‘Symbolic-destruction’
Posted November 13th, 2007 by Duder
So here is Burke’s summation regarding his definition of “human":
“the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal
Inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)
Separated from his natural condition by instrument of his own making
Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) and rotten with perfection
” (Language as Symbolic Action 16)
I thought for this week’s response I would try to expand on Burke’s definition, specifically the idea of “symbol-using animal”. If our definition can include “symbol-making” why not add the idea of “symbolic-destroyer.” (This term may be a little too close to Burke’s use of the “negative,” but let us see if we can work it out a little). What I have in mind here is the idea that through our myths and our stories we, as humans, can modify our understandings and add interpretations to events that include “destruction.” One example would be the Christian story of the “Tower of Babel.” According to the story, a united humanity that could all speak the same language built a giant tower as a way to reach heaven. Some interpretations of this story claim that this act of building a tower to reach heaven was really a defiant act by humanity against “God.” Angered, “God” destroyed the tower and scattered the defiant humans into different tribes across the land. “God,” however, was not finished yet. His last act in this story was to “symbolically-destroy” the unifying component that lead to the towers construction, a common language, as a way to prevent future acts of grand defiance, and gave each tribe a different language so they could never unit this way again. This use of “symbolism,” the destruction of the tower, was meant as a warning to the human tribes, thus “destruction” symbolically becomes “construction” through the formation of a new moral law: Don’t mess with “God” or “God’s Laws.” I could go on a little further here, but I’m interested in what everyone else has to say, and if anyone else has a different interpretation for us. Is there a contemporary example of the “Tower of Babel” that might help Burke’s definition?
“the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal
Inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)
Separated from his natural condition by instrument of his own making
Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) and rotten with perfection
” (Language as Symbolic Action 16)
I thought for this week’s response I would try to expand on Burke’s definition, specifically the idea of “symbol-using animal”. If our definition can include “symbol-making” why not add the idea of “symbolic-destroyer.” (This term may be a little too close to Burke’s use of the “negative,” but let us see if we can work it out a little). What I have in mind here is the idea that through our myths and our stories we, as humans, can modify our understandings and add interpretations to events that include “destruction.” One example would be the Christian story of the “Tower of Babel.” According to the story, a united humanity that could all speak the same language built a giant tower as a way to reach heaven. Some interpretations of this story claim that this act of building a tower to reach heaven was really a defiant act by humanity against “God.” Angered, “God” destroyed the tower and scattered the defiant humans into different tribes across the land. “God,” however, was not finished yet. His last act in this story was to “symbolically-destroy” the unifying component that lead to the towers construction, a common language, as a way to prevent future acts of grand defiance, and gave each tribe a different language so they could never unit this way again. This use of “symbolism,” the destruction of the tower, was meant as a warning to the human tribes, thus “destruction” symbolically becomes “construction” through the formation of a new moral law: Don’t mess with “God” or “God’s Laws.” I could go on a little further here, but I’m interested in what everyone else has to say, and if anyone else has a different interpretation for us. Is there a contemporary example of the “Tower of Babel” that might help Burke’s definition?
In the story of the Tower of
In the story of the Tower of Babel, the humans are only indirectly responsible for the destruction. So I got to thinking about the idea of people being made in the image of God, which sort of allows us to pass the blame for our symbol use, misuse, destruction, etc. on to another entity.
Today the languages tend to be coming back together--there are fewer and fewer of them, I mean. Regional languages can disappear with the death of one individual because the younger generations are learning the more dominant languages instead. It is a practical thing to do because it enables them to interact with people outside of the community. We are destroying language in the inverse of what happened at Babel.
Well said
Here, I think, is where the idea of hierarchy comes into our story as illustrated above. One interpretation of the story would claim that the humans were disrupting the symbolic hierarchy be attempting to be next to God (the figure at the top of the pyramid) which could not happen if we are motivated by hierarchical principles. Additionally, if God is to represent Pure-Sustenance than God exists outside of the language, or in this case the creator and destroyer of all language. If the point I have mentioned are indeed part of the Christian parable revolving around the “Tower of Babel,” then maybe the events of today, what you describe, are bringing us closer to another catastrophe. What do you think?
Duder, your entry made me
Duder, your entry made me think of the language before Babel. Could it be that it was devoid of ambiguities? The different languages that God gave to different tribes are meant to prevent people from making the mistake of trying to "reach" God again. Shall we infer that language is what separates us from God? Also, there is no suggestion that people who utilize the same language achieve "total" unity but "some" unity. I am thinking of the gliding of meaning from signifier to signified that sends us to another signifier with other signifieds. (Disclaimer: I do not entirely agree with Derrida, but I see the "glisement" at times, especially when I write papers for my classes and I try to make sure that I render the meaning(s) I want to render.
More thoughts
I got to thinking a little bit more about the example from above and thought it might be fun to add a few more interpretations to the example, specifically how the idea of the negative might fit into our discussions regarding the “Tower of Babel.” I like Burke’s description that there “is an implied sense of negativity in the ability to use words at all. For to use them properly, we must know that they are not the things they stand for” (LSA 12). So what can we add? There almost seems to be an overwhelmingly moral agent running through the above story, human actions are good as long as they do not anger the higher being. Thus, through the use of a destructive act and the addition of a hierarchical structure we now have a story that illustrates the idea of “choice” where we have a fairly distinct line between the linguistically constructed definition of “shall” or “shall-not” when it comes to specific things. We can then assume that building a tower is fine, in fact we sometimes need them for protection and other things, but building a tower to heaven is wrong because we, the transcribers of the story, have symbolically given the construction of a tower to heaven to be a negative through the use of language. Thus, producing an ultimate negative, “thou shall-not attempt to place oneself on the level of God.”
Duder, I like your "ultimate
Duder, I like your "ultimate negative." How can you "translate" this for people who do not believe in God? What other "ultimate negative" can you/one formulate? I thought of "Thou shall not think that thou have too much symbolic power" but I think that it is not very good.
Possibility:
Here maybe one possibility of the “ultimate negative”: How about we shift “God” to the United States prior to and during WWII and the “humans” to the Axis power. No let us call “Japan” the “Tower” and next we can build an interpretation. The “Negative” here becomes the “Big Bomb” and the “Ultimate Negative” becomes: “Don’t bomb the United States because our bombs are bigger and can erase you from the map.” Thus, we have constructed a moral negative about international
relations.
This is an interesting
This is an interesting discussion that has raised many points for consideration. Laurie brings up the idea of Babel in the reverse, i.e. a moving back to one language, which I assume is English, but we similarly see a strong movement to Spanish. Anyway, what Laurie's comment made me think about was the movement away from a standard way to teach FYC, away from the current-traditionalist model that developed a long time ago. We see movements for opening up spaces for new voices in composition, i.e. expressivism, cultural studies/popular curriculum, etc. So, composition too had its Babel (maybe not exactly but similar in its growth or opening to multiplicity). Now, with new media and visual rhetoric becoming more prevalent in FYC classrooms, there is a move to use technology as a way to enhance/supplement writing instruction and help students build a digital/visual literacy (a new language). I'm not sure what I'm driving at here, but the idea of movements, inversions, reversions, or whatever else can be seen in many contemporary examples, rhet/comp being just one.