Humanism in language

In looking at the time-line of ideas, there seems to be a strong link between the structure of the language, specifically Derrida’s language center, and the ideology of the time.  At the same time in history that written language changed, so did ideology. 

Before the birth of humanism, the texts were religious and were under the power of the church.  The language was structured with God as the center, reflecting the general ideology.   With the rediscovery of the ancient languages and texts came the first secular writings and the professional training outside of  the clergy.   They were used for training in grammar study, law, medicine, and many other fields.  A new form of written language was developed and it was done by humanists or at least by using Humanist models.  They had the power to develop the secular written texts and translations.  This is where the individual becomes the center of language, and it is no longer God.  ‘I’ was  no longer the periphery seen in relation to God the center.  When I is the center of language, it must follow that it reflects the ideology of the culture. I realize that there can be multiple centers, but in general terms there seems to have been a big shift.  

Individualism seems to be at least partially transcendental from that time forward, through the Sensibility and Romanticism movements, and is such a part of our current language center and ideology that it difficult for me to understand the idea of collectivity of the middle ages.  

Why is this important?  It probably isn’t, but what was fascinating to me was the link of language to one’s ideology and the power of language to influence or change it. 

 

How are “truths” formed?

 

In “Historical Text as Literary Artifact”, White says in speaking of the coherence of historical facts in a story “…but this coherence is achieved only by a tailoring of the “facts” to the requirements of the story form.” p. 91.  Is it just the author that does this, or is the reader just as culpable?

 

I agree with White that History is recast through the author’s own experience.  I enjoy reading historical novels, and I have noticed that even when the author’s intention is to keep the events bare and without explanation or opinion, the mere choice of events included and how they are situated in the text create a story, a moral, or a point.  The symbols and metaphors, discussed by White, are there, telling me what the author wants me to feel.  But there is more to my understanding, my own interpretation.

 

I always come away with a story, a novel, a text that is more than the summary of events that the author has laid out.  But I think that is the point.  As readers we put the story together that helps us to understand, personalize and get the most from the text.  I believe actively search out the story, such as how links between events happened, and therefore create a part of the story.

 

We to take the events and connect them even when the author does not.  I make assumptions about how one situation leads to another without realizing that I added something that could be fiction.  This article has made me more aware of those leaps and part they play in all literature, including historical writing.   This is one reason why readers get such different understandings of the same texts.

I think this is the intent of historical writers.  They would like readers to relate personally to another period of history, to comprehend their writing in a helpful way.  But there is a limit to the agency they want to give us.  It is popular to write historical works which intend to reverse common understandings, to correct misconceptions when they think we have strayed too far.  I think this is a good trend however, because it shows how readily we form “truths”, how far fetched they can be, and how unintentionally it is done.

 

I am not aware of how much of my interpretation is absorbed from the author and how much is my own. It seems fused together and fuzzy, but I do not think it is solely one or the other.