & distinction et)een a 5dra*atistic5 and a 5scientistic5 approach to thou!hts on the hu*an condition. (nd )hat + call the histori'al heresy, or fallacy, is to see us purely as products of the particular historical period in )hich )e happen to have lived. + have to see us as transfor*in! a universal identity. FG2o there is continuity of ein!L KBMes, if )e are the sy* olAusin! ani*al, then + assu*e that there are certain per*anent relations et)een odies and sy* ol syste*s. -he idio* is the sa*e. FG8o) do you distin!uish ein! fro* kno)in!L 8o) is kno)in!, )hen itFs ar!ued to e prior to ein!, independent of ein!L KB-here are lots of su tler syste*s. + donFt even rin! up kno)in!. + #ust take it for !ranted. O+ otched the ans)er there disastrously. +n the first place, on !oin! ack over *y .ermanen'e an( +hange to )rite an epilo!ue for the ne) edition that University of California Press is pu lishin!, + ca*e to realiBe ho) *uch Kant is operatin! there. (fter all, /ietBsche is an offshoot of Kant, and the *iddle section of the ook is )holly in that !roove. -he kno)in!AandA ein! issue fi!ures this )ay: >y invest*ent in the ne!ative led *e to distin!uish et)een 5propositional5 and 5hortatory5 kinds. -he first, the scientistic <kno)led!e= kind: is/is not6the second, the dra*atistic kind: do/do not. -he dra*atistic route to kno)led!e is thus: <a= one actsG < = in actin!, one encounters the resistan'e to oneFs )ur)ose; <c= one learns y sufferin! the punish*ent dealt y such resistances. -here is a sheerly sensory <5aesthetic5= route to kno)led!e, as )hen one happens to touch so*ethin! that is hot, and one 5instinctively5 )ithdra)s the hand. KantFs first +riti6ue features the is/is not ne!ative of s'ien'e <a real* of 5sensation5 and 5understandin!5=. -he second +riti6ue <his ethi's= properly features the do/do not ne!ative <5ideas of reason5=, alon! )ith a stylistic strate!y )here y his 5cate!orical i*perative5 presents the donFtA eAun#ust in the accents of doA eA#ust. -he third +riti6ue involves a t)ist )here y he !oes fro* the 5(esthetic5 in the sense of the )hysiologi'al sensory to the 5(esthetic5 in the sense of artisti'# 2ensation is not purposeG itFs purveyin! infor*ation that )ill help a !iven or!anis* ehave as to carry out its 5purpose5 <or 5drive5=. But thatFs a practical <5utilitarian5= function. 5Pure5 art <5-he (esthetic5 to perfection= is antitheti'al to the 5practical.5 2o KantFs e)istemologi'al <as vs. the (ristotelian PoeticFs ontologi'al approach to these *atters= ends us )ith

& 343 & the for*ula for the artistically aesthetic: 5purposiveness )ithout purpose.5 (nd that could add up to: Artisti' sensations for their o)n sake. (nd thatFs far fro* the )ays of (ristotle on the )oeti's of imitation# (nd at least + donFt have to tell you ho) Kantian episte*olo!y 'ulminates in 5 nono #ective5 art. History has )rove( it.P KB+Fve never read KuhnFs ook on scientific paradi!*s. 8e is stressin! *ore the )arti'ular scientific structure, not the general orientation that .ermanen'e an( +hange uilds around. FG+n fact, he used paradi!* very strictly hi*self. 8e )arns a!ainst less than strict use, a *ore sy* olic interpretation of the concept of paradi!*. KB>y concept of orientation )ould e a sy* olic paradi!* in that sense. -he )hole ack!round. FGKuhn )ould a!ree. -he paradi!* for Kuhn is )hat the ideas are dra)n fro*, not the idea itself, )hat !rounds the lo!os. D2cience is *uch different, thou!h. Mou have a specific paradi!*. FG+tFs evidential. -hereFs a ody of evidence that corresponds. DMour notion of orientation is al*ost like Dra*sciFs notion of he!e*ony. -hin!s y )hich )e live, prover s, the )ay you see *y ody, all kinds of thin!s uilt into your e'pectations. KB-hatFs it. + #ust slapped this )ord in there. Cirst + used orientation, then ideolo!y. + e!an to ask *yself )hat did + have in *indL Hust anythin!: superstition, pre#udices, hopes N co*pletely unfor*ed. MouFre really talkin! a out nothin! specific. +t certainly is a Iuality T youFre discussin!. +tFs so*ethin! like the topics in (ristotleFs 4hetori'# 8eFs talkin! a out certain specific #ud!*ents. 8is theory of topics a*ounts to )hat, in *odern sociolo!y, youFd call values. -hat is, he tells you )hat to say if you )ant so*eone to like so*eone, or to for* a policy, )hat to say if you )ant so*eone to dislike so*eone or e a!ainst a policy. -he thin!s heFs tellin! you to say are the thin!s that represent the kinds of thin!s people think are !ood and ad, desira le or undesira le, the pro*issory and the ad*onitory, in that particular society. But his ter*s are so hi!hly !eneraliBed that they )ould apply to other syste*s. 8eFs not tellin! )hat the )arti'ulars are. 8eFs usin! a level of

& 344 & !eneraliBation )here y you could analyBe sy* olis* in !eneral. Cor instance, (ristotle *i!ht say that 5a !ood reputation5 is one co*ponent of happiness. But that )ould e true of all societies. But societies )ould differ as to #ust )hat is a !ood reputation. 2ociolo!ists could !et insi!ht into 5values5 )hen readin! the 4hetori' fro* that point of vie). D+F* interested in the )hole situation of dependency of the child and ho) lan!ua!e is !enerated fro* dependency, and ho) tied to (u!ustineFs vie) of thin!s it is. KB+ finally !ot *y for*ula do)n to the asic state*ent of the case: Bodies that learn lan!ua!e. + clai* this state*ent is everythin! you need to e'plain hu*an *otives, hu*an relations: Bodies that learn lan!ua!e. FGMou use the ver learn as keyL KBMes, you start in infancy, you see, in speechlessness. Mou learn speech in t)o *a'i*u* conditions of infancy arisin! out of speechlessness, in$an'y literally, and *a'i*u* i**aturity -he )hole nature of )ord *a!ic co*es fro* learnin! it then. -hat !ives *e three lo'i of *otives: *otives as supplied y the ody, *otives that co*e in lan!ua!e, and *otives that co*e in learnin! lan!ua!e. But the fourth locus co*es fro* the develop*ent of tools that lan!ua!e *akes possi le. MD,o inson Crusoe proved that he )as hu*an not )hen he started transfor*in! the island, ut )hen he started keepin! his diary. KB-he diary is a for* of co**unication, not #ust an attitude to self. -he funda*ental thin! is that lan!ua!e sharpens the attention *akin! it *ore likely that, )hen you have invented so*ethin! youFll reco!niBe )hat you have done. (nd lan!ua!e is the kind of *ediu* that ena les you to tell others )hat you have done. 0verythin! fro* then on )e can deduce fro* these four loci of *otives, the fourth eco*in! the real* of hi!hly developed technolo!y, )hich is uildin! the *anA*ade real* of counterA nature, )ith its attendant real* of pollution. MD-here are t)o i*a!inations of that speechlessness: one is the *ovin!, u*pin! confusion )ith no na*es for anythin!. (nd the other, 2uBanne ?an!er did a lot )ith it, says that efore & 34; &

speech thin!s are too particular. 0verythin! is concrete. 0verythin! is so urstin! )ith 6ui(itas )e canFt think. 2o that )ords !ive us not particularity ut !eneraliBation. KB+ )ork out t)o aspects of speech. .ne + call the o #ective triad <the thin!, its i*a!e, and the )ord for it=. -he other + call the conte'tual triad <situations, processes, relationships= )hich fits in )ith the 2pinoBistic critiIue of su stance as treated in his Ethi's# ( su stance havin! een defined as 5that )hich is conceived y itself,5 he says there is no such individual entity. Mou canFt conceive of a sin!le thin! y itself. -he only thin! you can conceive of y itself is everythin!. + salute that passa!e in -. 2. 0liotFs doctoral thesis )here he says that o #ects only e'ist )hen you have lan!ua!e. +tFs Iuoted on pa!e 3" of *y ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion# + think the issue of )hat you )ant to call that, the thin! ?an!er is talkin! a out, is o viously the sta!e )here the thin!s #ust fit as part of the environ*ent. MD-hey havenFt een outlined y a na*eL KB-ake representative paintin!. -here you realiBe that the paintin! is the na*e. Cor e'a*ple, a 9er*eer: a little it of )hite co*in! throu!h a )indo), a ta le, and a chair. -he )hole thin! is the eIuivalent of the i*a!e of the na*e. Mou feel that so *uch in 9er*eer, that the whole thin! is itQ +tFs not #ust a picture of one thin!, ut the )hole thin! is the thin!. 2o that paintin! has so*ethin! of the Iuality of the 2pinoBistic, )hich *i!ht e the eIuivalent of )hat ?an!er is talkin! a out. + touch on the *atter in *y articles on Bateson. 8is notion of the 5unit of survival5 has very !ood features in it ecause it does rin! out the i*portance of the environ*ent. But + ar!ue that this kind of unit is the individual ody. -he environ*ent is needed, ut the ody. N FGBateson includes the loop. KB+ use a distinction fro* a ook y Charles (. Perry: -owar(s a 3imensional 4ealism# -he distinction is et)een 5a part of5 and 5apart fro*,5 )hich + think is a solutely astonishin!. +tFs a little shift et)een so*ethin! ein! a part o$ so*ethin! and apart $rom so*ethin!. + )ork )ith *y notion of the ody as the principle of individuation. (t parturition, you eco*e separate. MouFre a part o$ the situation, ut apart $rom it in the sense that your pleasures and your pains are i**ediately yours and no one & 34% & elseFs. +**ediate sensation is uniIue. 0ach individual ody has this Iuality: -he difference et)een $eeling your o)n pain, and &eing sorry for so*e ody elseFs pain. FG-hatFs the relationship et)een sense and e*pathy.

KB-hatFs an imme(iate distinction. :hether itFs *y ellyache or your ellyache. -hatFs an a&solute distinction dividin! you fro* *e. + seculariBe (IuinasFs principle of individuation. Mou see, he takes it that matter is the principle of individuation, and *y eIuivalent of 5*atter5 is 5*otion.5 +F* sayin! that the ody as a &o(y is #ust in the real* of *otion, and the *otions of that ody are such, the centrality of its nervous syste* is such as to *ake such pleasures and pains oneFs o)n and no ody elseFs. MDBut itFs a principle you tre* led on the ed!e of violatin! or transcendin!. + )as lookin! at the end of ( 4hetori' o$ 2otives )here you talk a out a state of 5all the nerves attitudinally !lo)in! N the state of radical passivity and incipience at )hich there is no inhi ition.5 Mou say #ust efore that a kind of kno)led!e that co*es fro* a *ystic perception is as *uch a kind of kno)led!e as the taste of a ne) fruit. :hy do so *any of those transcendences involve a sense of loss o$ in(ivi(uation< +snFt that #ust the point )here *y ellyache and your ellyache e!in to lurL (ll those descriptions you !lean fro* :illia* Ha*esFs talk a out a sense of loss of order. N KB:ell, youFve !ot t)o principles all the )ay throu!h. Be!in, say, )ith 5private property.5 .n a purely physiolo!ical level, 5private property5 is *y stake as a!ainst your stake. +f + o)n T a*ount of stock, thatFs private property in the other sense, the sy* olic sense. Because of lan!ua!e you learn all your identity as a social ani*al, fa*ily relationships and so on. Mou !et all kinds. + re*e* er that line )hen )e )ere kids in school, s)iped fro* Male: Bala Boola Bala Boola Bala Boola Bala Boola .n to 9ictory, .n to 9ictory Cor Dod and Country (nd Pitts ur!h 8i!h. -hree !reat identificationsQ +F* a very strict orthodo' theolo!ian. + a!ree )ith 2aint Paul: 5Caith co*es fro* hearin!.5 & 3;0 & Mou canFt have reli!ious doctrine unless so*e ody tells it to you. -heolo!y is a function of lan!ua!e. +f you )ant to say that a )or* is feelin! )onderful, is in heaven already, !o ahead. +f you )ant to call that heaven, okay, ut it couldnFt have a doctrine. +t couldnFt have a )ord for Dod, it could only e )ith Dod. + think it all fits to!ether pretty )ell. + *et >aritain once. + )as askin! hi* a out a speculation of *ine ased on 2herrin!tonFs notion that the ody is really under a unch of controls, so therefore, in the ulti*ate sense, you are really fi!htin! yourself all the ti*e. -hen + thou!ht it )ould e possi le if you had this sheer attitu(e rather than actually *ovin! a out y controls. -hen all could !o on all at once on that level. -hat *i!ht account for this sense of unity. .ften it (oes see* like a asic physiolo!ical feelin!. + su!!ested that the *ysticFs sense of unity *i!ht operate on that odily level. But >aritain said. 5 >ay e .rotestant *ysticsQ5 -hat )as a !ood )isecrack. FG-

Cho*skyFs people )ould ar!ue youFre not learnin! lan!ua!e, ut that the or!an of lan!ua!e is *erely !ro)in!, like all your other or!ans. KB:ell, the or!an *ay e !ro)in!. FGClearly the or!an *ust !ro) in a conte't that nurtures the 5or!an.5 +tFs not learnin! in Pia!etFs sense. KB>y )hole distinction is N this is the )ay + handle consciousness and *ind. + *ake a distinction of this sort in *y ha!!lin! )ith the ehaviorists. <+ !o alon! )ith the* so *uch that + have to *ake a asic distinction et)een their notions and *ine.= + have to *ake an a solute distinction et)een nonsy* olic *otion and sy* olic action. -hey treat the t)o real*s si*ply as a difference in de!ree and not in kind. -hey )ant to thro) out consciousness. + deal )ith consciousness this )ay: (ll the ti*e, even in the )orld of inani*ate nature, #ust physical nature, you have thin!s *akin! discri*inations. :ater is liIuid unless the te*perature chan!es. Belo) thirtyAt)o de!rees it eco*es a solid, ice. (t the upper end, it eco*es !as, stea*. /ature herself *akes these discri*inations. (t this *o*ent, in our odies every little cell is discri*inatin! after its iolo!ical fashion. But )eFre unconscious of all that. :eFre even unconscious of ho) )eFre conscious. @iscri*inations are !oin! on all the ti*e. :eFre *ore than ninetyAnine percent & 3;" & unconscious. But *ind is the !enetically endo)ed a ility, the physiolo!ically endo)ed a ility, to learn an ar itrary conventional sy* ol syste* such as a 5natural5 lan!ua!e. + call that *ind. (ni*als donFt have that, so far as )e kno). +n that sense, 8elen Keller had a 5*ind,5 even if she hadnFt had a chance to crack the code y realiBin! that her helperFs pressure on her hand under )ater )as s)elling the wor( 5)ater.5 :hen she !ot that idea, a )hole )orld opened up for her. /he got the i(ea# 2he had a *arvelous *ind to e!in )ith. But sensory privations such as she had can prevent such develop*ents. ( person so deprived can eco*e a )olf child. (nd after a certain nu* er of years one canFt learn a lan!ua!e even if one didnFt have her sensory privations. FG2o *ind in that sense is linked )ith the or!anis*L -he physiolo!y of the or!anis*. KB+ !ive a definition that *ind is the a ility to learn a lan!ua!e, then the develop*ent N FGBut that a ility is only e*er!ent at a certain sta!e in the or!anis*Fs develop*ent. (t another sta!e it )ould not e*er!e. 2o itFs not independent of the or!anis*. N

KBMou learn lan!ua!e )hen you have such li*ited resources. Cor instance, )hen an infant first starts to learn a lan!ua!e, it can do a out three thin!s: +t can suck, it can cry, and it can thrash around. +t only does those three thin!s. FG+tFs all you need. KBBut later on youFve !ot lots of thin!s to do. -hese ani*als in 2kinnerFs o'es learn ecause they have so fe) thin!s they can do. +f a hu*an ani*al is adult enou!h to have a lot of thin!s it can do, it canFt learn lan!ua!e. ?an!ua!e is an astoundin!ly in!enious *ediu*. But the infant can e!in learnin! it ecause it is still so stupid. +t itself paces the #o . RS@o you distin!uish sta!es in the for*ative !round of sy* olic action, and ho) then do you locate the* in relation to the acIuisition of lan!ua!eL Cor so*e, the psychoanalytic *odel su!!ests ho). ?acan, for e'a*ple, distin!uishes the prelin!uistic, preA.edipal sta!e <)hen the child is one )ith the *otherFs ody= fro* an inter*ediary sta!e, )hich he calls the *irror sta!e. -his occurs )hen the child, upon seein! its reflection in a *irror for & 3;2 & the first ti*e, anticipates on an i*a!inary plane the *astery of its odily i*a!e. -his e'perience is the threshold of the childFs entry into the 2y* olic order )hich co*es )ith the acIuisition of lan!ua!e and )hich ?acan associates )ith 5the na*e of the father5 5nom (u )ere7 punnin! on 5na*e5 and 5no.5 ?an!ua!e, then, carries )ithin itself repression: the fatherFs prohi ition of the childFs desire for the *other. KBCro* the standpoint of the thin! ?acan is talkin! a out, that distinction <the )hole *otherAfather usiness=, + have to put all that on the sy* olic side. .ur first parents are not representative cases. -hey didnFt need a papa or *a*a that are orn of )o*an. -hey )ere so !ood at lan!ua!e fro* the start, Dod !ave (da* a i! ta'ono*ic #o to do. 2o Denesis doesnFt !ive us a representative case to uild on, so far as the learnin! of lan!ua!e is concerned. But on the other hand, Dod said, 5?et there e N 5and there )asQ -he creative )ordQ +n the .ld -esta*ent, Dod creates )ith the :ord. -he irony is )hat (u!ustine does )hen he takes over the .ld -esta*ent. 8e turns it into a -rinity, the 2pirit )as over the )ater, and Dod the Cather created )ith the :ord, )hich in the /e) -esta*ent is Christ, the 2on. RS-he Bi le enforces the fatherFs prohi ition, althou!h the fi!ure of >ary in the Christian tradition ar!ues for possi le reentry of the *other as pri*ary. ,e*ainin! )ithin the perspectives of a psychoanalytic *odel, is it possi le to locate, as @. :. :innicott does, a sta!e in sy* olic develop*ent )hen the

childA*other oundary *ay deter*ine a less repressive !round for sy* olic actionL KBO:innicott rin!s up too *uch fro* another an!le. >y i*pression of hi* <fro* the standpoint of *y readin! of Bo)l y on the childFs relation to the *other= involved a pro le* of this sort: <+ donFt have it here, ut + )rote so*ethin! to >urry 2ch)artB alon! this line=: +t see*s to *e that :innicottFs sche*e )ould *ake the child too *uch a >o**aFs oy. -here is a kind of (isso'iation needed )hen the child !ro)s up. + cited 2hakespeareFs +oriolanus, )hose )hole pro)ess as a )arrior is undone ecause of his o edience to >o**a. -he ene*y )ho kills hi* calls hi* a 5 oy of tears.5 (n early story of *ine, 5+n Suest of .ly*pus,5 does happen to touch on that. +t tells a out a little !uy )ho eco*es a !iant y fellin! a tree. + analyBed it, years & 3;3 & after, as the ritual slayin! of a maternal tree. But +F* not too sure. 8o)ever, + do feel that it does deal )ith a pro le* of 5!ro)in! up5 )hich :innicott didnFt strike *e as havin! a place for. Met + hadnFt read enou!h of hi* to e clear a out that either.P FG-his )ould e in keepin! )ith your point a out the parado'ical value and necessity of the dou le ind, that a certain a*ount of lo!ical #a**in! is necessary in acIuirin! the a ility to *aneuver at all in the social )orld. KBMes, )hen + look ack at *y o)n story, *y first pro le* )asnFt killin! the father, it )as killin! the *otherQ -hereFs *y story of the !uy cuttin! do)n a tree, killin! the treeG the tree is a *other sy* ol. + e!an y interpretin! it as killin! of the father. But *y *other kept *e in curls. +t )as *y father )ho re elled for *e. <+ronically, + fared fairly )ell )ith &o&&e( hair, ecause Buster Bro)n had o ed hair 6and so*e ti*e + )as called 5Buster,5 )ho )asnFt a sissy.= DMouFre talkin! a out shatterin! the pri*ary structures of narcissis* )hich are deter*ined y the relationship to the *other. KB.h yes. But + didnFt think fro* )hat + read of :innicott that he rou!ht out the necessary ma*ing of a (ivision# Cor instance, to *e this is the !reat eauty of BaudelaireFs poe* 5?a Deante,5 that poe* of cra)lin! over a )o*an as a !iantess, like a *ountain. -he !enius of the poe* is in its )ay of confusin! the distinction et)een *aternal )o*an and erotic )o*an. + donFt kno) e'actly ho) )o*en handle that *atterG ut *en have to *ake a dissociation there. -hey can not #ust !o on )ith their *a*a. (nd +Fve never seen an indication in )hat +Fve read of :innicott that he talks a out ho) youFve !ot to deal )ith that. :hen + analyBe *y o)n story, + !ot the tentative notion that thatFs )hat *y sy* olis* )as a out. :hen + )as )ritin! .ermanen'e an( +hange, all of a sudden the )ord 5sche*a5 turned up. + ca*e ho*e one day, in a sudden state of certainty. + )as usually insecure in all

kinds of thin!s. + had a i! cup that + al)ays drank out of for *ilk not alky. -his day + ca*e ho*e sayin!, 5>y life is !oin! to e alto!ether differentQ56)hereupon + picked up *y i! cup, dropped it on the floor, and s*ashed it, o viously a 5Creudian5 incident. -hat ni!ht + )as a)akened y a drea* in )hich + )as sayin!, 5>aA*a the roken scheA*a is *ineAa.5 + had & 3;$ & noticed that + had e!un usin! the )ord 5sche*a5 in *y ook6 and + called *y *other 5>a.5 <?ater, )hen + )as )orkin! on *y Grammar o$ 2otives, + liked to call it *y Gramma of >otives.= DHoyce called a *anifesto a *a*afesta. KB+ *ust keep startin! over a!ain )ith these asic em)iri'al distinctions: nonsy* olic *otion, sy* olic action, and the centrality of the odyFs nervous syste* as the principle of individuation. .ri!inally + thou!ht the *a!ic entered )hen the infant, y its cries, produced 5*a*a5 and hence there arises the 5creative5 )ord. But + think itFs a little su tler than that. (ctually, to influence people )ith )ords is not *a!ical. + *ean, to use )ords to influence people )ho understand )ords involves a kind of realism9 -he *a!ic co*es in )hen you start usin! )ords to chan!e natural processes that donFt understand )ords, and there y in effect personaliBe the )hole universe. FG+n Hohn, the :ord )as *ade flesh, releasin! the )hole *etaphor of lan!ua!e as a !enetic structure: )hich is i*plied in that eni!*atic state*ent. -he structural correlations et)een letters *akin! )ords, )ords *akin! sentences, sentences *akin! sense. Chro*oso*es and !enes *akin! characteristics, characteristics co* inin! to *ake personalities, )hich utter sentences. -he fact that in *ost :estern lan!ua!es you have t)entyAfour, t)entyt)o, t)entyAthree letters to esta lish your asic )ord sense, and in !enes you have essentially what a*ounts to t)entyAthree pairs, a si*ilar co* inatory syste* at )ork !eneratin! )ords and phrases. KB-hereFs a i! difference et)een !enes and the sy* ol analo!y. -hat is, !enes !ive you tropis*s and lan!ua!e !ives you tropes. -ropis*s are conservative, and sy* ols chan!e all the ti*e. -he critical difference a out the hu*an ani*alFs kind of co**unication, lan!ua!e, is its nota le influence in *akin! possi le the hi!h develop*ent of tools, technolo!y. FG:hatFs the difference et)een tools and lan!ua!eL +s counternature only lin!uisticL KB?in!uistic in the sense Dada*er rin!s out. -he difference et)een tools and lan!ua!e is: Mou can lay a tool do)n, ut you canFt lay lan!ua!e do)n. +n other )ords, your idea and the )ord for it are a little

it different, ut they are all N

& 3;7 & FG-he closer *etaphoric approach or distortion )ould e pro!ra*. ?an!ua!e is like a pro!ra* not as *uch a tool. KBMes, you can call anythin! tools, ut the point is youFve !ot that one i! distinction, that a ha**er you can lay do)n, ut you canFt lay do)n the idea that thatFs a ha**er. FGCan you entertain the possi ility that )e could invest our lan!ua!e in *achines so that if )e disappear our lan!ua!e )ould evolve throu!h these *achinesL KB,e*e* er that )onderful t)ist of 2a*uel ButlerFs in the ook of the *achines in Erewhon< FGMes, ut + donFt think 2a*uel Butler ever encountered an +B> 330. KB+tFs a*usin!. People )ere very indi!nant )hen he sho)ed ho) #ust as plants used ees to do their copulation for the*, so *achines use hu*ans. (dd that one process, re)ro(u'tion, )hich so far *achines havenFt een a le to supply for the*selves. :hat do you )ant to call thatL -he sy* olic introduces the necessary i*pre!natin! process. -he *ore + look at lan!ua!e, the *ore it strikes *e as ein! as astoundin! as e'istence itself. -his )hole process of the chan!e )hen you !o fro* *ere ani*al sounds, to this particular kind of sy* ol syste*. But anyho), hereFs the point: .nce you start fro* the standpoint of chan!in! the )orld, then counterAnature is seen as a ne) kind of livin! condition. +t e!an the first ti*e lan!ua!e helped in the production and spread of so*e positive instru*ent. -o those )ho )ant to call us homo $a&er rather than homo sa)iens, + )ould say: homo $a&er )ould never have !ot very far )ithout the role that sy* olis* perfor*s in the #o . +t takes an interaction et)een the t)o. +t takes a ne) *etaphor to su!!est a ne) technolo!ical process. (nd the outco*e of the innovation su!!ests another *etaphor. >y !reat day )as: 3/%/;"Q -hat )as *y reakthrou!h. FG-2ay that a!ainL <)hereupon the te't says: D./D= KB+ love odd nu* ers: 3/%/;". -he 5 reakthrou!h5 occurred the ninth day of last >arch, durin! *y ti*e

at the )inter session, Draduate +nstitute of the ?i eral (rts, 0*ory University. -he reakthrou!h concerns an anecdote in *y article, 5@efinition of >an5 <,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion=. + Iuote: & 3;3 & + )itnessed the ehavior of a )ren that )as unIuestiona ly a !enius )ithin the ter*s of its species. -he parents had succeeded in !ettin! all of a rood off the nest e'cept one particularly stu orn or ack)ard fello) )ho still re*ained for a couple of days after the others had flo)n. @espite all kinds of threats and ca#olery, he still lin!ered, de*andin! and !ettin! the rations )hich all concerned see*ed to consider his ri!htful lot. -hen ca*e the *o*ent of !enius. .ne of the parent )rens ca*e to the nest )ith a *orsel of food. But instead of si*ply !ivin! it to the noisy youn!ster, the parent ird held it at a distance. -he fled!lin! in the nest kept stretchin! its neck out farther and farther )ith its eak !apin! until, of a sudden, instead of *erely puttin! the *orsel of food into the irdFs *outh, the parent )ren cla*ped its eak shut on the youn! oneFs lo)er *andi le, and )ith a sli!ht #erk caused the youn!ster, )ith his outstretched neck, to lose alance and tu* le out of the nest. + had often told this story, )hich + used as a )ay of indicatin! the kind of attention and co**unication that lan!ua!e *akes possi le, and there y *akes possi le the discovery and spread of ne) *ethods, in rief that *ade possi le the !radual accu*ulation of inventions )e call 5technolo!y.5 + dou t )hether that )ren )as a)are enou!h of that *otion as an innovation <a new metho(= to ever do it a!ain. (nd even if it did, the secret )ould die )ith itG for it lacked the kind of co**unicative *ediu* that could hand on the necessary infor*ation. Met + )as never satisfied )ith the story, and + eca*e still less so. (t est it )as ut one incident, and + couldnFt even e a solutely sure that + had seen it. Hust one report of an ani*al *akin! an invention <in this case, instead of leavin! it for the a y )ren to deter*ine the *o*ent of fli!ht fro* the nest, resortin! to a 5revolutionary5 chan!e that introduced )hat an en!ineer )ould call a 5principle of levera!e,5 a hi!hly 5sophisticated5 innovation=. Met #ust one such incident to uild on. -hen on 3/%/;" + suddenly realiBed that the reports of ani*al e'peri*enters, the *ost scientific of o servers, had een testifyin! to thousands of cases in )hich nonhu*an ani*als, )hen su #ected to la oratory conditions that, )hile differin! !reatly fro* the state of nature to )hich they are instinctively adapted, i*provise )holly different )ays of !atherin! food. (nd their confine*ent in such la oratories *akes it possi le for their & 3;4 & ehavior to e inspected as re!ularly and *ethodically as *y chance o servation *ost decidedly )as not. :e have een repeatedly told, for instance, ho) a chi*panBee, )hen su #ected to an environ*ent so different fro* its natural conditions of livelihood as to *erit )hat lo!olo!y *y style )ould call 5counterAnature,5 yet soon learns to so invent ne) )ays of ehavior that, y e'peri*entin! )ith the resources availa le there, it discovers <that is to say invents= a )ay of so pressin! a utton that it !ets a piece of anana. (nd the ehaviorist 52kinner Bo'5 has provided a*ple docu*entation to sho) ho), y learnin! to take advanta!e of )holly ne) 5unnatural5 connections et)een the !oads of hun!er and the attainin! of food, ani*als can invent *odes of ehavior that, in their state of nature, they )ouldnFt even 5think of5 doin!, even if they )ere craBy. But they are not at ho*e in the kind of *ediu* that ena les the* to pass on the relevant infor*ation to one another. But for all their inventiveness, they canFt analyBe it, the nature of the technolo!y that

replaces their *odes of livelihood in the uncontrolled state of nature. ?an!ua!e is the particular *ediu* of attention, e'pression, and co**unication that *akes the inventions and accu*ulations of technolo!y possi le6and, as thin!s look no), irreversi ly inevita le, since even the correctin! of technolo!yFs a uses can e rou!ht a out only y further technolo!ical inventions. (nd that rin!s us to an 0schatolo!ical Conclusion. :hereas the >ar'ist 0schatolo!y says that in a hi!hly developed -echnolo!ical civiliBation the history <dialectic= of class stru!!le )ill a olish itself y leadin! inevita ly to the classless society, all that lo!olo!y *y style can conceive of is *a'i*u* develop*ent of -echnolo!ically 5perfected5 counterAnature, unless <as is not inconceiva le= the )hole thin! lo)s itself up.

A**#+*,)- #*ISO+ A+* &'I#+*S

KB:e developed )ays of protectin! inventions y patent ri!hts, and then you !et around to the ti*e of 0dison: He invente( inventing# 8e had a factory )here every day he tried to invent so*ethin! elseQ

& 3;; & FGMou kno) )hat stopped hi*L ,u erQ ,u er stopped 0dison. 8e tried to produce a synthetic ru and he spent his fortune on it and never produced any. KB-he irony )as that Cirestone $oun( it out &y a''i(ent# 8e thre) so*e late' and sulfur on a fire, and y Dod he had itQ 8e had his tires. Cirestone had the necessary kind of attention, and he *opped up eautifully on that. By his vulcaniBin! process he *ade !ood tiresG you didnFt have sufficiently hard ru er efore. FG0dison )as o sessed )ith o*niscience, his own: hence the *etastatus of inventin! inventin!. Diven the *echanis* of his process, he thou!ht anythin! could e invented. 8e )as stopped y ru er. -hereFs a *oral there. KBBut + never )ill for!et one of the !reatest *o*ents of *y life )hen + )as a kid. >y !rand*other and !randfather )ere stayin! for a fe) )eeks durin! the su**er in a hotel at Be*is Point on ?ake ChautauIua. -here were lights in the trees et)een the hotel and the lake. .h Dod, li!hts in the trees at ni!ht. -hey couldnFt have een *uch in the )ay of ri!htness. Pro a ly si'teenAcandle po)erL But to *e they )ere *a!ic. +t )as another )orld. +Fll never for!et that. + )as livin! one year in Brooklyn 8ei!hts, opposite >anhattan. Bein! a poor sleeper, + can re*e* er in the *iddle of the ni!ht lookin! out: the )hole thin! laBin!Q (ll the )ay up and do)n, thousands and thousands of li!hts, and thatFs er,

!ot to !oQ FG+t )ill not !o. +t *ay !o else)here, ut not in >anhattan. -he #e)el )ill shine ri!hter and ri!hter. -he !reat to)ers of finance are lit *ore than ever. KB+ #ust thou!ht it )as the end of the )orld. + really had that sense. +t )as *a!ic. -hereFs no dou t a out it: that *uch li!htQ -he )hole sy* oliBation of li!ht: +tFs there, no Iuestion a out it. ?uciferQ

+O!#S
-his essay ori!inally appeared in All Area 2 <sprin! "%;3=: $33. ". 5.ur (ncestors 2poke in Pairs,5 Ha*es H. Co', E1)lorations in the Ethnogra)hy o$ /)ea*ing, eds. ,ichard Bau*an and Hoel 2herBer <?ondon and /e) Mork: Ca* rid!e University Press, "%4$=. 2. >onte @avis and (le'ander :oodcock, +atastro)he -heory </e) Mork: 0. P. @utton, "%4;=. & 3;% & 3. 5:illia* Carlos :illia*s, ";;3E"%33,5 in ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion <Berkeley: University of California Press, "%34=. $. 2everal i*portant discussions are, therefore, not included, ut the reader should kno) the total a!enda. :e spent a !ood deal of ti*e on BurkeFs theory of the ne!ative, after + asked hi* if he a!reed )ith Bateson that a prelin!uistic ne!ative e'ists in the hierarchical play a*on! )olves. 2ee 5( -heory of Play and Cantasy,5 in /te)s to an E'ology o$ 2in( </e) Mork: Ballantine, "%42=. Burke su**ariBed his )ork on the ne!ative in an operatic recitation that took us throu!h e'a*ples fro* Ber!son, Kant, 8e!el, and >ar'. <2ee 5( @ra*atistic 9ie) of the .ri!ins of ?an!ua!e,5 in ,anguage as /ym&oli' A'tion.= Crank Dillette en#oined Burke in a lon! dispute a out free )ill and deter*inis*, 5the Cruit/.f that Cor idden -ree N5 and the sacra*ental nature of Christ. <2ee 5-he -e*poriBin! of 0ssence,5 in A Grammar o$ 2otives, $30E$0G and -he 4hetori' o$ 4eligion.= 7. 5-he CriticFs Ho of :ork,5 in Form an( Dalue in 2o(ern .oetry <Darden City, /e) Mork: @ou leday, "%74=. 3. An Ethni' at ,arge </e) Mork: 0. P. @utton, "%4;=. 4. 5-he ?ittle ,ed @iscount 8ouse,5 in Hu(son 4eview <"%32E33=, reprinted in +riti'al 4es)onses to Genneth %ur*e <>inneapolis: University of >innesota Press, "%3%=, 374E40. ;. 5-he (naesthetic ,evelation of 8erone ?iddell,5 in -he +om)lete White O1en <Berkeley: University of California Press, "%3;=. %. Notre 3ame English Hournal<su**er "%;"=. "0. Deor!e 2teiner, A$ter %a&el </e) Mork: .'ford University Press, "%47=. 2ee also BurkeFs revie): 5( ove the .verA-o)in! Ba le,5 in 2i'higan Cuarterly 4eview <)inter "%43=. "". ,(/(> is pu lished y UniversitV de 2tras our!, Crance. 2ee 0liBa eth /eild, 5Kenneth Burke

and ,oland Barthes: ?iterature, ?an!ua!e, and 2ociety.5 -he Burke issue is no. "2 <"%4%=. "2. 50ffects of 8u*an Purpose on 8u*an (daptation,5 /te)s to an E'ology o$ 2in(# "3. 5+n /e) Hersey, >y (dopted, and + 8ope (doptive 2tate,5 in New Hersey 2onthly </ove* er "%;"=. "$. 2tephen -oul*in, 5,i!or W +*a!ination,5 in Essays $rom the ,ega'y o$ Gregory %ateson, ed. C. :ilderA>ott and Hohn 8. :eakland <:estport, Conn.: Prae!er, "%;2=. "7. A .oeti' $or /o'iology <?ondon: Ca* rid!e University Press, "%44=. "3. Attitu(es towar( History </e) Mork: Beacon Press, "%7;=. "4. E'ology, 2eaning, an( 4eligion <,ich*ond, California: /orth (tlantic Books, "%4%=. ";. @ell 8y*es, Foun(ations in /o'iolinguisti's <Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, "%4$=. 2ee chapter 4, 5-he Contri ution of Poetics to 2ociolin!uistic ,esearch.5 2ee also -he /o'ial =se o$ 2eta)hor: Essays on the Anthro)ology o$ 4hetori', ed. H. @avid 2apir and H. Christopher Crocker <Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, "%44=. -he ook is dedicated to Kenneth Burke, ?o!olo!ist. "%. Co', op. cit. 20. ,.2. is pro a ly ,oy 2kodnick, )ho )as editor of All Area.
Preferred Citation: Burke, Kenneth. On Human Nature: A Gathering While Everything Flows, 1967 19!"# Berkeley: University of California Press, c2003 2003. http://ark.cdli .or!/ark:/"3030/kt"#$%p%r$/