How to do things with words
Austin presents a new notion in language with the introduction of the performative utterance. This kind utterance doesn’t describe an action like a constatative utterance, but indicates an action in itself. He gives some examples being the expression “I promise” the most referenced to in the text, what’s particular about this expression is that its corresponding action takes place spiritually no physically. That’s the first thing I found interesting, how can one study language in terms of the spiritual act that occurs when certain phrases are being uttered? Austin sort of answers this question when he continues to talk about the impossibility of studying performatives in a true/false basis. According to him this kind of utterances should be considered in terms of felicities or infelicities which occur when the set of “conditions” that surround the performatives in order for them work appropriately are successfully met or not, respectively.
Conditions like expressing the utterance within the boundaries of an accepted conventional procedure and having this done by the person who is conventionally entitled to perform this procedure. Every person who participates in the procedure must follow correctly and step by step its conventional rules and in some cases participants need also to have the adequate feelings and thoughts to go with a particular action. If these conditions are not met the action is then considered “hollow”. I don’t know if I have understood correctly the implications of Austin’s ideas, however, it appears as what seemed to be the introduction of notions that liberated language from the restrictiveness form with all these conditions it seems to be providing only with more bars to encage it. He transforms the true/false dichotomy into a right/wrong one.
In a related idea, Austin admits that every performative utterance that is based on a convention is naturally susceptible to infelicities and that there are many non performative utterances that may suffer the same infelicities, with that in mind it could be said that most (every?) utterances are speech acts and in that case there are more “unhappy” performatives than happy ones, right?
Finally, in reference to the performatives used in theater Austin says that these are also hollow and calls them “etiolations”, this is probably the same case of the ones used in literature. So how does this theory help us approach a literary text?
Searle – Derrida Debate
There was no shortage of entertainment in reading the back and forth between Searle and Derrida. Although the debate started with Derrida’s critique of Austin’s work regarding the notion of communication, it quickly turned into a battle between Derrida and Searle. Searle published a reply to Derrida’s critique of Austin in which he was ill pressed to suggest that Derrida was somehow attacking Austin. However, Searle only came to this conclusion due to his misreading of Derrida’s original work. Ironically enough, it was in his original work that one of Derrida’s main points was the “necessarily possibility” of such misreading. That is, that one can never be sure of one’s intended message.
Basically, what Austin views as “failure” or “infelicities”, Derrida views as a “possibility”. He believes that language should not be viewed from a unique perspective since this excludes a large part of communication. Derrida introduces the notion of iterability to emphasize the ways in which repeating utterances over and over again in various contexts can come to create different meanings and interpretations. Without iterability, we would be unable to question the meaning of these utterances. According to Derrida, by labeling speech acts as “parasitic”, Austin is assigning a pejorative identity to certain speech acts while considering others as “normal”. In other words, one cannot view the speaker’s discourse as possessing absolute power but rather as indeterminate and polysemous.
Responding to Searle’s accusations that he was attacking Austin, Derrida replied with “Limited Inc. a b c …” in which he broke down Searle’s misreading in order to show how things can be taken out of context to suggest a meaning other than what they were intended to convey. Poignantly, Derrida used this technique to creatively discuss the idea of “citationality”. That is, text can always be taken out of context, and placed in another context, outside the author’s control. Essentially, Derrida is explaining that his intent was never meant to attack Austin, but merely to discuss his theory of speech acts. This really underscores the idea behind the intention inherent in language and how it can easily be misinterpreted. Nowhere does Derrida claim that intentionality plays no role in meaning and communication; he simply does not regard it with a great degree of importance. Although Derrida recognizes the speaker’s intention, he cleverly points out that the intentions attached to the utterances of the speaker become ambiguous and unimportant once they are delivered since the speaker is no longer in control of them. Viewed in this light, Derrida is not attacking the notion of intentionality but is rather questioning its omnipresence in a speech act.
Interestingly enough, I got the impression that Searle’s reply to Derrida was emotionally charged, rather than backed by logic. In fact, Derrida, in discussing his debate with Searle, suggested that there is an “ethical directive that one actually read and engage with the work one is attempting to critique”, and that Searle failed to do this. As a result of this, many have actually suggested that to label the back and forth between Searle and Derrida as a debate is actually a misnomer. Frankly enough, I would have to agree – it never seemed evident that Searle, like Derrida points out, engaged in the discussion. Two sides have to engage with each other for a debate to exist; Searle was attacking his idea of what he believed Derrida to be saying rather than what Derrida actually wrote.
“I divorce you” three times!
In How to do things with words, Austin introduces several concepts to explain his view on how utterances that he names performatives affect actions in the world. His primary belief is that sentences with truth-values (meaning they can be true or false), although they exist, do not constitute the large range of utterances we encounter on a day-to-day basis. He gives many examples of utterances known as performatives that are neither true nor false (Ex. “I do”). The words “I do” indicate that we are doing something, namely marrying and that such an act is described by “saying certain words”. This is precisely what Austin means by performative utterance; these are utterances that are not meant to describe and thus, have no truth-value (cannot be true or false). They are rather deemed felicitous or infelicitous. Moreover, these utterances are not merely sentences that are spoken, but they serve to perform a particular kind of action. Like in the example cited above, the words “I do” are uttered not only as an “outward and audible sign” (166) but signify the act of marriage. Austin explains that when such acts go wrong or fails, like in the case of marriage or betting, the utterance is then not false but unhappy.
The idea of a performative quite simply put is that the things we say are often transformed into action. We make things happen by using words. When, for example, a man and a woman are declared husband and wife, the individual marrying them has used a particular utterance that is not simply descriptive but that performs an act by displacing the man and woman from simply being a couple to being a married couple. Thus, this utterance is a felicitous speech act since the couple has legitimately been married (the act is sincere and is conventionally accepted). Such an act can nonetheless in many instances be considered null or void. If as a joke, I pronounce my two friends as husband and wife since they are always acting like lovebirds, this is infelicitous; I have not actually married them. Although the act is achieved, it is considered a lie or is insincere so the act is void or without effect. According to Austin, all utterances are naturally performatives. In other words, by saying something, we are always doing something. Performatives are not merely utterances that create action but as Austin suggests, create social realities. But do these performatives truly create realities in all contexts? Is it only the speaker being considered? Who exactly establishes felicity?
Austin asks one among 3 interesting questions that I will address: “How widespread is infelicity?” He claims that infelicity is an “ill to which all acts are heir which have the general character of ritual or ceremonial, all conventional acts: not indeed that every ritual is liable to every form of infelicity (but then nor is every performative utterance)” (168). It seems that the message that he is trying to convey is that performatives are prone to infelicity. We can deduce that when a performative is regarded as a conventional act or procedure, it will be deemed as improper or infelicitous. Nevertheless, Austin recognizes that not all performatives are prone to infelicity. I am nonetheless confused here. I thought that one of the conditions for felicity is that social conventions are followed. But given that we live in a society that adheres to a set of standard rules and conventions, would this mean that in applying the notion of performative within our social constructs, we are merely victims of an infelicitous existence? It also seems that the notion of an accepted conventional procedure is questionable since it is difficult to define what is accepted. For example, the utterance “I divorce you” said three times constitutes a divorce in certain Islamic practice; however, this is not unanimously accepted. It is thus interesting to posit that performatives can be socially contested thereby invalidating the performative act. As a result, Austin’s claim that all utterances are natural performatives suddenly becomes questionable in that they do not always seem to enact the subject into action. However, how does one classify the speech act “I divorce you”? Is it a felicitous or infelicitous act? Can the receiving side (the woman in this case) even determine the success of the performative act or is it only the man? Evidently, this is where things become problematic, which means this is a good place to stop … for now at least.
Impressions on “How To Do Things With Words” by Austin
In How To Do Things With Words, Austin discusses a special category of utterances – written or spoken – that he calls performatives. A performative utterance is performed in the active voice of the first person of the present indicative. Contrary to a declarative statement, the performative does not have the function to report or describe something. The uttering is part of doing an action. Austin offers these examples of performative utterances : ‘I do’, ‘I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth’. Austin argues that the utterance ‘I do’ is not a statement in itself, it is neither true nor false ; the realisation of its meaning occurs in the context of a marriage when someone takes man or wife. Therefore, by stating these words you are doing an action that would have not otherwise occurred.
In his second lecture, Austin presents a schema of six necessary conditions for a performative utterance to be successful, that is, for it to take effect. In summary, conditions are : accepted procedure, appropriateness of circumstances, correctness and completeness of execution, and sincerity of intentions (now and later).
Once again, I feel that I finished reading the text and reflected about it and I am not sure what I learned about ways to read or comprehend a text and, to be honest, I don’t feel I’m very much closer to knowing what Literary Theory is.
The text made me think however about two concepts. First, contexts are important as we can infer from the first condition – that of conventional procedure. A conventional procedure is deeply embedded in cultural reality. Therefore, a corrolary of Austin’s point is that cultural specificity has to be taken in account when one analyses performative utterances. By extension, I believe the cultural aspect must be studied when one is to understand a piece of litterature.
The second concept I thought of does not come from Austin’s arguments and discussion of the performative, but rather to a phrase he mentions at some point : To say is to do. It made me think of the work of a writer who have people do things by saying or writing them. Of course characters are not performing what the writer creates, but there must be some sort of reality or realness to these situations since the reader believes in it and becomes emotionally involved. In the 80s, in the american soap Dallas, the beloved main character Bobby died. Ratings went down and producers decided to have him back : the whole death had been a dream. I remember my mom being choked : she had been watching a dream for a year. She felt fooled and stopped watching. Could it be that she thought, what the writer said, the characters were really doing ?
Impressions on “In the Penal Colony” by Kafka
While reading In the Penal Colony by Kafka, I had the pressing feeling that everything in the story had a meaning, symbolised a reality or concept of higher order. At the point of reading the story, I thought Kafka was writing every word with a very well defined intention in head, underlying it with a very well sharpened pencil. His readers would have no choice but to analyse the text with a scrutinous eye !
And then I thought that maybe this reaction of mine was sparkled by my own expectations.
- The text was written by Kafka. As I had read The Metamorphosis, I expected that a story by Kafka had to be an allegory, a parable of some sort.
- The text was assigned as a reading in a class on Literary Theory. Surely, this choice was not random. The text has to say something beyond what it actually says.
Then I was brought back to the question, How does one read ? How does one approach a text ? I realised (and realised that I already knew) that the way one reads a text is highly based on expectations he has. (This, by the way, is linked to my own theory on life : everything – actions, reactions, emotions… – is based on expectations…). When a text is assigned, expectations are specific and a task usually follows from them. But what happens when no task is requested ? Does the reader self establish expectations ? What are these expectations ? How does he come up with these expectations ? I believe those questions are essential to comprehend how readers read. As an educator, these questions certainly resonate with me. If one reads a text with no expectations, no intention, then the text is nothing else than a succession of words and the reading is close to being useless. How do we bring readers to set expectations ?
Now back to In the Penal Colony as I feel I am expected to come with something somewhat interesting… As I listened to my classmates’ impressions on the story (I had read the story before the seminar, but writing this response after), I was surprised that what really struck me in the story was not really mentioned by them.
In the first part of the story, I told myself that it was about how a society would hold to an old system and not move forward ; the Officer’s attachment to the apparatus developped by the Old Commandant being the representation of this. But as I read, I realised that the Officer is the sole individual in the colony to still hold on to this machine ; a fact that is revealed slowly in the story. At first, we observe that the New Commandant seems indifferent, not attending the execution nor explaining to the Traveller the way the machine works. Then, we observe he is neglictent, not supplying parts needed for the machine maintenance. Then, the Officer reveals executions used to be well attended by the colony’s people, children sitting at the front row not to miss a part. Nowadays, nobody is longer interested by the spectacle. We are brought to believe it may be due to the New Commandant’s influence in the matter, but we realise otherwise when the Traveller visits the Old Commandant’s grave. The inscriptions on the grave reveal the Old Commandant is now an outcast. Some men from the colony (so far absent from the story) – standing on the grave – smile and obviously find ridicule the prophecy indicated on the tombstone.
While we observe that the characters of the story are not named and may represent a bigger concept, what do we do of the absentees of the story : the inhabitants of the colony who all abandoned this old system ? What is their voice in the revelation of the story’s meaning ?
Kafka: The Penal Colony
This is the first time I have read this story; I think its aim is to examine our own justice system. In the story The Traveler starts his journey of examining the machine and the process of execution with a sense of apathy and disinterest unlike the officer who talked about it as if it were man’s greatest creation. The story mentions that “The Traveler had little interest in the apparatus and walked back and forth behind the Condemned Man, almost visible indifferent” (3) I think this is very fitting because most people in our society don’t take interest in our justice system and how to improve it, in a way they are apathetic to it unless it involves a personal matter. The Traveler only starts to take interest when he learns that the Condemned man is sentenced to death and that he does not even know it. One aspect that really stood out to me in the story is the lack of power in the part of the New Commandant, he is in charge of the penal colony but at the same time he has not been able to change this justice system. He has only been able to alter it a little but has not been able to stop it, he uses his monetary power to limit the use of the machine but that is his extent of power. I think this really shows the difficulty of changing a justice system. In a way we are so accustomed to what we consider normal and just that it is hard to change and that is why like in the story we need an outside person to point put the flaws in our system. For example in the story the condemned man has no chance to expose his point of view and defend himself, he is guilty and automatically sentenced, when the Traveler learns of this he is surprised, but the officer does not give much chance to dialog on this because he is more concern with the machine than with the method of justice. I think that with our justice system it is important to analyse it from an outside perspective because being part of this justice system makes it hard criticize and change. There is a part in the story where the officer mentions that “The Commandant, in his wisdom, arranged that the children should be taken care before all the rest” so that they could see the execution up close, in a way we have all been these kids who have grown up in a set justice system and we are not encouraged to change or examine it. Last year I took a class of human rights and I was embarrassed to admit it was the first time I had read in whole the charter of rights of Canada, I think this really shows our apathy as s a society. I think this short story covers a lot of aspects about society and there is much depth in analyze it.
Kafka: The Penal Colony
This is the first time I have read this story; I think its aim is to examine our own justice system. In the story The Traveler starts his journey of examining the machine and the process of execution with a sense of apathy and disinterest unlike the officer who talked about it as if it were man’s greatest creation. The story mentions that “The Traveler had little interest in the apparatus and walked back and forth behind the Condemned Man, almost visible indifferent” (3) I think this is very fitting because most people in our society don’t take interest in our justice system and how to improve it, in a way they are apathetic to it unless it involves a personal matter. The Traveler only starts to take interest when he learns that the Condemned man is sentenced to death and that he does not even know it. One aspect that really stood out to me in the story is the lack of power in the part of the New Commandant, he is in charge of the penal colony but at the same time he has not been able to change this justice system. He has only been able to alter it a little but has not been able to stop it, he uses his monetary power to limit the use of the machine but that is his extent of power. I think this really shows the difficulty of changing a justice system. In a way we are so accustomed to what we consider normal and just that it is hard to change and that is why like in the story we need an outside person to point put the flaws in our system. For example in the story the condemned man has no chance to expose his point of view and defend himself, he is guilty and automatically sentenced, when the Traveler learns of this he is surprised, but the officer does not give much chance to dialog on this because he is more concern with the machine than with the method of justice. I think that with our justice system it is important to analyse it from an outside perspective because being part of this justice system makes it hard criticize and change. There is a part in the story where the officer mentions that “The Commandant, in his wisdom, arranged that the children should be taken care before all the rest” so that they could see the execution up close, in a way we have all been these kids who have grown up in a set justice system and we are not encouraged to change or examine it. Last year I took a class of human rights and I was embarrassed to admit it was the first time I had read in whole the charter of rights of Canada, I think this really shows our apathy as s a society. I think this short story covers a lot of aspects about society and there is much depth in analyze it.
Kafka. Justice, law and dialogue.
It is impossible to read this text and to not remember about The trial of the same author. It seems to be that both stories were written in the same period of time. However, in this story, the main issue is completely the opposite of the one in The trial. In The Penal Colony Kafka take us to a “world” that could exist anywhere, and to a situation that makes us think about thousands of different things. The issue that I would like to discuss here is about the application of justice and the way that justice is applied.
My favourite quote of the text is this one: “The basic principle I used for my decisions is this: Guilty is always beyond a doubt” (7). Guilty about what? About whatever the condemned were acussed. It is interesting that the officer consider “The apparatus” a court. For him, that is the place where justice is applied. And the defendant is always Guilty. That’s why they don’t use the word “defendant”, they always refer to him ad “the Condemned”, with capital letter. Condemned is his new name. The subject is lost to become just “the Condemned”. Of course, this point takes us to another, the problem of justice. This issue has been discussed for thousands of years in the philosophical tradition of law. Justice, however, is not the same as law. But here, in the penal colony, there is a kind of law under all the stuff related to the “apparatus”. The law is that anybody who is accused of something (it seems to be that only for superiors) becomes guilty. This argument remember me one of the perspectives that appear in Plato’s text, The Republic (My apologize, but I don’t remember the character). There, one character says that justice is what the best for the most powerful is. That line came into my mind when I read the text (even when Plato disagree about that argument). But it seems to be that justice, in this text, is what the powerful says. The stability of “justice”, or what justice is for the officer, start to shake after the arrival of the new Commandant. This character (that actually never appear in the story) is the one that disturbed the officer and his “procedure” of justice. The officer is so upset about the new situation that try in a desperate way to keep thing working as it used to be. Sadly for him, all his efforts bring dead to him.
Other point of the story that I found interesting, is the punishment of the body. After the Condemned is “found” guilty, without a trial, the punishment is not to be in jail for a certain period of time. They inscribed his fault in his body. Is the body the one that will be serving his sentence forever.
Final issue. I thought too about Bakhtin`s idea of dialogue. I like to think a text as a dialogue. I would like to go deep about the quote I used at the beginning and ask the text to whom is talking, and “who” is talking when the officer says what it says.
Kafka. Justice, law and dialogue.
It is impossible to read this text and to not remember about The trial of the same author. It seems to be that both stories were written in the same period of time. However, in this story, the main issue is completely the opposite of the one in The trial. In The Penal Colony Kafka take us to a “world” that could exist anywhere, and to a situation that makes us think about thousands of different things. The issue that I would like to discuss here is about the application of justice and the way that justice is applied.
My favourite quote of the text is this one: “The basic principle I used for my decisions is this: Guilty is always beyond a doubt” (7). Guilty about what? About whatever the condemned were acussed. It is interesting that the officer consider “The apparatus” a court. For him, that is the place where justice is applied. And the defendant is always Guilty. That’s why they don’t use the word “defendant”, they always refer to him ad “the Condemned”, with capital letter. Condemned is his new name. The subject is lost to become just “the Condemned”. Of course, this point takes us to another, the problem of justice. This issue has been discussed for thousands of years in the philosophical tradition of law. Justice, however, is not the same as law. But here, in the penal colony, there is a kind of law under all the stuff related to the “apparatus”. The law is that anybody who is accused of something (it seems to be that only for superiors) becomes guilty. This argument remember me one of the perspectives that appear in Plato’s text, The Republic (My apologize, but I don’t remember the character). There, one character says that justice is what the best for the most powerful is. That line came into my mind when I read the text (even when Plato disagree about that argument). But it seems to be that justice, in this text, is what the powerful says. The stability of “justice”, or what justice is for the officer, start to shake after the arrival of the new Commandant. This character (that actually never appear in the story) is the one that disturbed the officer and his “procedure” of justice. The officer is so upset about the new situation that try in a desperate way to keep thing working as it used to be. Sadly for him, all his efforts bring dead to him.
Other point of the story that I found interesting, is the punishment of the body. After the Condemned is “found” guilty, without a trial, the punishment is not to be in jail for a certain period of time. They inscribed his fault in his body. Is the body the one that will be serving his sentence forever.
Final issue. I thought too about Bakhtin`s idea of dialogue. I like to think a text as a dialogue. I would like to go deep about the quote I used at the beginning and ask the text to whom is talking, and “who” is talking when the officer says what it says.
Me rausem ass belong him!
A gardener in Papua New Guinea would say this meaning he had pulled a plant’s roots out of the ground. It is German and English mixed with Malay syntax and appropriate here because I am going to focus on the resisting subject in The Penal Colony. This form of Pidgin (Tok Pisin) is a creolization of language, which is a form of resistance against dominant discourse where subjects struggle with the power of the state for control of their bodies. They create a new language to claim space for themselves.
In Kafka’s tale, the nameless characters are products of various power structures that repress individual will. They have no agency because their subjectivity is created by the state. All their actions demonstrate that they are Althusser’s concrete subjects. The state apparatus inscribes the law on their bodies. Just as a harrow cultivates the land, Kafka’s harrow is history subjecting the body to violence in the construction of culture.
However, throughout the story there are signs that the system is flawed and resistance to power is always present.
The Condemned Man
The first sign of resistance to the Old Commandant’s order is the Condemned Man’s insubordination. Rather than begging forgiveness for his misdemeanor, he grabs his superior and shouts, “Throw away that whip or I’ll eat you up.” This mimicry of the master’s aggression reflects the barbarism of the state and demonstrates the individual’s non-compliance with the law. Later, the condemned man dares to bend over the glass of the harrow, and the fact that he is chained and then must be strapped on to the bed of the Apparatus is a clear indication of the individual’s resistance to coercion.
Once in the bed, the Condemned is overcome by nausea and throws up so that the stump of felt can no longer silence him. His vomit flows into the machine.
Later, he uses signs to communicate with the soldier with whom he makes friends. When he sees the officer in the Apparatus, he smiles as he realizes that he will get his revenge. Finally, he tries to leave the island with the Traveler. All of these actions point to an individual’s resistance to power.
The Apparatus
Kafka’s machine of torture is a reflection of the State’s inability to completely control all subjects. Thus, the machine only “seems to do its work uniformly.” It squeaks creating a disturbance that infuriates the Officer who sees that it is still “not working properly.” In fact, the officer unwittingly admits to the failure of the system when he calls the tortured “martyrs.” The transfiguration on their faces brings to mind saints on burning pyres who refuse to give up their faith and just before death experience a transfiguration that only confirms their convictions. The condemned in the penal colony resist even while their sentences are being inscribed down to the very core of their bodies.
The Officer, on the other hand, does not require straps and cannot use the felt stump as he willingly submits to his torture and death. There isn’t even the slightest hum when the Officer is in it, perhaps because he, like Pontius Pilate, cannot wash his hands of his guilt. However, the machine self-destructs because it is torturing one of its own docile subjects. Paradoxically, the state as oppressive power can only function when it is suppressing individual will. In other words, where there is “guilt beyond a doubt” resistance is inevitable. (The imploding machine reminds me of Isaac Asimov’s imploding robots, which are unable to deal with the changeable nature of morality because they lack free will)
The Traveller
The Traveler recognizes the inhumanity that the Apparatus represents. He cannot decipher the language of the diagrams, but he is horrified by the implication of what he sees. He refuses to support the Officer, and although his decision not to stop the machine from killing the Officer points to his own subjectivity cultivated by another oppressive system, he bites his lip and says nothing. Why does Kafka add this detail? The biting of his lip indicates that he is holding something back. He is not completely without a conscience. Something is bubbling just under the surface. The reader is disappointed in his pathetic behaviour, and when he prevents the Soldier and Condemned Man from leaving the island with him, he appears to be a very callous individual. However, I would argue that the glimmer of conscience that keeps threatening to make itself heard is Kafka’s acknowledgement of the resisting voice that we may choose to stifle but that is, nevertheless, always there.
If citizens are products of a culture that controls them, why the need for the Apparatus?
Where there is power there is resistance, which is an expression of individual will.
As my Irish grandfather said to his children when they were not allowed to speak Gaelic and had to use English in school, “Bastardize de language baiy!”
So they would ask, “Verarugoin and vatarudoin?”
