The Purpose of Purpose: Aesthetics and the Unity of Context and Form in Third-World Literature

$5.95

Add to cart

6 word format

document in english

literature

presentation

date published 12/10/2007

review : not yet assessed

level : Advanced

requested 0 times

Author's resume

Selection criteria

Summary

All literary texts are both political and aesthetic. Words in and of themselves are innately sensual, inseparable from the emotions they evoke in a reader. They are also political, pieces of language steeped in history and theory. However, writers often plan toward one extreme, selecting their words either for contextual or libidinal value. Beyond a doubt, most first-world authors embrace the aesthetic foremost; in the West, reading has become an activity of leisure, performed for pleasure, not for knowledge. The beauty of these works is literally derived from their otherwise purposeless existence, a feature of aesthetic judgment that Immanuel Kant calls “final without end” (69). But this does not mean that the opposite is true of third-world texts: while the written word still has the power to give birth to revolution in these regions, non-Western authors are still concerned with the aesthetic value of literature. Nor do all first-world texts exist separate from the political world. It is only Western bias that leads individuals such as Fredric Jameson to believe that libidinal texts are solely a product of industrialized nations. Aesthetic techniques, the affects of wordplay and structure, do not ensure an aesthetically-pleasing text. There must be a relationship between form and context. As Christian Wiman states, “form itself has no inherent political meaning, but that [does not] mean that a [writer’s] treatment of the form [cannot] give it a political meaning” (212). If form itself can be given into a role within the realm of politics, then surely politics can become a thing of beauty. When aesthetics are manipulated into vehicles for the political message of the text, only then can those aesthetics be considered beautiful. Third-world writers, regardless of first-world opinion, write with both libidinal and political intentions, for they understand that aesthetic value depends on the innate harmony between context and form.

Table of Contents

All literary texts are both political and aesthetic.
In many regions of the world, literature is a political necessity.
Angela Carter achieves this functional dichotomy through the manipulation of fairy tales and children's stories into feminist platforms.
This presentation of Western literature, intentionally embellished to suppress the political undercurrents, is intentionally absent from non-Western texts.
The consequential problem of translation only further perpetuates the first-world assumption of aesthetic supremacy
Zoë Wicomb believes foremost in the power of language.
While Nawal el Saadawi and other third-world writers succeed in providing their work with purpose, that purpose is only valuable if it is understood.
The texts as a whole and their linguistic components are both integral to the beauty of third-world literature, but the common denominator behind both is the author.
All third-world texts (and all texts in general) may be political, but the meaning of those politics is the key to understanding the literature of these countries.
Regardless of Western bias, Wicomb's writing is more aesthetically pleasing not because of these Western influences, but because her politics require more Western-appealing language to connect to her broader audience.
A text, as a proving ground for language and thought, is aesthetic in itself, but its aesthetic value cannot be measured without considering its political and historical context, because then that aesthetic judgment is incomplete.