Literary Art as a Form of Self-Inquiry in Thoreau’s Walden

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  Interdisciplinary SOCIALSCIENCES JOURNAL THE INTERNATIONAL of  Volume 5, Number 1 Literary Art as a Form of Self-Inquiry in Thoreau’sWalden Forough Barani and Wan Roselezam Wan Yahya    󰁔󰁈󰁅 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁎󰁁󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎󰁁󰁌 󰁊󰁏󰁕󰁒󰁎󰁁󰁌 󰁏󰁆 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁄󰁉󰁓󰁃󰁉󰁐󰁌󰁉󰁎󰁁󰁒󰁙 󰁓󰁏󰁃󰁉󰁁󰁌 󰁓󰁃󰁉󰁅󰁎󰁃󰁅󰁓 󰁨󰁴󰁴󰁰://󰁷󰁷󰁷.󰁓󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬󰁓󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳󰀭󰁊󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁡󰁬.󰁣󰁯󰁭 󰁆󰁩󰁲󰁳󰁴 󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤 󰁩󰁮 2010 󰁩󰁮 󰁃󰁨󰁡󰁭󰁰󰁡󰁩󰁧󰁮, 󰁉󰁬󰁬󰁩󰁮󰁯󰁩󰁳, 󰁕󰁓󰁁 󰁢󰁹 󰁃󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮 󰁇󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤 󰁐󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁌󰁌󰁃 󰁷󰁷󰁷.󰁃󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁇󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁐󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧.󰁣󰁯󰁭.  󰂩 2010 (󰁩󰁮󰁤󰁩󰁶󰁩󰁤󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁰󰁡󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁳), 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲(󰁳)  󰂩 2010 (󰁳󰁥󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁥󰁤󰁩󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁩󰁡󰁬 󰁭󰁡󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁲) 󰁃󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮 󰁇󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤 󰁁󰁵󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁲󰁳 󰁡󰁲󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁰󰁯󰁮󰁳󰁩󰁢󰁬󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁡󰁣󰁣󰁵󰁲󰁡󰁣󰁹 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳, 󰁱󰁵󰁯󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳, 󰁤󰁩󰁡󰁧󰁲󰁡󰁭󰁳, 󰁴󰁡󰁢󰁬󰁥󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁭󰁡󰁰󰁳. 󰁁󰁬󰁬 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴󰁳 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁲󰁶󰁥󰁤. 󰁁󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁦󰁡󰁩󰁲 󰁵󰁳󰁥 󰁦󰁯󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁲󰁰󰁯󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁳󰁴󰁵󰁤󰁹, 󰁲󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁡󰁲󰁣󰁨, 󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁩󰁳󰁭 󰁯󰁲 󰁲󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁷 󰁡󰁳 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁥󰁲 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁃󰁯󰁰󰁹󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁴 󰁁󰁣󰁴 (󰁁󰁵󰁳󰁴󰁲󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁡), 󰁮󰁯 󰁰󰁡󰁲󰁴 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁩󰁳 󰁷󰁯󰁲󰁫 󰁭󰁡󰁹 󰁢󰁥 󰁲󰁥󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁤󰁵󰁣󰁥󰁤 󰁷󰁩󰁴󰁨󰁯󰁵󰁴 󰁷󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁴󰁥󰁮 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮 󰁦󰁲󰁯󰁭 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁲. 󰁆󰁯󰁲 󰁰󰁥󰁲󰁭󰁩󰁳󰁳󰁩󰁯󰁮󰁳 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁯󰁴󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁩󰁮󰁱󰁵󰁩󰁲󰁩󰁥󰁳, 󰁰󰁬󰁥󰁡󰁳󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁣󰁴 󰀼󰁣󰁧󰀭󰁳󰁵󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁀󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁧󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧.󰁣󰁯󰁭󰀾. 󰁉󰁓󰁓󰁎: 1833󰀭1882 󰁐󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁲 󰁓󰁩󰁴󰁥: 󰁨󰁴󰁴󰁰://󰁷󰁷󰁷.󰁓󰁯󰁣󰁩󰁡󰁬󰁓󰁣󰁩󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁳󰀭󰁊󰁯󰁵󰁲󰁮󰁡󰁬.󰁣󰁯󰁭 󰁔󰁈󰁅 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁎󰁁󰁔󰁉󰁏󰁎󰁁󰁌 󰁊󰁏󰁕󰁒󰁎󰁁󰁌 󰁏󰁆 󰁉󰁎󰁔󰁅󰁒󰁄󰁉󰁓󰁃󰁉󰁐󰁌󰁉󰁎󰁁󰁒󰁙 󰁓󰁏󰁃󰁉󰁁󰁌 󰁓󰁃󰁉󰁅󰁎󰁃󰁅󰁓 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁥󰁥󰁲󰀭󰁲󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁷󰁥󰁤, 󰁳󰁵󰁰󰁰󰁯󰁲󰁴󰁥󰁤 󰁢󰁹 󰁲󰁩󰁧󰁯󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁳 󰁰󰁲󰁯󰁣󰁥󰁳󰁳󰁥󰁳 󰁯󰁦 󰁣󰁲󰁩󰁴󰁥󰁲󰁩󰁯󰁮󰀭󰁲󰁥󰁦󰁥󰁲󰁥󰁮󰁣󰁥󰁤 󰁡󰁲󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁬󰁥 󰁲󰁡󰁮󰁫󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁱󰁵󰁡󰁬󰁩󰁴󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁶󰁥 󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁥󰁮󰁴󰁡󰁲󰁹, 󰁥󰁮󰁳󰁵󰁲󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁴󰁨󰁡󰁴 󰁯󰁮󰁬󰁹 󰁩󰁮󰁴󰁥󰁬󰁬󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁵󰁡󰁬 󰁷󰁯󰁲󰁫 󰁯󰁦 󰁴󰁨󰁥 󰁧󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁵󰁢󰁳󰁴󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁡󰁮󰁤 󰁨󰁩󰁧󰁨󰁥󰁳󰁴 󰁳󰁩󰁧󰁮󰁩󰁦󰁩󰁣󰁡󰁮󰁣󰁥 󰁩󰁳 󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁥󰁤. 󰁔󰁹󰁰󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁴 󰁩󰁮 󰁃󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮 󰁇󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤 󰁍󰁡󰁲󰁫󰁵󰁰 󰁌󰁡󰁮󰁧󰁵󰁡󰁧󰁥 󰁵󰁳󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁃󰁇󰁃󰁲󰁥󰁡󰁴󰁯󰁲 󰁭󰁵󰁬󰁴󰁩󰁣󰁨󰁡󰁮󰁮󰁥󰁬 󰁴󰁹󰁰󰁥󰁳󰁥󰁴󰁴󰁩󰁮󰁧 󰁳󰁹󰁳󰁴󰁥󰁭 󰁨󰁴󰁴󰁰://󰁷󰁷󰁷.󰁣󰁯󰁭󰁭󰁯󰁮󰁧󰁲󰁯󰁵󰁮󰁤󰁰󰁵󰁢󰁬󰁩󰁳󰁨󰁩󰁮󰁧.󰁣󰁯󰁭/󰁳󰁯󰁦󰁴󰁷󰁡󰁲󰁥/  Literary Art as a Form of Self-Inquiry in Thoreau’sWalden Forough Barani, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, MalaysiaWan Roselezam Wan Yahya, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor,Malaysia  Abstract: In his non-ction work Walden, Henry David Thoreau’s internal dialogues and meditationsreveal to us his “self” as embodied in his literary work. While in this selected work there is a closeanalogy between self and the text, which both are a series of inner voices juxtaposed with and oftencontradicting one another, in order to decipher the artist’s persona, this study frames its analysiswithin two perspectives: the sociolinguistics (Bakhtin’s ‘Dialogism’) and psychology (Herman’s‘Dialogical Self’). This attempt to investigate the aesthetic and ideological statements of the narrator of Walden explores the extent of nature’s inuence on him as an alienated writer; and examines thecultural heritage in the context of American society of Thoreau to identify the roots of the broken tiesbetween “self” and the “society” to shed light on the individual and social self of the narrator inWalden. This study concludes that this selected non-ction work is not just a monological poeticmeditation of its author but a polyphonic contemplation of internal voices carnivalizing the social ideologies of its time embodied in his art as a pursuit of self inquiry. Keywords: Psychology, Self, Society, Subpersonalities Introduction M ANYATIME we have heard a voice within ourselves speaking. It is a part of us that may denote a negative or positive experience within us and we wonder “what has got into us.” At times we feel an inner temptation or desire that actsor behaves unusual against our interests or morals. This is why at different situ-ations we feel as if different personalities inside us are in dialogue, think and behave differ-entlyfromwhatwenormallyperceiveourselvestobe.Rowan(1990)inhis Subpersonalities:The People Inside Us , describes this phenomenon as the interplay of subpersonalities, anddenes it as a semi-permanent and semi-autonomous region of the personality capable of actingasaperson. 1 AccordingtoRowansubpersonalitieshavearangeofrelativedissociationin that they take us even sometimes gently and other times more forcefully. Marie-LouiseVonFranz,aJungianpsychotherapist,forinstance,describesherselfandhersubpersonalitiesthat clearly highlight the above mentioned phenomenon: 1 VeryclosetoRawdon’sdiscussionoftheworkingofsubpersonalitiesisthesystemofpsychosynthesisintroduced by Alberto Assagioli (1910) in Italy. Psychosynthesis assumes the existence of different subpersonalities in closeinteraction to one another and argues that growth in one’s personality can be achieved by recognizing them all. Heconsidersvephases,recognition,acceptance,coordination,integrationandnallysynthesis.Formoreexplanationrefer to chapter 3, the Plays of Subpersonalities,  Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement   by Hubert J. M. Hermansand Harry J. G. Kempen (1993).The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social SciencesVolume 5, Number 1, 2010,, ISSN 1833-1882 © Common Ground, Forough Barani, Wan Roselezam Wan Yahya, All Rights Reserved,  I could give you a whole list of the persons I can be. I am an old peasant woman whothinks of cooking and the house. I am a scholar who thinks about deciphering manu-scripts. I am a psychotherapist who thinks about how to interpret people’s dreams. Iam a mischievous little boy who enjoys the company of a ten-year-old and playingmischievous tricks on adults, and so on. I could give you twenty more such characters.They suddenly enter you but if you see what is happening you can keep them out of your system, play with them and put them aside again. But if you are possessed theywill enter you involuntary and you act them out involuntary (Rowan 9). Aim of the Study This study specically aims to unravel the existence of diverse subpersonalities in HenryDavid Thoreau’s “self” in referring to his  Walden  (1854). Indeed, one can detect differentfacets of Thoreau’s “self” in the same way that Marie-Louise Von Franz has dened her diverse selves; Thoreau the poet, the naturalist, observer, recorder and reporter of the natureand on the other hand, Thoreau the socialist, reformer, satirist, Poet-prophet. To maintainone’s “cohesive self” one should come to know his “actual” and “potential” selves.William James (1890) in his  Principles of Psychology  identies the “multiplicity of identity” and refers to the common notion of one’s personal characteristics and feelings aswell as one’s social roles and status. As it was clear in naming Thoreau’s subpersonalities,two general lines of his “self” can be traced in referring to him: Thoreau, the naturalist poetand Thoreau, the social critic. James describes the self as a “unitary” and “multi-faced” phenomenon. This concept can be explained more clearly in his distinction between “I” and“me” which he considers as the two basic components of the self. In James argument, the“I” is dened as the purely subjective facet of the self while on the other hand, the “me” isquite objective and is known as the “empirical self.” He later assumes that “self is not anentityclosedofffromtheworldandhavinganexistenceinitself,but,rather,extendedtowardspecic aspects of the environment” (Hermans & Kempen, 1993: 44).In line with James consideration of the self is Mead’s (1934) assertion about the self divi-sionsthatis“me”whichsocialrolesareascribedtoandontheotherhand,the“I”thatinnov-ativeactofpersonalitycomesfrom.Theinnovativeartistapparentinthepoeticcontemplationand description of nature in  Walden ’s Thoreau is the actual outcome of the “I” facet of Thoreau’s self. His poetic imagination is apparent in the metaphor he uses, “What shouldwe think of the shepherd’s life if his ocks always wandered to higher pastures than histhoughts?” (59) Thoreau’s unconventionalityin establishinghis specic voice and languagein a disagreement with the established norms of the society indicates his personal innate personality, “I,” against that of conventionally rule-governed, “me,” the “generalized other”(Hermans& Kempen,1993:108). “Thegeneralizedother,” thatis an integralpartof theself,is responsible for one’s social and rational conducts. Although there are multitude of selvesinone’spersonality,this“generalizedother”byreectingtheunityandstructureofthesocial processasawhole,bringsunitytotheself.“Thegeneralizedother,”asapartofacommunitywill take the norms of its adopted social group:“Unsocialized,theindividualwouldfounderinirrationalselshness;partiallysocialized,hewouldfounderinthemultiplicityoffragmentaryselves;fullysocialized,hebecomesrationalandmoral,andtheinterestsofhismultipleselvesareconsolidatedintoasuper-40THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES  ordinate self-interest, which in its turn has been coordinated with the interests of all”(Gregg, qtd. in Hermans & Kempen, 1993: 111). Dialogism as a Conceptual Theory Dialogue is “a manifold phenomenon,” but we can characterize it with three basic elements:a dialogue is composed of an utterance, a reply and a relation between the two (Holquist,2002:38). To elaborate this statement in Bakhtinian explanation, the third element is con-sidered to have the greatest importance since “nothing is anything in itself” and without thisrelation the two other would have no meaning. Bakhtin (1973) further asserts that in a dialo-gical give and take as soon as the word is uttered, it is considered as “double-voiced.” Sowhen speaking, a word tends toward two points in place and time; at one moment it tendstoward an object of speech and simultaneously toward another word that is srcinated inanother person’s speech. In the light of the aroused issue referring to Thoreau’s  Walden  onecantracemanyexamplesofsuchconversationalinteractionofThoreau’s“self”withimaginedor real “other.” In these cases the words of the “other” is quite present in the act of speaking,even those seemingly monological speeches, in the way that the inuence and contributionsof this seemingly absent “other” in form and content of the conversation is quite evident.Bakhtin further underlines that, “the author’s intention makes use of another person’s wordin the direction of its own aspiration” (Hermans & Kempen, 1993:42).In the following passage from  Walden , Thoreau implicitly provides a form of questionandresponseinasensethatonegivesalistofsocialnormswhiletheotheristheinterpretationand answer to those norms. This passage can be written in a dialogic form as denoting theinteraction between Thoreau as the critic and the reader that beholds the socially denedstandards:Reader: We meet at very short intervals,Thoreau: not having had time to acquire any new value for each other Reader: We meet at meals three times a dayThoreau: and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we areReader: We have had to agree on a certain set of rules, called etiquette and politenessThoreau: to make this frequent meeting tolerable and that we need not come to openwar ( Walden,  91).In order to criticize the society that “is commonly too cheap,” Thoreau avoids the directformofquestionandresponsewhichcreatesa“double-voicedness”astheorganizingqualityof the speech of a single speaker that is equivalent to what Bakhtin means by his denitionof “hidden dialogicality,” in which “the second interlocutor is invisibly present” and “the profoundtracesofhisdeterminealloftherstinterlocutor’sword.Althoughonlyonepersonis speaking, we feel that this is a conversation, and a most intense one, since every word thatis present answers and reacts with its every ber to the invisible interlocutor” (Bakhtin,1973: 163-4).Thisapproachtodialogueandtheinuenceoftheunseenbutpresentinterlocutoremphat-icallyillustratesthatforBakhtinthenotionofdialogueisnotidenticalwithexplicitlyspokenconversation. In this light dialogue is present in every form of thought. Bakhtin’s analysisofthe“microdialogues”willbeahelptohaveabetterunderstandingofwhatBakhtinmeans41FOROUGH BARANI, WAN ROSELEZAM WAN YAHYA
Related Search
Similar documents
View more
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!