What Hath Bakhtin Wrought?

Toward a Unified Theory of

Literature and Composition
by Lee Honeycutt
A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Charlotte in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of English. Copyright !""#
Approved by$ Dr. %am &atson' Dr. Anita Moss' and Dr. David Amante
Abstract
The gro(ing influence of critical theory in English studies has produced a host of difficult and confusing ideas about
philosophy of language as applied to (ritten te)ts. Especially frustrating for many has been *acques Derrida+s theory
of deconstruction' (hich gained increasing influence during the !",-s' but seems to be losing ground to a variety of
opposing theories' including those of .ussian philosopher Mi/hail 0a/htin. This thesis demonstrates ho( 0a/htin+s
dialogic theory of language counters deconstructive thought and restores harmony to Aristotle+s rhetorical triangle by
placing the author on equal footing (ith his or her te)ts and readers. 1n doing so' it traces 0a/htin+s influence in
literary criticism and composition studies during the past decade and demonstrates ho( a dialogic philosophy of
language can lead us to(ard a unified theory of literature and composition and help define the course of English
studies during the electronic information age.
1ntroduction
0a/htin and 2is &orld
0a/htin and Critical Theory
The 0ridge to .hetoric
Dialogics and the 3uture of English %tudies
&or/s Cited
Chapter 1 - ntroduction
During the past 4- years in English studies' practitioners in both literary criticism and composition studies have
(itnessed the increasingly theoretical nature of scholarly debates concerning the three points of Aristotle+s rhetorical
triangle. Though the gulf bet(een these t(o fields has seemed (ide at times' both have traditionally shared a
common bond in their study of the spea/er5author' the listener5reader' and the sub6ect5te)t. 7et sight of this common
ground has been all but lost amid the clamor of recent theoretical debates' (hich have spa(ned a host of confusing'
often contradictory philosophies of language that have served to fragment professional discourse in both fields.
This fragmentation reached its 8enith in the !",-s (ith the advent of deconstruction as espoused by such thin/ers as
*acques Derrida and 9aul de Man. &hile some tenets of deconstruction undoubtedly have enlivened professional
discourse and illuminated our understanding of various te)ts' deconstructive critical practices have created a
be(ildering' often nihilistic vie( of language that turns upon itself and devours the very (ords it uses in discourse.
As a result of such divisive debates' no unifying paradigm emerged in either discipline' (hich in turn served to
(iden the e)isting gap bet(een literary criticism and composition studies' though they continue to have much in
common. 2o(ever' several scholars in both fields have been pointing recently to(ard a theoretical union of the t(o
disciplines. :ne such scholar in composition studies is 9atricia 0i88ell' (ho argues for a unified theory based on the
similarities of each field+s theoretical concerns. 1n her article' ;:n the 9ossibility of a Unified Theory of
Composition and <iterature'; 0i88ell notes ho( these similarities have led some theorists to e)amine trends in each
other+s discipline and to reali8e the concerns common to both$
=T>he cause of the similarity lies in the fact that both disciplines are attempting to come to
terms (ith the same insight' that human beings ma/e meaning (hen they use language.
The (riter does not put previously conceived ideas ;into; (ords? she generates the ideas
through the process of (riting. And the reader does not simply ta/e ideas up out of the
(ords? rather' he generates his o(n version of the te)t through the process of reading.
0oth (riting and reading are meaning@ma/ing processes' (hether (e are tal/ing about
the (riting and reading of a literary masterpiece or a freshman essay. A!,BC
Much of this emphasis on the ;meaning@ma/ing process; directly stems from various poststructuralist theories'
(hich have rightly questioned earlier rationalist philosophies of language that assumed a direct connection bet(een
(ords and the ob6ects they represent.
2o(ever' deconstruction seems to have d(elled on the problems of these earlier models by obsessively e)amining
those areas (here meaning falls apart and misses its mar/. This negative vie( of language' (hich is similar to that
of the Dree/ %ophists some EF centuries earlier' has been countered in recent years by a host of ;reconstructive;
thin/ers (ho have sought to move beyond the problems of language first defined by structuralism and have turned
instead to e)amining ho( (riters and readers create meaning in their te)tual encounters.
Among those reconstructive thin/ers rising to critical prominence during the !"G-s (as the .ussian philosopher
Mi/hail 0a/htin' (hose ideas emerged from the dar/ shado(s of %oviet repression several years after their
conception. Many theorists in English studies have hailed 0a/htin+s philosophy of language as a brea/through in the
discursive log6am that has plagued the field ever since the advent of Derrida and deconstruction. &hat 0a/htin
offered (as a relatively simple' loose@/nit system of language philosophy that provided an escape from the often
destructive debates fostered by the theoretical prominence of poststructuralism and deconstruction.
1n contrast to deconstruction' (hich vie(s language and te)ts as nothing but the free play of signifiers' 0a/htin
believes that all individual e)pression is ultimately the product of various voices that are lin/ed to one another
through the socially constituted fabric of language. &e learn our language by assimilating the voices of others' and
(e spea/ bac/ to our community of peers through re@e)ternali8ed modes of discourse. This philosophy' /no(n as
dialogics' is supported by 0a/htin+s concept of metalinguistics' in (hich the individual utterance is seen as the
intersection of a spea/er+s specific intent and the listener+s active response' (hich are in turn lin/ed to one another
through stable' yet often unconscious genres of speech.
1n terms of literary criticism' 0a/htin believes the rise of the novel as the primary e)pressive form of &estern
literature depended in large part on its ability to accurately reflect the myriad voices of this dialogic sphere' (hich
he refers to as ;heteroglossia.; These popular styles of discourse find their ultimate source in an ancient ;carnival;
sense of the (orld' in (hich unofficial forms of language served to subvert and overturn the official seriousness of
authoritative discourse. 1n a similar (ay' 0a/htin+s dialogics see/s to overturn (hat he calls ;monologic; vie(s of
language that stem from earlier rationalist philosophies prevalent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
0a/htin+s social vie( of language' (hich places equal importance on spea/er as (ell as listener' has also served to
counteract one of poststructuralism+s central tenets @@ the so@ called ;death of the author.; 1n this concept' reader
response and language itself are vie(ed as the main vehicles of te)tual understanding' (hile authorial intent and
meaning are supplanted in favor of theories that are both alienating to most readers and seem foreign to our
everyday e)perience of language. As 0ritish novelist and critic David <odge has argued' 0a/htin+s thought has been
instrumental in raising the author from the dead and bridging the gap bet(een theory and the average reader$
9erhaps in the end 0a/htin+s greatest contribution to contemporary criticism is . . . to
have made a timely reaffirmation of the (riter+s creative and communicative po(er. This
is an idea that structuralism AimplicitlyC' and post@structuralism Ae)plicitlyC have sought to
discredit and replace (ith theories about the autonomous productivity of te)ts and their
readers. .eaders outside the academy' ho(ever' continue to believe in the e)istence and
importance of authors. This is one of several issues that have created a barrier of non@
comprehension bet(een academic and non@academic discussion of literature . . . . A,C
1n effect' 0a/htin+s ideas have restored a sense of harmony to Aristotle+s rhetorical triangle by placing the author on
an equal footing (ith his readers and te)ts. 7et as Charles %chuster argues' 0a/htin+s dialogics has also radically
altered the shape of this ancient geometrical model of communication by blurring traditional distinctions bet(een
(riter' reader' and te)t in terms of both the reading and (riting processes AF"FC.
As a result' 0a/htin+s philosophy of language has pushed theoretical debates beyond both the endless s/epticism of
deconstruction and the classical model of rhetorical theory. 1n doing so' his ideas have changed the future course of
theory itself and present us (ith perhaps our first unified vie( of ho( language operates in both the (riting and
reading of te)tual discourse.
This thesis (ill trace the influence of 0a/htin+s ideas in both literary criticism and composition studies during the
past decade and demonstrate ho( a dialogic vie( of language helps point the (ay to(ard a unified theory of
literature and composition. 0a/htin+s ideas on the social nature of language have been vie(ed by many as primary
theoretical support for a social constructionist vie( of language' (hich is increasingly being vie(ed as the reigning
paradigm in both fields. And as (e shall see in the conclusion' 0a/htin+s dialogics also seems poised to help us
e)plain the radical transformations our vie(s of language (ill undergo during the electronic information age. 7et
before e)amining 0a/htin+s influence in both literary criticism and rhetorical theory' it is important to understand
ho( an eccentric thin/er (or/ing on the margins of .ussian intellectual life arrived at conclusions that can lead us
to(ard a unified theory of literature and composition.
Chapter ! - Bakhtin and His Wor"d
Contrary to (hat many scholars may thin/' 0a/htin+s dialogics is not a radically ne( idea particular to the %oviet
sphere' but a direct evolution of &estern thought into the modern age. As this chapter (ill demonstrate' 0a/htin
gradually developed his concept of dialogics through a deepening encounter (ith several strands of &estern
philosophy. That this evolution should emerge in English studies through the voice of an obscure .ussian thin/er
(or/ing in relative isolation is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of t(entieth@century intellectual history. 0ut for
anyone hoping to understand 0a/htin+s ideas and their importance in critical and rhetorical theory' it is crucial to
reali8e ho( his ideas evolved (ithin this &estern philosophical tradition.
Dialogics is not an easy term to define' mainly because 0a/htin uses the (ord ;in so many conte)ts and in such
diverse senses that it often seems devoid of clear definition; AMorson and Emerson' Creation #"C. 0ut in a general
sense' 0a/htin derives his term from the simple act of dialogue' the give@and@ ta/e e)change of language bet(een
t(o individuals. &hile such a definition may seem quite obvious' dialogics' as 0a/htin describes it in a variety of
(or/s' has radical implications (hen compared to traditional &estern vie(s of language. Haterina Clar/ and
Michael 2olquist define dialogics perhaps best (hen describing the basic thrust of 0a/htin+s philosophy$
0a/htin+s point is that 1 can mean (hat 1 say' but only indirectly' at a second remove' in
(ords that 1 ta/e and give bac/ to the community according to the protocols it observes.
My voice can mean' but only (ith others @@ at times in chorus' but at the best of times in
dialogue. A Mikhail Bakhtin !EC
Though 0a/htin (ould develop and refine this basic concept over the course of a lifetime' the origins of his ideas
began (ith his voracious reading of &estern philosophy (hile still quite young.
0orn in the small .ussian to(n of :rel in !G"F' 0a/htin graduated from the University of 9etrograd in !"!G (ith a
degree in classics and philology. During the !"E-s' he moved around to several to(ns in the %oviet Union' spending
his days teaching and his nights debating philosophy' religion' and politics (ith friends' including Ialentin
Ioloshinov and 9avel Medvedev. These late@night discussions of the 0a/htin Circle' fueled by strong tea and the
synergy of close friends' eventually led the young 0a/htin to begin (or/ on a ma6or philosophical treatise in (hich
he sought to ;fuse the three great sub6ects of &estern metaphysics @@ epistemology' ethics' and aesthetics @@ into a
single theory of the deed; AClar/ and 2olquist F,C. 3ragments of this (or/ (ere later translated into English as Art
and Answerability.
Though 0a/htin never completed this pro6ect' the remaining fragments are important' because as Michael 2olquist
states' the material ;is the precondition for his later (or/' insofar as it contains many' if not most' of the ideas he
(ould spend the rest of his life e)ploring' revising' and even contradicting; A Art and Answerability )viiC. 0a/htin
identified fairly early in life the issues of language and literature he (ished to address' but he apparently lac/ed the
intellectual maturity and discipline at this point to put them succinctly into (riting.
Dealing for the most part (ith the aesthetic problems of literary creation' Art and Answerability touches on many
aspects of literature and philosophy of language. The main essay' ;Author and 2ero in Aesthetic Activity'; lays out
specific problems involved in the relationship bet(een an author and his characters' the latter of (hich 0a/htin
refers to as the ;hero.; 2ere' 0a/htin e)plores various aspects of the author5hero relationship that foreshado('
(ithout actually naming them' his later concepts of dialogics and polyphony. 2e tal/s in broad' s(eeping terms
about the relationship bet(een t(o sets of consciousness and the ;consummation; of consciousness in the
author5hero relationship. 0a/htin feels that as (e interact (ith others' our consciousness is transformed by this
e)perience of ;other'; and (e return into our isolated selves' (here (e ;consummate; this ;other; e)perience in
terms of ourselves.
0a/htin ta/es this some(hat simple concept and e)trapolates it into several different levels of interaction bet(een
an author and his hero' a relationship he e)plores in much further depth in later (or/s. &hile this early essay is
diffuse' it is held together by this continual theme of ;otherness; @@ that (e can /no( ourselves only through
interaction (ith others$
1t is only in the other human being' in fact' that a living' aesthetically Aand ethicallyC
convincing e)perience of human finitude is given to me' the e)perience of a human being
as a delimited empirical ob6ect. The other is given to me entirely enclosed in a (orld that
is e)ternal to me? he is given to me as a constituent in it that is totally delimited on all
sides in space. A4BC
1t is no small (onder that 0a/htin failed to complete this pro6ect' for it sho(s an intellect striving for olympian
heights of almost unattainable understanding. These fragments' though' demonstrate clearly ho( 0a/htin sought to
ground his ideas (ithin the tradition of &estern philosophy. Especially important for 0a/htin in these essays are the
Derman philosopher 1mmanuel Hant and the Marburg school of Neo@Hantianism. Hant+s entire body of (or/ is
e)tremely comple)' but his main contribution to &estern philosophy (as his ;transcendental; synthesis of t(o
earlier schools of thought that had sought to e)plain the mind+s relation to the (orld @@ empiricism and rationalism.
9rior to Hant' most modern philosophy had been divided bet(een <oc/e+s belief that (e can /no( the (orld only
through our senses and Descartes+ idea that logical inquiry (as our sole path to a /no(able reality. Hant+s
;brea/through (as to insist on the necessary interaction @@ the dialogue @@ bet(een the t(o. 2e argued that thought is
a synthesis of t(o sources of /no(ledge' sensibility and understanding; AClar/ and 2olquist FGC.
Though Hant (as an important influence on 0a/htin' he seems to have been more fascinated during this time (ith
the tenets of Marburg professor 2ermann Cohen' (ho posited a radical interpretation of Hant+s ideas. Cohen ignored
Hant+s transcendental synthesis and turned instead to a ;militant idealism in (hich the realm of concepts' logic' is all
and the e)ternal' material (orld is nothing; AClar/ and 2olquist FGC. Though 0a/htin came to re6ect this nihilistic
attitude reminiscent of today+s deconstruction' he (as intrigued (ith Cohen+s insistence that conceptuali8ation of the
(orld is a never@ending process (ith no final conclusion.
Additionally' 0a/htin+s early (ritings mirror Cohen+s preoccupation late in life (ith attempting to reconcile his
philosophical beliefs (ith a deepening faith in religion. Throughout ;Author and 2ero in Aesthetic Activity';
0a/htin ma/es repeated references to ho( his concept of ;otherness; is central to the Christian message' (hich
stresses ;(e must relieve the other of any burdens and ta/e them upon ourselves; AArt and Answerability 4GC.
0a/htin believed this Christian attitude to(ard the self and body differed (idely from those of various ancient
philosophies @@ such as the Dionysian cults' Epicureanism' %toicism' and Neoplatonism @@ and is derived from the
e)ample set by Christ of the Dospels$
1n Christ (e find a synthesis of unique depth' the synthesis of ethical solipsism . . . (ith
ethical@aesthetic /indness to(ard the other. 3or the first time' there appeared an infinitely
deepened 1@for@myself @@ not a cold 1@for@myself' but one of boundless /indness to(ard
the other? an 1@for@myself that renders full 6ustice to the other as such' disclosing and
affirming the other+s a)iological distinctiveness in all its fullness. AFBC
<ater in this essay' 0a/htin discusses ho( modern forms of autobiography are an e)tension of confessional pieces of
(riting and ho( an accounting of oneself is impossible (ithout the e)istence of another. 3or 0a/htin' there is no
(riting about the self (ithout an implied audience of higher authority$ ;=:>utside the bounds of trust in absolute
otherness' self@consciousness and self@utterance are impossible . . . because trust in Dod is an immanent constitutive
moment of pure self@consciousness and self@ e)pression; A!##C.
&hat becomes clear in comparing these early essays (ith his later te)ts is that 0a/htin (as trying to (or/ his (ay
through the philosophical tradition of his school years into a more mature philosophy of language and literature
imbued (ith original thought. 2is ne)t pro6ect' a revolutionary critique of Dostoevs/y+s (or/' sho(s a much more
confident thin/er stri/ing out in bold' ne( directions (hile simultaneously see/ing support for his ideas in the very
roots of &estern philosophy. As Dary %aul Morson and Caryl Emerson have noted' these early essays ;are very
much the product of influences 0a/htin soon outgre( . . . and are in large part the e)pression of formulations he
abandoned; ACreation ,C.
3ollo(ing the .ussian Civil &ar' 0a/htin found himself in <eningrad' (here he began (or/ on perhaps the most
lucid (or/ of his career' Problems of Dostoevsky's Creative Works. During this period' the %talinist regime began
tightening its grip on the %oviet intelligentsia' and in *anuary !"E"' 0a/htin (as arrested and charged (ith' among
other things' ;corrupting the young; AClar/ and 2olquist !#EC. The Dostoevs/y boo/ (as published in May of that
year' (hile 0a/htin (as still incarcerated. 2e (as eventually released at the urging of friends in December !"E" and
e)iled to the eastern province of Ha8a/hstan AClar/ and 2olquist !#4C.
1n his (or/ on Dostoevs/y' 0a/htin introduces his concept of ;polyphony'; (hereby an author creates characters
(ho are ideologically different from himself. 1n doing so' he also uses' for the first time' the term ;dialogic; to
describe his vie(s on philosophy of language. Tolstoy' 0a/htin argues' is the prime e)ample of a monologic author'
(hose characters' sooner or later' come around to his o(n vie(s of literature' religion' and philosophy. Dostoevs/y'
on the other hand' (as the first author to achieve full creation of characters (hose consciousnesses (ere
distinctively different from his o(n. 0a/htin coined this achievement ;polyphony'; borro(ing the term from a
%oviet literary critic (ho in turn appropriated the phrase from music theory AProblems E-C. #1$ &hile 0a/htin did
not originate this phrase' he too/ the basic principle much further in applying it to the (hole of Dostoevs/y+s (or/.
Though most of this boo/ analy8es particular passages of Dostoevs/y' 0a/htin covers a (ide range of issues in
philosophy of language as (ell. Among these is the idea that language is indeed ambiguous' but (hereas
deconstruction (ould highlight this ambiguity as the inability of (ords to convey precise meaning' 0a/htin
(elcomes this vagueness of language as a means by (hich to create meaning dialogically. 1ndeed' in describing the
nature of the polyphonic novel' 0a/htin sees the entire scope of human life as a dialogic process (hereby (e find
meaning only through our interactions (ith others$
Dialogic relationships e)ist among all elements of novelistic structure? that is' they are
6u)taposed contrapuntally. And this is so because dialogic relationships are a much
broader phenomenon than mere re6oinders in a dialogue' laid out compositionally in the
te)t? they are an almost universal phenomenon' permeating all human speech and all
relationships and manifestations of human life @@ in general' everything that has meaning
and significance. A#-C
0a/htin believed that most of &estern philosophy up until this time' especially the rationalist tradition' had vie(ed
language and the perceived (orld in strictly monologic terms' (hich he says is ;only one of the possible (ays; of
;perceiving cognition and truth; AG!C. 1n this rationalist' monologic tradition' anything that does not fit into a unified
consciousness becomes suspect' and he includes here both ;European utopianism; and ;utopian socialism' (ith its
faith in the omnipotence of the conviction; AGEC.
Though 0a/htin believed Dostoevs/y (as the first artist to brea/ free of this monologic tradition' he does find some
polyphonic elements in other artists' such as %ha/espeare and 0al8ac A44C. 0a/htin sa( Dostoevs/y as primarily an
artist of the ;idea; in that his characters represented ideological positions that reacted (ith one another in
interdependent relationships that 0a/htin believed (ere a reflection of all human thought$
The idea lives not in one person+s isolated individual consciousness @@ if it remains there
only' it degenerates and dies. The idea begins to live' that is' to ta/e shape' to develop' to
find and rene( its verbal e)pression' to give birth to ne( ideas' only (hen it enters into
genuine dialogic relationships (ith other ideas' (ith the ideas of others. 2uman thought
becomes genuine thought' that is' an idea' only under conditions of living contact (ith
another and alien thought' a thought embodied in someone else+s voice' that is' in
someone else+s consciousness e)pressed in discourse. At that point of contact bet(een
voice@ consciousness the idea is born and lives. AGGC
3or 0a/htin' true thought is not to be found in the isolated minds of individuals' but at that point of dialogic contact
bet(een people engaged in discourse.
Though 0a/htin mentions %ocrates as a primary influence in his thin/ing' his concept of dialogics as espoused in
this and later (or/s also o(es some debt to Martin 0uber and other thin/ers (ho formulated a dialogical philosophy
prior to 0a/htin. #!$ &e /no( that 0a/htin (as introduced to 0uber+s early (or/ in his teen years AClar/ and
2olquist E,C' and as some critics have noted' there are stri/ing similarities bet(een 0a/htin+s concept of dialogics
and 0uber+s philosophy as outlined in his !"E4 boo/ I and Thou. 1n this (or/' 0uber sought to outline an ;ontology
of the bet(een; in (hich individual consciousness can only be understood (ithin the conte)t of our relationships
(ith others' not independent of them ATheunissen E,!@E,EC.
&hile no one has suggested that 0a/htin ;copied; his dialogics straight from the pages of 0uber+s I and Thou' he
seems to have been at least influenced by 0uber+s earlier (or/s and a number of other philosophers (ho (ere
thin/ing along the same lines. Nina 9erlina reminds us that 0a/htin and 0uber ;belonged to the same cultural
epoch; AEBC and probably arrived at their conclusions simultaneously through their common fascination (ith
Cohen+s philosophy and their interest in Doethe' Christ' and %ocrates AEEC. And even though he built his concept of
dialogics on the shoulders of other philosophers' 0a/htin seems to have been the first thin/er to apply this general
concept (idely to the fields of language and literature.
1n latter sections of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin introduces another concept /no(n as ;metalinguistics'; (hich is
one of his fe( neologisms that he bothers to define concretely' a tendency some critics suggest has led to varying
interpretations of his thought. 0a/htin (as highly critical of the ideas of %(iss linguist 3erdinand de %aussure as
outlined in his Course in General in!uisti"s . 1n this set of lecture notes first published in !"!F' %aussure
introduced a revolutionary dichotomy bet(een the systematic structure of language Alan!ue C and its everyday use in
speech and (riting A#arole C? each (ord or sign (as seen as a t(o@sided coin containing both a signifier' such as the
mar/s on a page or an uttered sound' and a signified' or the concept behind the (ord A%elden FEC.
0a/htin (as critical of %aussurean linguistics for its limited analysis of language in action and prescribes instead a
metalinguistics that studies ;the (ord not in a system of language...but precisely (ithin the sphere of dialogic
interaction itself' that is' in that sphere (here discourse lives an authentic life; AE-EC. As the basis for this concept'
0a/htin dra(s once again on the dialogic nature of the verbal and (ritten (ord' (hich is ;not a material thing but
rather the eternally mobile' eternally fic/le medium of dialogic interaction; AE-EC.
3or 0a/htin' %aussurean linguistics totally ignores the dialogic nature of language and strips it from its living
conte)t. 1t fails to ta/e into account the various nuances of the ;verbal palette; @@ the ;smallest shift in intonation' the
slightest interruption of voices; and all the ;verbal side(ard glances' reservations' loopholes' hints' =and> thrusts
=that> do not slip past our ear' are not foreign to our o(n lips; AE-!C. 1n doing so' %aussurean linguistics constructs a
systematic frame(or/ of language that is insufficient for the study of ;prose discourse; and is ;even too confining
for poetry; AE-EC.
2o(ever' it must be noted that 0a/htin based his criticism of %aussure on an early edition of Course in General
in!uisti"s and various .ussian interpretations of this particular te)t' both of (hich provided an incomplete vie( of
%aussure+s overall ideas on linguistics.#%$ And (hile 0a/htin critici8es linguistics as a limited science' he does not
really provide an alternative' other than to suggest (e someho( study all these nuances of language. .hetoric
addresses some of his concerns' but 0a/htin never specifically mentions rhetoric in this conte)t' and though he
clearly defines (hat he means by metalinguistics' he does not tell us ho( to create such a field of study until much
later in his career.
During his imprisonment' 0a/htin began suffering health problems caused by chronic osteomyelitis' a painful
inflammation of the bone marro(' and (hile his e)ile to the fro8en isolation of Ha8a/hstan (as no doubt severe' it
undoubtedly saved him from a certain death in prison. During e)ile' 0a/htin (as prevented from teaching and
instead supported himself as a boo//eeper. 1n !"4B' he (as released from e)ile and taught for a time in %arans/ until
rene(ed purges led him to resign and move to a small to(n outside Mosco(. There' his (orsening osteomyelitis led
to amputation of his right leg' and he (as forced to use crutches or a (al/ing stic/ the remainder of his life AClar/
and 2olquist EB!C.
After his surgery' 0a/htin (as unable to find formal employment' though he (as invited on occasions to deliver
lectures at the Dor/y 1nstitute of &orld <iterature. 2e also used his free time to finish a boo/ on the Derman novel
of education and to (or/ on a number of essays on the dialogic nature of the novel' most of (hich (ere based on
material culled from his lecture notes.
1n addition' he began (riting a doctoral dissertation on .abelais for the Dor/y 1nstitute. 2o(ever' the advent of
&orld &ar 11 interrupted his (or/ on the dissertation' and his boo/ on the Derman novel of education literally (ent
up in smo/e. The publishing house to (hich 0a/htin sent this latter manuscript (as bombed by the Dermans during
the (ar' and due to a cigarette paper shortage at that time' 0a/htin used the pages of the boo/+s prospectus to support
his continual craving for nicotine AClar/ and 2olquist E,4C. Though only a fragment of this (or/ has survived'
0a/htin+s essays on the dialogic theory of the novel remained intact' yet (ere not published in the %oviet Union until
!",4' (ell after Mosco( graduate students had rescued him from obscurity. These essays (ere translated into
English as The Dialo!i" Ima!ination.
This collection of essays' (ritten bet(een !"4# and !"#!' is undoubtedly the main (or/ on (hich 0a/htin+s
reputation in literary criticism has rested? it is cited by 0a/htin literary scholars more than any of his other (or/s'
(ith the possible e)ception of Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s. The collection as a (hole deals mostly (ith
historical development of the novel' but also elaborates on 0a/htin+s dialogics (hile introducing t(o ne( concepts
@@ heteroglossia and the chronotope @@ that reflect his deepening a(areness of ho( language operates over time.
2eteroglossia is perhaps one of 0a/htin+s most misunderstood and misinterpreted ideas' often being confused (ith
;polyphony; as meaning the multi@voiced nature of dialogic discourse. 0ut this is not e)actly (hat 0a/htin means.
1n his essay ;3rom the 9rehistory of Novelistic Discourse'; 0a/htin defines heteroglossia as the inherent diversity of
unofficial forms of a particular national language @@ similar in nature to dialect. 0a/htin contrasts heteroglossia (ith
;polyglossia'; (hich is the interaction of t(o or more national languages (ithin a given culture' such as too/ place
in the 2ellenistic (orld$
Closely connected (ith the problem of polyglossia and inseparable from it is the problem
of heteroglossia within a language' that is' the problem of internal differentiation' the
stratification characteristic of any national language. This problem is of primary
importance for understanding the style and historical destinies of the modern European
novel' that is' the novel since the seventeenth century. This latecomer reflects' in its
stylistic structure' the struggle bet(een t(o tendencies in the languages of European
peoples$ one a centrali8ing AunifyingC tendency' the other a decentrali8ing tendency Athat
is' one that stratifies languagesC. The novel senses itself on the border bet(een the
completed' dominant literary language and the e)traliterary languages that /no(
heteroglossia. AB,C
These centrali8ing and decentrali8ing forces are referred to in another essay' ;Discourse in the Novel'; as
;centripetal; and ;centrifugal; forces' (hich serve to promote the continual evolution of language and the novel.
The centripetal and centrifugal forces (ithin heteroglossia are (hat change the ;official; language of a culture over
time' usually by infusing diverse' unofficial forms of language into official forms via the speech of various literary
characters.
1n ;Discourse in the Novel'; 0a/htin also e)tends his description of dialogics and discusses the various obstacles
any individual faces in attempting to forge an authentic' authorial voice (hen confronted (ith the dialogic nature of
language. Assimilating the disparate utterances (e have heard or read in our early language e)perience into a solid
tone of a confident (riter is a difficult process' as 0a/htin (ell understood$
The (ord in language is half someone else+s. 1t becomes ;one+s o(n; only (hen the
spea/er populates it (ith his o(n intention' his o(n accent' (hen he appropriates the
(ord' adapting it to his o(n semantic and e)pressive intention. 9rior to this moment of
appropriation' the (ord does not e)ist in a neutral and impersonal language . . . but rather
it e)ists in other people+s mouths' in other people+s conte)ts' serving other people+s
intentions$ it is from there that one must ta/e the (ord' and ma/e it one+s o(n . . . .
<anguage is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into the private property
of the spea/er+s intentions? it is populated @@ overpopulated (ith the intentions of others.
E)propriating it' forcing it to submit to one+s o(n intentions and accents' is a difficult and
complicated process. AE"#C
<ater in this essay' 0a/htin describes similar difficulties (e face (hen forming our o(n opinions and ideas on a
particular sub6ect' a process he refers to as ;ideological becoming; A4#EC. 1n doing so' he contrasts the official
language or ;authoritative discourse'; (hich comes to us in the present from outside our consciousness' (ith
;internally persuasive discourse'; (hich comes from (ithin our consciousness through assimilated forms of both
official and unofficial language A4#EC.
Another essay in this collection' ;3orms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel'; demonstrates (hat could be
called 0a/htin+s final stage of philosophical development. 1n this essay' 0a/htin relates the space@time continuum of
Einstein+s Theory of .elativity to literary criticism' particularly as sort of a metaphor for the different (ays in (hich
the (hole of literature @@ everything from the Dree/ romance to the European novel @@ has used various temporal and
spatial features to e)press a (ide variety of (orld vie(s. 0a/htin borro(ed the term ;chronotope; from the (or/ of
%oviet physiologist A. A. U/htoms/y' (hose lecture on the chronotope in biology 0a/htin attended in !"EF AGFC.
&hile 0a/htin+s discussion is intriguing' (hat is most interesting about this essay is its conclusion' (hich he (rote
in !",4 and in (hich he serves up the chronotope as a ;bridge' not a (all; bet(een the mind and the (orld AClar/
and 2olquist E,"C.
As Haterina Clar/ and Michael 2olquist point out in their biography' 0a/htin+s interest in space and time (as shared
by many %oviet intellectuals of the !"E-s' (ith Einstein and 0ergson being particularly in vogue? but at the base of
0a/htin+s interest in the chronotope (as his earlier reading of Hant and the Neo@Hantians' (ho sa( time and space
as essential to any cognitive understanding of e)perience AE,,C.
%till' 0a/htin seems to be one of the first literary critics and philosophers of language @@ though he preferred the
phrase ;philosophical anthropologist; @@ to shift from a narro(' Ne(tonian (orld vie( into the ne( philosophical
paradigm created by Einstein+s theories. As Dary %aul Morson and Caryl Emerson note in Mikhail Bakhtin$ Creation
of a Prosai"s' 0a/htin+s dialogics see/s to overturn the ;old' Ne(tonian' monologic vie( of the (orld; AF,C and to
replace it (ith a radically ne( vie( of language that ta/es into account its many parado)es. %imilar to the (ay
quantum physics has changed the (ay (e vie( physical reality' there occurred during 0a/htin+s life a paradigm shift
in philosophy of language' (hich 0a/htin comments on in his notes for the !"B4 revision of the Dostoevs/y boo/$
.eified Amateriali8ing' ob6ectifiedC images are profoundly inadequate for life and for
discourse. A reified model of the (orld is no( being replaced by a dialogic model. Every
thought and every life merges in the open@ended dialogue. AProblems of Dostoevsky's
Poeti"s E"4C
*ust as &erner 2eisenberg and other physicists grappled (ith (ays in (hich to describe the strange' ne( (orld of
the quantum realm' 0a/htin seems to have been groping also for (ays in (hich to e)press his ne( ideas on
language.
0a/htin had a penchant for neologisms' (hich can be vie(ed as a necessity for describing the radically ne(
concepts of language that came to mind in light of Einstein+s theory. This also might e)plain 0a/htin+s peculiar use
of .ussian grammar' (hich Clar/ and 2olquist noticed throughout their biographical research$
The more (e /no( about 0a/htin+s life' the clearer it becomes that he (as a supreme
eccentric' of an order the .ussians e)press better than (e in their (ord "udak' (hich has
overtones of such intense strangeness that it borders on "udo' a (onder. And this
peculiarity is reflected not only in the strange history of his te)ts . . . but in his style as
(ell' if one may spea/ of a sin!le style for one (ho (as so concerned (ith ;other@
voicedness.; .ussians immediately sense this strangeness$ again and again (hen (e have
gone to native spea/ers (ith questions about a peculiar usage of a familiar (ord or an
unfamiliar coinage' the .ussians have thro(n up their hands or sha/en their heads and
smiled ruefully. A)viC
%uch eccentricities' combined (ith dialogics+ challenge to the monologic' rationalist tradition' have opened 0a/htin
to charges of being a relativist (ho ta/es no firm stand on important issues in philosophy of language. 0ut in the
Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin anticipates and counters such charges by arguing that polyphony ;has nothing in common
(ith relativism . . . . =0>oth relativism and dogmatism equally e)clude all . . . dialogue by ma/ing it either
unnecessary . . . or impossible . . . ; AB"C.
3ollo(ing &orld &ar 11' 0a/htin (as allo(ed to return to his university position in %arans/' and it (as from here
that he set about reviving passage of his dissertation' (hich in the interim had become a politically sensitive sub6ect.
3ollo(ing the (ar' a ne( (ave of intellectual oppression s(ept through .ussia' and 0a/htin+s dissertation (as
denounced on ideological grounds by several po(erful scholars (ho found it ;ob6ectionable for its blasphemy and
scorn of dogma; AClar/ and 2olquist 4E#C. Though 0a/htin (as eventually granted a candidate+s degree' he (as
denied publication of his dissertation' (hich (ound up collecting dust in the institute+s archives for the ne)t !E
years. After 0a/htin (as discovered by Mosco( graduate students in the early !"B-s' ho(ever' he revised the
dissertation for %oviet publication' and it (as later translated into English as %abelais and &is World.
.abelais (as one of 0a/htin+s favorite authors' and he sa( Gar!antua and Panta!ruel' (ith all its ba(dy humor
and veiled social satire' as ;an encyclopedia of fol/ culture; A.abelais FGC. 0a/htin touches on these carnivalistic
fol/ genres in his earlier (or/ on Dostoevs/y' but in %abelais and &is World' he provides a detailed history of (hat
he calls ;grotesque realism; and sees .abelais and other .enaissance (riters consciously dra(ing from these
literary forms as inspiration for their (or/. Central to grotesque realism is the principle of degradation' ;the
lo(ering of all that is high' spiritual' ideal' abstract...to the material level' to the sphere of earth and body in their
indissoluble unity; A!"@E-C.
1n ancient cultures' this degradation found its communal e)pression in times of carnival' (hen the people
;celebrated temporary liberation from the prevailing truth and from the established order; by engaging in feasts ;of
becoming' change' and rene(al; A!-C. Especially important in such carnival festivals (as the inversion of official
hierarchies through the uncro(ning of /ings and the elevation of fools to regal status. 0ut 0a/htin is quic/ to point
out that carnival should not be confused (ith mere parody or subversive anarchy? (hile carnival does use
degradation to subvert authority temporarily' ;it revives and rene(s at the same time. 0are negation is completely
alien to fol/ culture; A!!C.
%abelais and &is World is a highly circular and diffuse (or/ (hich is considered by many 0a/htin scholars to be
one of his least important (or/s' though it is generally seen as a ma6or contribution to .enaissance literary
scholarship. &hen it (as first translated into English' the 'ew (ork Times Book %eview called it a ;(indy' repetitive'
disorgani8ed and clumsily@ translated mass' thic/ (ith sentences that hobble across the page burdened by non@
meanings . . .; AMillerC. 0ut through all its digressions' 0a/htin see/s to demonstrate that .abelais (as the last
person to fully understand (hat carnival meant to Medieval man and ho( the (orld has since lost this understanding
as carnival devolved into literary forms of satire.
After the .abelais dissertation (as re6ected' 0a/htin continued teaching in %arans/' (here he began (or/ on one of
the most important essays of his career' a fuller e)amination of his earlier concept of the utterance. This essay' ;The
9roblem of %peech Denres'; (as not published in the %oviet Union until !","' (ell after his revived status as a
noted thin/er' and (as later translated into English in a collection entitled )#ee"h Genres and *ther ate +ssays.
&ritten bet(een !"FE and !"F4' ;The 9roblem of %peech Denres; is one of 0a/htin+s most succinct arguments
against %aussurean linguistics' a sub6ect first touched upon in The Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s. 0ut unli/e the
Dostoevs/y boo/' ;%peech Denres; gives us an in@depth description of metalinguistics' (hich depends on (hat
0a/htin felt (as the smallest linguistic unit of conte)tual meaning (ithin an everyday situation of speech @@ the
utterance. 3or 0a/htin' the utterance is$
a unit of speech communication . . .d etermined by a change of spea/ing sub6ects' that is'
a change of spea/ers. Any utterance @@ from a short Asingle@(ordC re6oinder in everyday
dialogue to the large novel or scientific treatise @@ has' so to spea/' an absolute beginning
and an absolute end$ its beginning is preceded by the utterances of others' and its end is
follo(ed by the responsive utterances of others . . . . The spea/er ends his utterance in
order to relinquish the floor to the other or to ma/e room for the other+s active responsive
understanding. A,!C
0y comparing this concept of the utterance to those units of speech defined by traditional linguistics @@ sentences'
phrases' (ords' and phonemes @@ 0a/htin demonstrates the stri/ingly narro( limitations of prevailing linguistics in
analy8ing the conte)tual environment of speech and language.
3or 0a/htin' the isolated sentence lac/s ;semantic fullness of value? and it has no capacity to determine directly the
responsive position of the other spea/er' that is' it cannot evo/e a response; A,#C. Utterances are characteri8ed by a
change of spea/ers in a ;specific finali8ation; determined by three aspects of a (hole utterance$ semantic e)haustion
of the theme? the spea/er+s plan or speech (ill? and generic' compositional forms of finali8ation A,B@,,C.
&hat 0a/htin means by these three characteristics of the utterance is fairly simple. 3irst of all' an utterance+s
;relative finali8ation; is determined by ;specific authorial intent; A,,C. That is' an utterance reaches its end (hen a
spea/er intends it to' (hen the impulse of speech has momentarily e)hausted itself and either e)plicitly or tacitly
as/s for response from the listener. Closely lin/ed to this intent is the listener+s perception of the spea/er+s speech
plan$
=&>e embrace' understand' and sense the spea/er+s speech plan or speech (ill' (hich
determines the entire utterance' its length and boundaries. &e imagine to ourselves (hat
the spea/er (ishes to say. And (e also use this speech plan' this speech (ill Aas (e
understand itC' to measure the finali8ation of the utterance. A,,C
Most importantly for 0a/htin' though' is ho( the utterance+s finali8ation is often determined by our choice of a
particular speech genre' genres (hich are relatively stable but of (hich (e are often unconscious. As 0a/htin states'
(e acquire language ;from concrete utterances that (e hear and that (e ourselves reproduce in live speech
communication (ith people around us; A,"C.
Through these socially acquired speech genres' a listener is able to anticipate the length and compositional structure
of another+s speech from its very first (ords' thereby forming a sense of the (hole e)pression' ;(hich is only later
differentiated during the speech process; A,"C. 0a/htin feels that if (e had not tacitly integrated these genres into
our consciousness throughout our lives and instead had to ;construct each utterance at (ill for the first time' speech
communication (ould be almost impossible; A,"C.
0a/htin+s theory of utterance counters the prevailing linguistics of his time by denying that utterances A#aroleC are
;completely free combination=s> of forms of language; and therefore ;purely individual acts'; (hile the system of
language Alan!ueC is a social phenomenon AG!C. 3or 0a/htin' both %aussurean terms are socially derived' and in his
vie(' most linguists of his day sa( in the utterance ;only an individual combination of purely linguistic Ale)ical and
grammaticalC forms . . .; AG!C. The conscious or unconscious choice of an individual speech genre' according to
0a/htin' is determined by both the spea/er+s semantic plan and by his emotional evaluation of the utterance+s
semantic content? this is one area of speech that most linguistic systems fail to address$
Can the e)pressive aspect of speech be regarded as phenomenon of lan!ua!e as a
systemJ Can one spea/ of the e)pressive aspect of language units' that is' (ords and
sentencesJ The ans(er to these questions must be a categorical ;no.; <anguage as a
system has' of course' a rich arsenal of language tools @@ le)ical' morphological' and
syntactic @@ for e)pressing the spea/er+s emotionally evaluative position' but all these
tools as language tools are absolutely neutral (ith respect to any particular real
evaluation. AG#C
:ne means of relaying the e)pressive aspect of language is intonation' (hich is present in oral speech' but does not
e)ist in the system of language itself$ ;0oth the (ord and sentence as lan!ua!e units are devoid of e)pressive
intonation; AGFC. 1nstead' e)pressive intonation is present only in the utterance as a (hole' though individual (ords
and sentences can be entire utterances if they elicit a listener+s active response.
As e)pressed so far' it may appear that 0a/htin+s utterance is merely composed of language units defined in
traditional linguistics? ho(ever' 0a/htin believes that (hen (e form e)pressive utterances' ;(e by no means al(ays
ta/e them from the system of language in their neutral' di"tionary form'; but instead appropriate them from other
utterances (e have heard in our individual e)perience of language AG,C. 0a/htin+s theory of the utterance is highly
dependent' as are his other theories of language' on the dialogic nature of the (ord? in our use of language' the (ord
e)ists on three different levels$ !C as a neutral' language system (ord belonging to no one? EC as a (ord present in
the utterance of others? and 4C as a (ord of the individual' used in a particular situation (ith a particular speech plan
AGGC.
0ut regardless of ho( (ords are used' the utterance ;is filled (ith dialo!i" overtones'; (hich 0a/htin felt must be
ta/en into account in any linguistic analysis A"EC. &hile the utterance is a dialogic ;lin/ in the chain of speech
communication' and...cannot be bro/en off from the preceding lin/s that determine it'; 0a/htin also felt the
utterance (as tied to subsequent lin/s in this never@ending chain through (hat he calls ;addressivity'; (hich is
essentially the same as audience analysis' but (ith a greater emphasis on a"tive listener response in shaping the
utterance A"#@"FC. The addressee+s influence on a particular utterance varies from speech genre to speech genre' but
(ithin each utterance there e)ists this responsive impact of the addressee.
1n fact' addressivity is another feature that distinguishes the utterance from language units' (hich ;belong to nobody
and are addressed to nobody; and are ;devoid of any /ind of relation to the other+s utterance' the other+s (ord; A""C.
Though individual (ords can be directed to(ard someone' 0a/htin felt they then become completed utterances
consisting ;of one (ord or one sentence' and addressivity is inherent not in the unit of language' but in the
utterance; A""C.
As mentioned earlier' 0a/htin+s criticisms of %aussurean linguistics (ere based on incomplete interpretations of the
%(iss linguist+s vie(s. And at the time he (rote this essay' 0a/htin could not have foreseen the great strides made in
modern linguistics by someone li/e Noam Choms/y' (hose concepts of linguistic ;competence; and ;performance;
have deepened our understanding of language. &hat 0a/htin seems to be arguing against here are the limited
.ussian interpretations of %aussure+s (or/s' and not linguistics in any modern sense of the (ord.
After %talin+s death in !"F4' thousands of political prisoners (ere released from 6ail' and many of those in e)ile (ere
rehabilitated AClar/ and 2olquist 4E"C. 2o(ever' 0a/htin+s situation remained virtually unchanged' though he did
receive promotion at the university in %arans/.
0a/htin+s earlier (or/s' ho(ever' eventually began to receive belated recognition. Noted linguist .oman *a/obson'
for e)ample' spo/e on numerous occasions about 0a/htin as (ell as psychologist <ev Iygots/y' (hose (or/s had
also been all but forgotten AClar/ and 2olquist 44!@4EC. Through these influences' graduate students at various
%oviet universities began to rediscover the Dostoevs/y boo/. Among them (as Iadim Ho8hinov' (ho (as surprised
0a/htin had survived the %talinist purges and urged him to revise both the Dostoevs/y boo/ and the .abelais
dissertation (ith an eye to(ard publication. After encountering initial resistance' Ho8hinov (as eventually able to
persuade %oviet authorities to publish both boo/s AClar/ and 2olquist 444@ 4FC.
7et as 0a/htin+s star began to rise in the %oviet Union' his health began to decline dramatically' as did that of his
(ife' (ho suffered heart problems. 1n addition to his continually (orsening osteomyelitis' 0a/htin also contracted
acute emphysema caused by his years of heavy smo/ing. Concerned that the couple (ere unable to care for
themselves' friends arranged to have them moved to Mosco(' (here they relied on state pensions and free medical
services. 7et 0a/htin continued to (or/ at his des/' (riting in the !",-s' for e)ample' a conclusion to his earlier
essay on the chronotope and scribbling e)tensively in his noteboo/s.
These later noteboo/ entries are interesting because 0a/htin seemed to be returning to themes in his earliest essays.
The (ritings are fragmented and stilted' as most noteboo/s are' but sho( a mind still clearly ambitious even as his
health declined. 1n the last noteboo/ entry before his death' 0a/htin concluded (ith this statement about the dialogic
nature of language$ ;There is neither a first nor a last (ord and there are no limits to the dialogic conte)t Ait e)tends
into the boundless past and the boundless futureC; A)#ee"h Genres !,-C.
1t is this ;boundless dialogic conte)t; that allo(s us to escape the prison house of language that so many
poststructuralist thin/ers have erected for us during the past t(o decades. #&$ According to 0a/htin' our individual
acts of language are tied indissolubly to all previous and future acts of language in the never@ending act of dialogue
(ith others. <anguage on a personal level is acquired from this stream of language' and during the course of our
lives' (e return to this stream again and again' giving bac/ (hat (e have ta/en from it. As (e shall see in
subsequent chapters' this social vie( of language opposes both the rationalist tradition of &estern philosophy and
the e)treme linguistic s/epticism of recent poststructuralist thin/ers such as Derrida.
0a/htin died on the morning of March ,' !",F' from complications of emphysema and (as attended only by a night
nurse' (ho noted his final (ords as being' ;1 go to thee; AClar/ and 2olquist 4#4C. At a memorial service later that
year in Mosco(' a number of intellectuals gathered to read his (or/s and discuss the impact of his career. Among
those spea/ing (as %ha/espeare scholar <.E. 9ins/y' (ho (arned against any single' authoritative interpretation of
0a/htin+s (or/s AClar/ and 2olquist 4##C. &e (ould do (ell to remember 9ins/y+s remar/s (hen e)amining
0a/htin+s influence in critical and rhetorical theory.
Chapter ! - 'nd (otes
!. This and all subsequent references are to Emerson+s !"G# translation.
E. 3or studies of dialogical philosophy' see 0ergman' and Theunissen.
4. 3or a critique of structuralist interpretations of %aussure+s Course in General in!uisti"s' see Angenot.
#. The phrase ;prison house of language; comes from the title of Mar)ist critic 3rederic *ameson+s boo/ of the
same name.
Chapter % - Bakhtin and Critica" Theory
As (e have seen' 0a/htin+s dialogic philosophy of language (as developed and refined over the course of a long
and prolific life that straddled a number of turbulent periods in .ussian history. 0ased in part on several strands of
&estern philosophy ranging from %ocrates to phenomenology' dialogics overturns older paradigms that vie(ed
communication as being so much mail relayed by a sender to a particular receiver? instead' dialogics sees
communication and meaning residing on the boundaries of consciousness bet(een t(o people' (ho use (ords that
are both socially originated and infused (ith past and future voices.
0efore e)amining 0a/htin+s influence (ithin critical theory' it is important to understand the theoretical conte)t into
(hich his ideas (ere appropriated during the !"G-s. 3or 0a/htin+s ideas did not become popular at this time only
because they (ere first undergoing translation' but because they ans(ered a deep theoretical need that had arisen
ever since the deconstructive angel first spread its (ings. That need concerns the question of ho( @@ given all the
poststructural theoretical challenges to rationalist vie(s of discourse @@ (e ever manage to communicate (ith one
another at all.
9rior to the !"B-s' critical theory had little of the importance in English studies that it has today. Modern English
philology arose in the nineteenth century' modelling itself on the ;long@established study of 0iblical and classical
te)ts; A3elperin E4C. This hermeneutic influence continued into the t(entieth century and (as challenged only
during the !"4-s and !"#-s (ith the advent of Ne( Criticism as practiced in America by the Agrarian critics at
Ianderbilt University. This school of criticism concentrated on ;highlighting the te)t and refining techniques for its
analysis'; as opposed to the factual scholarly research of the earlier philological tradition ACain "FC. &hile it
espoused a pseudo@scientific method based on a ;close reading; of the te)t' the Ne( Criticism (as far from
scientific and contained a certain amount of idealism about literature' as 2o(ard 3elperin points out$
=:>nce upon a time there (as a special category of (or/s designated as <iterature' (ithin
(hich an even more privileged group of (or/s (as set apart and conscientiously re@
edited' reinterpreted' and taught. This latter group (as /no(n as the ;canon; or the ;great
tradition;. All of these ;(or/s; (ere thought of as ;created; by ;authors; endo(ed (ith
godli/e po(ers of originality' (isdom' and clairvoyance. A!-C
2o(ever' as the body of ne( interpretations began to reach critical mass under Ne( Criticism' it soon became
apparent that many of the analytical interpretations of canonical (or/s (ere often contradictory.
Though some elements of Ne( Criticism continue to have an underlying influence even today' many of its central
tenets (ere soon called into question' particularly (ith publication in !"F, of Northrop 3rye+s Anatomy of Criti"ism.
1n this seminal te)t' 3rye sought to introduce a more systematic' scientific form of critical study by dra(ing upon
the methods of semiotics and stylistics as applied to historical' ethical' rhetorical' and archetypal criticism. 3elperin
argues that 3rye+s boo/ caused a shift from a hermeneutic to a semiotic method of critical inquiry AEBC' (hich in turn
opened the door for the structural and poststructural revolutions of the ne)t t(o decades. This ;triumph of theory;
quic/ly consumed literary criticism$
3or (hat (as at sta/e (as the capacity of theory' not merely to describe' not even to
control and correct' but to dictate practice' to prescribe it in the fullest sense of the (ord.
And by the end of the decade . . . the battle had been all but (on' the triumph of theory
assured. Theory' that is' had established itself as not only a legitimate literary@critical
activity' but its guiding light. AEGC
Though 3rye+s ideas continue to be influential' the ne(@found field of critical theory (as ruled in large part during
the !"B-s by the tenets of structuralism. The distinction bet(een signifier and signified made in Course in General
in!uisti"s led %aussure and many of his follo(ers to question the rationalist notion of a direct connection bet(een
(ords and their referent ob6ects' a concept later e)pounded upon in deconstructive theory. 3irst published in !"!F'
Course in General in!uisti"s had a far@ranging impact' and during the ne)t F- years' %aussure+s ideas (ere adopted
and e)tended by a number of Continental and American structuralists (ho interpreted his thought in various (ays.
1n terms of literary criticism' ho(ever' structuralism+s basic goal (as to apply the scientific methods of linguistics to
the study of literary te)ts. This scientific analysis placed a primary emphasis on the language of a creative (or/ as
interpreted by the reader' (hile simultaneously reducing the importance of authorial intent as a sub6ect of critical
study. This attitude (as e)pressed most famously in .oland 0arthe+s essay ;The Death of the Author'; in (hich he
states that the ;image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author' his person'
his life' his tastes' =and> his passions . . .; A!#4C. The actual physical author (as not presumed to be dead' but instead
the institutional concept of authorship that had long dominated criticism at the e)pense of linguistic and semiotic
analysis.
%tructuralism ruled academic theoretical debates through much of the !"B-s until a ne( (ave of 3rench thought
found seed in American soil. At a conference on structuralism held at *ohns 2op/ins University in !"BB' *acques
Derrida delivered his famous paper ;%tructure' %ign' and 9lay in the Discourse of the 2uman %ciences'; (hich
created quite a stir and ;acquired a mythological significance as the fountainhead of American deconstruction;
A0ergon8i !4"C. Derrida+s (ritings are e)tremely dense and complicated' and have been interpreted in a variety of
(ays' but the basic gist of his thought hinges on %aussure+s division bet(een (ords and their referents. 2o(ever'
Derrida carried this concept one step further by stating in his !"B, boo/ *f Grammatolo!y' ;There is nothing
outside of the te)t; A!FGC. 0y denying the possibility of a /no(able reality outside of (ritten language' Derrida
emphasi8es that our only source of reality is the free play of signifiers' (hich ultimately deconstruct of their o(n
accord and call into question previous &estern concepts of meaning. As Michael 2olquist e)plains$
=The> Deconstructionist vie( . . . holds that ;No one o(ns meaning;$ the very conception
of meaning' to say nothing of persons' invo/ed in most traditional epistemologies' begins
by illicitly assuming a presence (hose end Niet8sche really (as announcing (hen he let
it be /no(n that Dod had died in history. A;9olitics; !B#C
Derrida ma/es a number of other claims about language and philosophy' such as his assertion that the (hole of
&estern discourse is ;logocentric; because it erroneously privileges speech over (riting? ho(ever' for brevity+s sa/e
it is more important to concentrate discussion on his influence (ithin critical theory.
Derrida+s concept of deconstruction had an immense impact on theoretical debates during the !",-s' gathering a
number of dedicated and vocal proponents and a varied assortment of equally dedicated and vocal detractors.
Among those (ho too/ Derrida+s theories to heart (as a contingent of critics at 7ale University' (here Derrida
maintains part@time residency. These critics spent much of the !",-s applying Derrida+s ideas in different (ays to a
host of canonical (or/s? for e)ample' 9aul de Man sought to demonstrate ho( the language of any (ritten te)t
deconstructs of its o(n accord A.ichter "#"@F-C. 2o(ever' at least one deconstructive critic' .odolphe Dasche' has
suggested that application of Derrida+s thought to e)ploring ne( interpretations of literature is$
parado)ical' almost perverse' since Derrida+s revolutionary contribution (as to treat
philosophical te)ts as if they (ere bound by the same sorts of linguistic ambiguity and
fluidity that had long been thought to characteri8e literature. Aqtd. in .ichter$ "#"C
1ndeed' Derrida+s main purpose' if he could be said to have one' seems to be the decentering of &estern philosophy'
to sho( that its metaphysics has incorrectly assumed a guiding ;presence; in the (hole of its inquiries? as (e shall
see later' this is one area (here 0a/htin+s thought differs radically from deconstruction. 0ernard 0ergon8i sees
Derrida+s follo(ers ta/ing either one of t(o forms$ those (ho vie( him as a ;subverter of meanings' including his
o(n; and those (ho believe he is ;a true philosopher...restating traditional philosophical problems in a ne( (ay;
A!44C.
As the deconstructive star began to rise in the American academy during the !",-s' the ne)t decade sa( the
emergence of an eclectic band of critics from various bac/grounds and ideologies (ho began to attac/ Derrida+s
ideas' often citing the ideas of other philosophers and language theorists as support. :ne early e)ample of such a
challenge (as *ohn %earle+s heated rebuttal of Derrida+s critique of *ohn Austin+s speech@act theory. #1$ Another
challenge that came from (ithin poststructuralism itself (as that of Ne( 2istoricism' (hich dre( its critical
inspiration from a number of sources' but relied primarily on the ideas of 3rench thin/er Michel 3oucault and
Mar)ist philosopher <ouis Althusser regarding discourse and po(er. Though some critics from this school have
cited 0a/htin+s theories of dialogics and carnival as support for their ideas AAbrams E#" and %elden !-G@-"C' most of
the influential Ne( 2istoricists have concentrated on 3oucault+s ideas about ho( discourse through history has been
controlled by the ruling elite for its o(n purposes.
Ne( 2istoricism and other schools of thought have had some success in curbing Derrida+s gro(ing influence' but
0a/htin+s arrival on the American critical scene in the early !"G-s presented deconstruction (ith one of its most
potent challenges to date. 0a/htin+s theories have served to counteract deconstruction by ac/no(ledging some of the
inherent vagaries of language detailed by structuralism and deconstruction' (hile simultaneously holding out hope
that meaning could be found in our dialogic e)changes of language. As Michael 2olquist points out' 0a/htin and a
host of other %lavic thin/ers emphasi8ed the social nature of language and felt that meaning resided neither (ith the
individual' as the traditionalists believe' nor (ith no one' as deconstruction (ould have it' but in our collective
e)changes of dialogue$ ;The %lavic vie( holds that K&e o(n meaning.+ :r...K1f (e do not o(n it' (e may at least
rent meaning+; A;9olitics; !B#C.
As (e have seen' 0a/htin (rote the bul/ of his (or/s prior to !"F-' yet it (ould be more than 4- years before the
first of his te)ts made their (ay into English translation. %abelais and &is World (as printed in English in !"BG'
follo(ed by Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s in !",4. Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e @@ a te)t of
disputed authorship that is vie(ed by many scholars as being at least influenced by 0a/htin #!$ @@ also (as
translated into English in !",4' positing' among other things' a social vie( of language theory.
During the !"B-s and !",-s' (hile American criticism seemed obsessed (ith structuralism and deconstruction'
0a/htin (as being studied to a large degree by European scholars (ho had earlier access to his (or/s. According to
The Bakhtin 'ewsletter' bet(een !"E"' (hen 0a/htin published the first version of his Dostoevs/y boo/ in .ussia'
and !"G!' (hen The Dialo!i" Ima!ination (as translated into English' there appeared !#E critical articles ma/ing at
least passing reference to the 0a/htin Circle? only !# of these (ere in English AThomson' The Bakhtin 'ewsletter
'o- . !@!"C. Although this bibliography is far from e)haustive' it does demonstrate the English and American
academies+ lac/ of interest in 0a/htin during this period' despite the fact that three of the 0a/htin Circle te)ts had
already been translated.
Those European scholars (ho too/ early note of the 0a/htin Circle included a host of structuralist and post@
structuralist thin/ers' including .oman *a/obson' .ene &elle/' *ulia Hristeva' and T8vetan Todorov. *a/obson (as
perhaps the first of these to cite the 0a/htin Circle as a prominent influence' though he comes to 0a/htin through a
boo/ of disputed authorship' Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e. As early as !"4!' in a letter to Ni/ola6
Trubet8/oy' *a/obson spo/e the praises of this te)t' and later' in his boo/ )hifters/ 0erbal Cate!ories/ and the
%ussian 0erb' he cites it again as a main influence AMate6/a and Tituni/ viiC. &elle/' in an overvie( of Dostoevs/y
criticism first published in !"BE' briefly described 0a/htin+s boo/ on the .ussian author as ;ingenious;
A;1ntroduction; FC' though years later he (ould ta/e 0a/htin to tas/ and ;refute the description of Dostoevs/y+s
(or/s as polyphonic or carnivalesque; AGerman 4F,C. Hristeva' in the !"BB essay ;&ord' Dialogue' and Novel;
(ritten prior to her poststructural conversion' enthusiastically endorsed 0a/htin+s theory of dialogics' stating it ;may
(ell become the basis of our time+s intellectual structure; AF"C.
0ut among all those European scholars ta/ing an early interest in 0a/htin' T8vetan Todorov (as the one (ho
embraced his theories the most emphatically. 1n a !"G# article' ;A Dialogic CriticismJ; Todorov details his
conversion from structuralist thought to 0a/htinian dialogics ADoodson E,C' and in the same year' he published
Mikhail Bakhtin$ The Dialo!i"al Prin"i#le' one of the first monographs to address 0a/htin+s theories as a (hole.
During this initial period of European interest in 0a/htin+s (or/s' those English language articles that did appear
(ere mostly scattered revie(s of 0a/htin+s %abelais and &is World. 2o(ever' a fe( detailed English language
analyses of 0a/htin+s (or/s did e)ist? perhaps the most note(orthy of these (as a translation of %oviet linguist
Iyacheslav I. 1vanov+s !",# article' ;Dro(th of the Theoretical 3rame(or/ of Modern <inguistics'; in (hich he
finds ;stri/ing parallels bet(een 0a/htin+s theoretical (or/ and *oyce+s (riting in Ulysses; AThomson' Bakhtin
'ewsletter 'o- . BC.
:ther than being an early proponent of 0a/htin+s (or/' 1vanov+s interest in 0a/htin is important for another reason.
The year before this piece (as published' 1vanov created quite a sensation in Mosco( (hen he publicly declared at
a celebration of 0a/htin+s ,Fth birthday that certain (or/s attributed to 0a/htin+s friends' 9avel Medvedev and
Ialentin Ioloshinov' (ere instead penned by 0a/htin' including Ioloshinov+s Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of
an!ua!e. Though 1vanov provided no proof for his argument' and 0a/htin himself never officially ac/no(ledged
authorship of these te)ts' Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e has ever since been associated (ith 0a/htin and
rose to theoretical prominence mainly because of its connection (ith his name AMate6/a and Tituni/ i)C.
%o (hile three te)ts of the 0a/htin Circle had been translated into English by !",4' it (ould be almost !- years
before 0ritish and American academic circles (ould stand up and ta/e full notice of 0a/htin+s (or/. The burgeoning
interest in his theories began in earnest (ith the !"G! publication of The Dialo!i" Ima!ination. 1n the decade
follo(ing publication of this boo/' critical articles on 0a/htin increased e)ponentially' (ith some of America+s
leading critics 6umping on the 0a/htin band(agon. 9erhaps most prominent among these (as &ayne 0ooth' (ho' in
his introduction to the !"G# edition of Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s ' said of 0a/htin$
1 can thin/ of no critic of recent years...(ho more effectively performs that essential tas/
of all criticism$ prodding readers to thin/ again about critical standards as applied to the
various canons and anti@canons those standards lead to. A))viiC
Don 2. 0ialostos/y sees 0ooth' in this introduction' as ;establishing a common ground bet(een his Chicago
Aristotelianism and 0a/htin+s dialogism on the questions of ideology and form; A;0ooth+s .hetoric; E4C. %till' 0ooth
does have some criticisms of 0a/htin+s thought' particularly 0a/htin+s contention that Dostoevs/y+s ;polyphonic;
novels lac/ any authorial voice? as he states in a !"G! intervie(' ;=0a/htin+s> a great mind' (ho is @@ li/e all great
minds' 1 suppose @@ 6ust as challenging (hen you thin/ he+s (rong as (hen you thin/ he+s right; A2op/ins #GC.
0ialostos/y himself has been instrumental in promoting 0a/htin+s dialogics (ithin both literary criticism and
rhetorical theory. 2is !"GB PMA article' ;Dialogics as an Art of Discourse in <iterary Criticism'; has been highly
influential in ma/ing 0a/htinian criticism an accepted part of literary studies. 1n this essay' 0ialostos/y advocates a
form of literary criticism in (hich all schools of critical theory engage in a continual conversation that steers clear of
the closure inherent in Aristotelian definitions of ;rhetoric; and ;dialectic; A,"EC.
0y the time 0ooth and 0ialostos/y published their initial (or/s on 0a/htin' dialogic criticism in the United %tates
had mushroomed into almost a cult@li/e status' (ith prolific publication of numerous articles applying 0a/htin+s
theories to almost every author and title under the sun. 1n his article ;The 0a)tin 1ndustry; A;0a)tin; (as an earlier
English translation' opposed to the no( preferred ;0a/htin;C' Dary %aul Morson parodies the absurd lengths to
(hich some 0a/htinian critics have gone in see/ing out topics of e)amination$
Most of us remember a time (hen submissions to PMA routinely cited Northrop 3rye'
and (hen articles on %lavic linguistics or poetics inevitably mentioned .oman *a/obson.
A scanning of literary 6ournals suggests that %lavists and non@%lavists ali/e may no( be
approaching the age of 0a)tin.
7ou (ill /no( that age has arrived (hen you are no longer surprised at 6ournals filled
(ith articles li/e ;Carnivali8ation in the Luebecois Novel'; ;Dialogical Mid(ifery';
;Nuclear Dialogism'; ;Aesopian <anguage in 0a)tin+s Analyses of Aesop'; ;The 9oetry
of Dialogue and the Dialogue of 9oetry'; and ;The Chronotope of the .oad =or the
bridge' or the canal' or the square' or the city' or the bathhouseC in the (or/s of Afill in the
author+s nameC.; AG!C
*ust as in any school of critical thought' there have been e)cesses in dialogic criticism' to be sure. Most of these
have been mechanistic applications of 0a/htin+s dialogism to a be(ildering array of authors and titles' as Morson
points out above. 7et a good deal of dialogic criticism has been legitimate application of 0a/htin+s ideas to relevant
(or/s of literature. #%$ %till' .ussian critic %ergei Averinstev asserts that 0a/htin+s thought should not be casually
and routinely used as a critical tool$ ;2is (or/s are not a stoc/pile of ready@made results (hich can be mechanically
Kapplied.+ They are something different and larger. They are a source of intellectual energy; A!E#C.
Another problem of 0a/htin+s influence in literary criticism is that his theories have been adopted by a variety of
modern critics from competing schools of thought to further their o(n agendas' sometimes (ith contradictory
results. Mathe( .oberts says this modern trend is a continuation of the ;tradition' established t(o decades ago by
%oviet and 3rench semioticians' of a laudatory appropriation rather than a critical analysis of 0a/htin+s te)ts . . .;
A!!FC. Many Mar)ist critics' for e)ample' have touted 0a/htin as one of their o(n' often buying into the argument
that Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e (as in fact penned by 0a/htin. Terry Eagleton' for one' in his article
;&ittgenstein+s 3riends'; calls 0a/htin ;one of the ma6or Mar)ist philosophers and aestheticians of the t(entieth
century; A,BC and states his entire oeuvre serves to ;unite (hat (e might no( rhetorically call certain Derridean and
<acanian positions (ith a politics revolutionary enough to ma/e much post@structuralism nervous; A;,"C. A number
of other critics have also nudged 0a/htin into the Mar)ist fold' citing individual (or/s of 0a/htin as theoretical
proof. #&$
0ut there are some aspects of 0a/htin+s life and (or/ that present theoretical conflicts for these strident Mar)ist
critics. :ne of these concerns 0a/htin+s apparent belief in Christianity via his .ussian :rthodo) upbringing and his
arrest in !"E" for membership in a religious organi8ation see/ing to synthesi8e Christian and Mar)ist thought
A2olquist' 1ntroduction )))i)C. 3urthermore' 0a/htin+s early essays in Art and Answerability clearly demonstrate the
impact that Christianity had on his thought. As Michael 2olquist points out' 0a/htin had sought' in the unfinished
magnum opus from (hich these essays come' to ;completely rethin/ &est European metaphysics in the light of
religious thought? to sho(' as it (ere' that philosophy had in a sense al(ays been anticipated by religion; A;9olitics;
!,!C. #)$ Art and Answerability' ho(ever' (as translated into English only in !""-' (hereas most Mar)ist
appropriations of 0a/htin occurred during the early !"G-s.
Another problem for any Mar)ist appropriation of 0a/htin concerns the difference bet(een dialectics and dialogics'
t(o terms (hich Mar)ist critic 3rederic *ameson attempts to lump together in The Politi"al 1n"ons"ious AG#@GFC.
2o(ever' as .obert 7oung points out' ;0a/htin . . . ma/es it very clear in those te)ts signed (ith his o(n name that
dialogism cannot be confused (ith dialectics. Dialogism cannot be resolved . . . . Dialectics' according to 0a/htin'
are monological; A,BC. 1ndeed' in a noteboo/ from his later period' 0a/htin contrasts dialogics (ith the Mar)ist
sense of dialectic$
Dialogue and dialectics. Ta/e a dialogue and remove the voices Athe partitioning of
voicesC' remove the intonations Aemotional and individuali8ing onesC' carve out abstract
concepts and 6udgments from living (ords and responses' cram everything into one
abstract consciousness @@ and that+s ho( you get dialectics. A)#ee"h Genres !#,C
The question of (hether or not 0a/htin (as indeed a Mar)ist' ho(ever' is incidental to an understanding of his
intellectual legacy. %lapping labels on his (or/ does no one any real good' though there are some aspects of his
(or/ @@ such as his insistence on the social nature of language @@ that could be interpreted as having Mar)ist
overtones. 0ut to label 0a/htin a Mar)ist seems to be a gross e)aggeration in light of his early philosophical (or/s
and his apparent belief in .ussian :rthodo)y. 1f he (as a Mar)ist' he (as not a Mar)ist in the dogmatically political
or academic sense (e understand today.
More recently' there has been a trend to fuse 0a/htin+s theories in a variety of (ays (ith feminist critical thought'
ta/ing the e)ample of *ulia Hristeva some t(o decades earlier. %uch feminist appropriations of 0a/htin+s dialogism
seem much more logical than those by Mar)ist critics. Although 0a/htin (rote nothing specifically about feminism'
his dialogic theory of language holds a certain attractiveness for feminist critics' (ho vie( it as subverting the
authoritative' monological language of the ruling patriarchal society. 9eter 2itchcoc/' for one' in Dialo!i"s of the
*##ressed' uses 0a/htin+s theories to analy8e the (or/ of four noted feminist (riters.
0ut 0a/htin+s theories have been applied by feminist critics in a number of (ays. Dale M. 0auer and %usan *aret
McHinstry have used 0a/htin+s theories to forge (hat they call a ;feminist dialogics'; (hich simultaneously
counters contemporary assumptions of a singular feminist voice A!C and subverts male@dominated forms of discourse
A4C. %till other feminists have concentrated on applying theories of 0a/htin+s other than dialogism. Toril Moi' for
e)ample' uses his concept of carnival from %abelais and &is World to assert that$
anger is not the only revolutionary attitude available to us. The po(er of laughter can be
6ust as subversive' as (hen carnival turns the old hierarchies upside@do(n' erasing old
differences' producing ne( and unstable ones. A#-C
2o(ever' it could be argued that Moi and others have made erroneous use of 0a/htin+s carnival by trying to apply it
as a counterforce to modern political or social authority. 1n Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s' 0a/htin states that
carnivali8ation (as a phenomenon specific only to ancient times leading up to the .enaissance and foresees
problems (ith any modern application of carnival$
To understand correctly the problem of carnivali8ation' one must dispense (ith the
oversimplified understanding of carnival found in the masquerade line of modern times'
and even more (ith a vulgar bohemian understanding of carnival. Carnival is past
millennia+s (ay of sensing the (orld as one great communal performance . . . . =T>here is
not a grain of nihilism in it' nor a grain of empty frivolity or vulgar bohemian
individualism. A!F"@B-C
7et appropriation of 0a/htin+s dialogics by the above feminist critics and a host of others #*$ has served to broaden
the scope of feminist critical theory by placing it in a dialogue @@ one not necessarily terminally combative @@ (ith
male@dominated society. Diane 9rice 2erndl' ho(ever' sees a danger in applying dialogics to feminist criticism'
arguing it has encouraged competing varieties of feminist theory that may cause ;feminists to dro(n out their o(n
voices and thereby return to silence; AE-C.
%ome poststructuralist thin/ers have also cited 0a/htin+s influence in their (or/s' including Ne( 2istoricist Michael
0ristol+s relevant appropriation of carnival to demonstrate the ;vitality and po(er of popular culture in the
Eli8abethan period; A%elden !-GC. There have also been suggestions that 0a/htin+s dialogics is someho( compatible
(ith or complementary to the ideas of Derrida. #+$
0ut there can be no compromise bet(een 0a/htin and deconstruction' a fact understood all too (ell by one of its
foremost proponents' the late 9aul de Man. 1n his !"G4 essay ;Dialogue and Dialogism'; de Man critici8es 0a/htin+s
dialogics and poses the follo(ing question$ ;=2>o( does dialogism . . . cope (ith and indeed seem to overcome the
ever@recurring question of the status of fact' meaning' and fiction in the novelJ; A!-BC. :f course' de Man ans(ers
that it does not' and (hile admitting a certain admiration for some of 0a/htin+s (ritings' he describes dialogism as
incompatible (ith any true ;hermeneutic understanding; A!!EC.
De Man+s argument here is e)tremely comple)' but hinges on (hat he sees as 0a/htin+s erroneous definition of
tropes as ;pure episteme and not a fact of language'; (hich in turn ;e)cludes tropes from literary discourse . . . and
locates them' perhaps surprisingly' in the field of epistemology; A!!EC. Mathe( .oberts' ho(ever' ta/es de Man to
tas/ for incorrectly assuming 0a/htin+s dialogic concept of epistemology belongs to ;that Ktheoretical (orld+ of
abstract unity' (here a Kcommon logic+ (ould ensure complete decodability of te)ts'; (hich .oberts argues it does
not A!44@4#C.
&hile there may be similarities bet(een Derrida and 0a/htin' there are a number of mar/ed differences also. 0oth
thin/ers sought to overturn earlier rationalist theories of communication (hich posited that meaning resided in either
an abstract ideal or an individual consciousness. 0ut (hen faced (ith the ne( vie( of language posited by
structuralist thought' 0a/htin steered clear of the nihilistic trap that ensnared Derrida and his follo(ers and led them
to believe that any attempts to (ring meaning from a te)t are an illusionary scam of the &estern critical tradition.
0a/htin ac/no(ledges some of the inherent ambiguities of language' but (here the deconstructionists (ould
highlight this ambiguity as the inability of (ords to convey precise meaning' 0a/htin (elcomes this vagueness of
language as a means by (hich to create meaning dialogically through the socially derived and shared medium of
language. As David <odge has pointed out' 0a/htin+s dialogism (as able to reconcile these difficulties of philosophy
of language (ithout resorting to deconstruction+s endless questioning$
1t has been 0a/htin+s ironic fate to be invo/ed as a counterforce to movements that arose
;after; him. 0a/htin is sometimes described as a ;post@formalist'; and his critique of
formalism . . . is parallel at several points to the post@ structuralist critique of
structuralism. #,$ 0ut this did not lead him' as it had led the e)ponents of deconstruction'
into an antihumanist scepticism about meaning' communication' and the value of the
(estern cultural tradition . . . . A#C
&here Derrida sees discourse as the free play of signifiers' 0a/htin sees these signifiers as being arranged in
socially derived genres of speech that are our primary means for understanding one another.
Additionally' 0a/htin (ould very much oppose Derrida+s belief that all &estern discourse erroneously assumes a
guiding presence outside the system of language. 1n one of the most important noteboo/ entries from his latter
period' entitled ;The 9roblem of the Te)t in <inguistics' 9hilology' and the 2uman %ciences'; 0a/htin introduced an
e)tension of his earlier concept of ;addressivity; mentioned in the essay on speech genres. This e)tension is referred
to as the ;superaddressee; or ;loophole addressee'; (hich is the higher authority that a spea/er or (riter addresses
beyond an immediate audience$
=T>he author of the utterance' (ith a greater or lesser a(areness' presupposes a higher
superaddressee AthirdC' (hose absolutely 6ust responsive understanding is presumed'
either in some metaphysical distance or in distant historical time Athe loophole
addresseeC. 1n various ages and (ith various understandings of the (orld' this
superaddressee and his ideally true responsive understanding assume various ideological
e)pressions . . . . A)#ee"h Genres !EBC
2o( one refers to this force @@ (hether it be ;Dod' absolute truth' the court of dispassionate human conscience' the
people' the court of history' =or> science; A)#ee"h Genres !EBC @@ 0a/htin did not really care.
&hat is important is that 0a/htin believed all discourse (as impossible (ithout paying at least unconscious homage
to such a presence. This force' 0a/htin states' need not be ;mystical or metaphysical'; but can be vie(ed instead as a
;constitutive aspect of the (hole utterance' (ho' under deeper analysis' can be revealed in it; A!E,C. 1n fact' this
phenomenon of language that 0a/htin calls the ;superaddressee; seems to stem from the dialogic ;nature of the
(ord' (hich al(ays (ants to be heard' al(ays see/s responsive understanding' and does not stop at immediate
understanding but presses on further and further AindefinitelyC; A!E,C. %ince language is a socially acquired system
of communication that is used primarily in social settings' human beings' even (hen in total isolation' cannot help
but pro6ect their language outside themselves into a social setting' even if that setting happens to be absent at the
time. 1n fact' this natural tendency to pro6ect language outside ourselves is (hat gave rise to the birth of (riting'
(hich can be seen as a monological' compositional form of dialogic e)pression.
&hile Derrida may be correct in believing that &estern assumptions of a transcendental' guiding presence outside
the system of language are indeed an illusion' the very fact that language is acquired from others (ho are outside our
individual consciousness is the ;loophole; that Derrida seems to have ignored in his e)treme s/epticism about
language.
That language is an open' socially acquired system is (hat gives particular credence to 0a/htin+s concept of the
;superaddressee'; (hich appears to be nothing but a human e)aggeration of the limitless ;dialogic conte)t...=that>
e)tends into the boundless past and the boundless future...; A%peech Denres !,-C. &e learn our (ords from others'
and (e produce them bac/ to others' and though the precise meaning of (ords may change due to our individual
e)periences along the (ay' (e can never divorce our (ords from the dialogic conte)t from (hich they came. As
0a/htin states in ;Discourse in the Novel';
Discourse lives' as it (ere' beyond itself' in a living impulse to(ard the ob6ect? if (e
detach ourselves completely from this impulse all (e have left is the na/ed corpse of the
(ord' from (hich (e can learn nothing at all about the social situation or the fate of a
given (ord in life. To study the (ord as such' ignoring the impulse that reaches out
beyond it' is 6ust as senseless as to study psychological e)perience outside the conte)t of
that real life to(ard (hich it (as directed and by (hich it is determined. ADialogic
1magination E"EC
Derrida' for all his claims that he opposes rationalist' Cartesian vie(s of language' appears to be operating under the
belief that language is indeed a closed system from (hich (e cannot escape' an idea vehemently contradicted by
0a/htin+s dialogics.
During the past decade' deconstruction as an influential critical fad appears to have (aned some(hat' though it can
by no means be considered dead as a critical tool. Many of Derrida+s ideas have been instrumental in helping us
move beyond earlier rationalist ideas regarding language as a precise medium of communication' and as a result'
deconstruction has had a tremendous impact' for better or (orse' on all ensuing theoretical debates. As %tanley 3ish
recently noted' ;Deconstruction is dead in the same (ay that 3reudianism is dead. 1t is every(here; A%tephens E#C.
0ut if deconstruction is not dead' it does appear to have at least deconstructed' (ith its ideas being assimilated into
other theoretical schools' at least as a point of reference.
A quic/ scan of most critical 6ournals today (ill sho( that 0a/htin is slo(ly but steadily surpassing Derrida in terms
of critical influence. 0a/htin+s impact is also evident in the number of doctoral dissertations citing his (or/s. A
recent electronic search of the Dissertation Abstra"ts *nline database sho(s a total of #B! entries matching the
/ey(ord ;0a/htin'; compared to 4#! such matches for ;deconstruction; and 4G! for ;Derrida.; 1t must be noted that
not all of the dissertations deal e)clusively (ith these sub6ects' but merely mention them in their abstracts. &hile
this electronic search is not a firm indicator sho(ing that 0a/htin has eclipsed deconstruction and Derrida as a point
of reference in doctoral dissertations' it does suggest that 0a/htin+s status as an often@cited critical theorist is rising
in graduate schools across the country.
0ut there are inherent dangers in 0a/htin+s increasing popularity. &hat are (e in English studies to gain if the cult of
Derrida is simply replaced by a cult of 0a/htin' free of any critical e)amination of his ideasJ .ecent interest in
0a/htin+s (or/s is similar to the adoring attitude ta/en by one of the Mosco( graduate students instrumental in
rescuing 0a/htin and his (or/s from obscurity in the early !"B-s. Iadim Ho8hinov' in a memoir (ritten EF years
later' recalls that during a pilgrimage to see the e)iled 0a/htin in %arans/' one of his fello( graduate students
dropped to his /nees in front of 0a/htin and implored$ ;Mi/hail Mi/hailovich' tell us ho( to live so that (e can
become li/e youM; Aqtd. in Emerson' ;The .ussians;$ #E4C.
%uch adoration' then and no(' promises to dilute the importance of 0a/htin+s ideas in favor of a cult of personality.
0ernard 0ergon8i' (hile seeing promise in his theories' encourages tempered enthusiasm about 0a/htin' especially
since most of his (or/s have only recently been translated into English$
:ne must resist seeing 0a/htin as the U% Cavalry' riding in to rescue a threatened
humanism from ho(ling poststructuralists.... 1t (ill ta/e time for the implications of his
(or/ to be properly assimilated and understood? the process involves transposition from a
cultural conte)t that is more remote than the 3rench. 0ut the gro(ing interest in it
suggests that it offers both a possible (ay out of present impasses and a (ay for(ard.
A!EGC
More importantly' far too much emphasis has been placed on the biography of 0a/htin' (ho led a colorful' yet
ascetic lifestyle' and on simple e)plication of his theories' (hile scant attention has been paid to (hat impact his
thought might have on our o(n critical practices.
This is a gro(ing trend that &illiam Cain has observed in The Crisis in Criti"ism2 Cain argues that instead of
concentrating our critical debates on the theorists themselves' (e should analy8e ho( their theories can lead to a
greater sense of reflective practice$
A ma6or tas/ for theory at the present time is to initiate and encourage the re@e)amination
of English studies. &e need to use and dra( upon theory to specify the aims of (or/ in
English' the purposes of teaching the s/ills and values that (e see/ to transmit in
pedagogy and research.... Theory should force us to underta/e acts of self@scrutiny and
6ustification and should enable us to say precisely (hat (e do' (hy it is important' and
(hat ma/es it cohere. A)iiiC
:ne such re@e)amination of English studies has been to question the position that literary criticism should play in
counterpart to its emerging step@sister of rhetoric and composition studies. As 9atricia 0i88ell has noted' such
divergent literary critics as &ayne 0ooth' E.D. 2irsch' *onathan Culler' and Terry Eagleton have sought in rhetorical
theory ans(ers to many of the questions that have been the center of critical debates during the past three decades
A;:n the 9ossibility; !,F@!,GC.
1n iterary Theory' for e)ample' Eagleton calls rhetoric ;probably the oldest form of Kliterary criticism+ in the (orld;
AE-FC and states that (e should ;recall literary criticism from certain fashionable' ne(@fangled (ays of thin/ing it
has been seduced by...and return it to the ancient paths (hich it has abandoned; AE-BC. 1n a similar vein' .ichard
<anham' a literary critic turned composition theorist' also sees a number of similarities bet(een the t(o fields and
believes ;composition practice can redeem and enrich literary theory; A<iteracy !E!C and help return ;literary
studies...=to> the center of a humanist curriculum; A<iteracy !!#C. Nancy .. Comley and .obert %choles have also
questioned the present division in English departments and see it as originating in our society+s privileging of
;consumption over production; A",C. To bridge this gap' they prescribe ne( perceptions of both reading and (riting$
The (ay out of our dilemma here is' first' to perceive reading not simply as consumption
but as a productive activity' the ma/ing of meaning' in (hich one is guided by the te)t
one reads' of course' but not simply manipulated by it? and' second' to perceive (riting as
an activity that is also guided and sustained by prior te)ts. The (riter is al(ays reading
and the reader is al(ays (riting. A""C
%uch ne( perceptions of reading and (riting sound very similar to 0a/htin+s insistence on the dialogic nature of
language' and ho( no utterance or te)t can be divorced from both past and future voices or te)ts.
3or those schooled in the rhetorical tradition' the critical debates of the past three decades have come as no surprise'
since they reflect similar disputes that arose during that period of history (hen orality and literacy first clashed in
ancient Dreece. During this period' polar opposition e)isted bet(een the ideas of the %ophist rhetoricians prior to
%ocrates and the emerging system of thought set forth by 9lato. 0ut standing firmly as a bridge bet(een these t(o
opposing camps (as the figure of %ocrates' (hom 0a/htin has hailed as the supreme model of a dialogic
rhetorician. *ust as %ocrates served as a point of dialogue bet(een the %ophists and 9lato' so too does 0a/htin seem
a transformative figure (ho helps point the (ay to(ard a unified theory of composition and literature in the present
age.
Chapter % - 'nd (otes
!. This !",, confrontation in the pages of Gly#h began (ith Derrida+s essay ;%ignature' Event' Conte)t'; to
(hich %earle responded (ith ;.eiterating the Differences.; Derrida follo(ed this up (ith ;<imited' 1nc.
abc.; 3or a synopsis of this argument' see Norris !-G@!F.
E. The dispute over authorship of this and other te)ts of the 0a/htin Circle is long and complicated. 3or a
brief summation of the various arguments' see Tituni/' ;The 0a)tin 9roblem;? Clar/ and 2olquist' ;A
Continuing Dialogue;? and Morson and Emerson' Mikhail Bakhtin$ Creation of a Prosai"s' !-!@!". 3or a
detailed te)tual comparison of 0a/htin+s signed (or/s and those of disputed authorship' see Tituni/'
;0a/htin N5or Ioloshinov N5or Medvedev$ Dialogue N5or Doubletal/J; As is evident from the preceding
chapter' this thesis (ill focus only on those (or/s undeniably attributed to 0a/htin.
4. Notable e)amples include the (or/s of various modernist (riters' including *ames *oyce and Iirginia
&oolf. 3or a 0a/htinian interpretation of *oyce' see Hershner? of &oolf' see 2errmann.
#. 3or a comparison of 0a/htin+s concept of carnival (ith Mar)ism' see <aCapra. 3or a Mar)ist interpretation
of 0a/htin+s The Dialo!i" Ima!ination and a critique of deconstruction' see &hite' ;0a/htin'
%ociolinguistics and Deconstruction.; 3or 0a/htinian syntheses of deconstruction and Mar)ism' see Evans'
and 9echey. 3or an interesting deconstructive critique of Mar)ist appropriations of 0a/htin' see 7oung? for
a rebuttal of 7oung+s vie(s' see &hite' ;The %truggle over 0a/htin.;
F. Even (ith publication of these early essays sho(ing 0a/htin+s obvious interest in religious issues' the
debate over (hether 0a/htin espoused a Christian faith still continues. 3or an e)cellent discussion of this
issue' see Emerson' ;.ussian :rthodo)y and the Early 0a/htin.;
B. 3or additional discussions of 0a/htin and feminist theory' see 0ooth' ;3reedom of 1nterpretation;? Dia8@
Diocaret8? 2alase/? %tevenson? and Thomson.
,. 3or comparisons and contrasts of 0a/htin and Derrida' see 2olquist' ;The %urd 2eard;? MacCannell? and
Oavala.
G. %ee 0a/htin5Medvedev. This boo/ on .ussian 3ormalism is a (or/ of disputed authorship. 3or a discussion
of this dispute' see sources in the second note above.
Chapter & - The Bridge to -hetoric
3or those literary critics' such as Eagleton' (ho see/ to merge their practice into the larger rubric of rhetoric'
0a/htin+s ideas provide a perfect bridge' for his simultaneous and (ide@spread influence in both fields is
unprecedented (ithin English %tudies. Though some might denounce his influence as ;trendy'; 0a/htin' more than
any other theorist of the past three decades' has brought all the diverse elements of the critical and rhetorical
spectrums into a continual dialogue that points the (ay to(ard a unified theory of literature and composition.
0a/htin has been the only grand theorist popular enough in both fields to demonstrate the practical and theoretical
similarities that can help us achieve a unified rhetorical paradigm.
According to &illiam McClellan' 0a/htin+s appropriation into rhetorical theory during the late !"G-s (as a natural
process' since 0a/htin+s theory of dialogics' though it first too/ hold in literary criticism' shares many common
attributes (ith the rhetorical tradition$
2e employs the same communication model of spea/er5utterance5listener' and he
preserves' or rather' reinvents the conflation of speech and (riting (hich occurred in the
theory of the Middle Ages (hen rhetoric' a theory of oratory' (as adapted to the study of
te)ts. 0oth modeling schemes stress the persuasive aspect of discourse and emphasi8e the
importance of the other' the listener' in its generation. 0oth frame(or/s are oriented
to(ard conte)tuality$ the practical' ideological environment in (hich discourse is
conducted. 3inally' rhetorical and dialogic theory have a materialist vie( of language.
3or both' the utterance is the ideological body of language. AE4FC
McClellan believes that in developing his theory of dialogics' 0a/htin employs t(o basic concepts from traditional
rhetoric$ !C personification' or the ;ascription of agency to inanimate ideas and ob6ects'; such as in his concept of the
;hero'; and EC polemic' or the ;aggressive focusing upon another+s (ord or utterance; AE4BC.
7et McClellan believes 0a/htin differs from the classical tradition of rhetoric in that he assigns much more active
roles in shaping discourse to the listener and sub6ect AE#4C. Additionally' unli/e earlier classical theories' (hich
ultimately assume a system of absolute values' 0a/htin grounds his theory of rhetoric in the ;concrete socio@
historical conte)t; of heteroglossia' (hich in turn lends itself to the analysis of a variety of te)ts' from novels to
ethnographies AE#BC. This fle)ibility that 0a/htin+s ideas provide rhetorical theory allo(s for
specificity and thic/ness of the social in the analysis of an artistic (or/ and the precision
and sophistication of literary analysis in the reading of scientific ones. 1n the terrain of
0a/htin+s (or/' these and other' heterogeneous discursive practices interact' form
dialogic relationships and promise profound ne( insights. AMcClellan E#BC
1n addition to his recent incorporation into rhetorical theory' 0a/htin+s deep and profound understanding of history
thro(s the distant and recent past into confrontation' bringing us full circle bac/ to the roots of all philosophical
language in the &est @@ the %ocratic sense of dialogue as a prime force in theoretical inquiry. The 9latonic concept of
absolute truth unveiled through logical contemplation may be dead' as Derrida and other poststructuralists have
noted' but the sense of dialogue as a necessary first step in any philosophical quest lives through the influence of
0a/htin+s emphasis on the dialogic principles first espoused by %ocrates. Therefore' before discussing 0a/htin+s
influence in modern rhetorical theory' it is important to understand his relationship to the classical tradition of
rhetoric.
1n notes for his !"B4 revision of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin (rote that the rudiments for ;overcoming the
monologic model of the (orld; could be found in the %ocratic dialogues' (hich represented ;the first step in the
history of the ne( genre of the novel; AProblems E"!@"EC. 1n fact' in several passages of the revised boo/' 0a/htin
(rites that the dialogic tradition (hich reached its pinnacle in Dostoevs/y sprang directly from the %ocratic
dialogues' (hich he felt had begun ;almost as a memoir genre; or a recollection of conversations (ith %ocrates.
2o(ever' the dialogues soon moved beyond the ;limitations of history and memoir; A!-"C' retaining only trace
elements of the %ocratic method of inquiry$
At the base of the genre lies the %ocratic notion of the dialogic nature of truth' and the
dialogic nature of human thin/ing about truth. The dialogic means of see/ing truth is
counterposed to offi"ial monologism' (hich pretends to #ossess a ready3made truth' and
it is also counterposed to the naive self@confidence of those people (ho thin/ that they
/no( something' that is' (ho thin/ that they possess certain truths. Truth is not born nor
is it to be found inside the head of an individual person? it is born between #eo#le
collectively searching for truth' in the process of their dialogic interaction. %ocrates called
himself a ;pander;$ he brought people together and made them collide in quarrel' and as a
result truth (as born? (ith respect to this emerging truth %ocrates called himself a
+mid(ife'+ since he assisted at the birth . . . . A!!-C
This %ocratic emphasis on the dialogic nature of inquiry eventually (ea/ened under 9lato+s influence' (hen it
;degenerated completely into a question@and@ans(er form for training neophytes AcatechismC; A!!-C.
1n another section of the Dostoevs/y boo/' 0a/htin goes into a lengthy discussion of the ;carnival; roots of the
polyphonic novel' touching on a sub6ect he e)pounds upon further in %abelais and &is World. 0a/htin felt the genre
of %ocratic dialogues gre( out of$
3ol/@carnival ;debates; bet(een life and death' dar/ness and light' (inter and summer'
etc.' permeated (ith the pathos of change and the 6oyful relativity of all things' debates
(hich did not permit thought to stop and congeal in a one@sided seriousness or in a stupid
fetish for definition or singleness of meaning @@ all this lay at the base of the original core
of the genre. This distinguishes the %ocratic dialogue from the purely rhetorical dialogue
as (ell as from the tragic dialogue . . . . The %ocratic discovery of the dialogic nature of
thought' of truth itself' presumes a carnivalistic familiari8ation of relations among people
(ho have entered into dialogue' it presumes a familiari8ing of attitudes to(ard the ob6ect
of thought itself' ho(ever lofty and important' and to(ard truth itself. A!4EC
3rom these passages' (e can see that 0a/htin (as greatly influenced by %ocrates in formulating his concept of
dialogics. 0a/htin (as a(are of ho( the dialectic of %ocrates differed from the philosophical system of 9lato' and
having studied classical literature e)tensively' he undoubtedly /ne( of the historical differences bet(een %ocrates
and the %ophists.
%ocrates lived during an age that e)perienced (hat classicist Eric 2aveloc/ has called ;the crisis . . . in the history of
human communication' (hen Dree/ orality transformed itself into Dree/ literacy; AThe Muse !C. 9rior to %ocrates'
education in Ancient Dreece (as characteri8ed mainly by instruction in an oral' poetic tradition reaching bac/
hundreds of years. %ocrates+ crime' for (hich he (as tried and sentenced to death' (as his proposal that ;this
education be professionalised' its conte)t being no longer set by poetic tradition and by practice...but by dialectical
e)amination of Kideas+; A2aveloc/' The Muse FC.
According to 2aveloc/' %ocratic dialectic stemmed directly from this conflict bet(een the older oral tradition and
the ne( literacy offered by the Dree/ alphabet. The Dree/s used different (ords for these t(o distinct forms of
human communication @@ e#os' (hich characteri8ed orally preserved forms of speech and poetic tradition' and lo!os'
(hich referred to ;discourse both as spo/en and as (ritten . . . and also to the mental operation Athe reasoning
po(erC required to produce it . . .; A2aveloc/' The Muse !!4C. This ne( concept of lo!os eventually formed the
foundation of all subsequent &estern moral philosophy by giving rise to the concept of the #sy"he' since ;the
inscribed language and thought and the person (ho spo/e it became separated from each other' leading to a ne(
focus on the personality of the spea/er; A2aveloc/' The Muse !E-C.
:ne of the first groups of philosophers to challenge this early poetic tradition (ere the %ophists. :ur modern
understanding of these philosophers has been distorted by the fact that 9lato+s condemnation of their ideas
;contributed to the loss of %ophistic te)ts and neglect of the remaining fragments; A0i88ell and 2er8berg EEC.
Though fe( of their (or/s have survived' the e)tant te)ts suggest the %ophists pondered many of the same issues
prevalent in today+s debates about philosophy of language.
9rior to the %ophists' Dree/ philosophy in the fifth century 0.C. (as characteri8ed by a burgeoning interest in the
natural (orld' as philosophers sought to ;replace the mythical idea of a degeneration from a primeval perfection;
(ith ;physical theories of the evolution of life from inanimate matter; ADuthrie' The )o#hists B-@B!C. This increasing
concern (ith the natural (orld led to an e)amination of the connection bet(een physical reality and language'
bet(een #hysis and nomos. According to &. H. C. Duthrie' the most influential strand of 9resocratic philosophy (as
the e)treme monism of 9armenides and his follo(ers' (ho re6ected the empirical senses and placed faith entirely in
a unified absolute beyond the natural (orld. This philosophy ;inspired a violent reaction in the empirical and
practical minds of the %ophists' (ho opposed it in the name of common sense; ADuthrie' The )o#hists #,C.
The %ophists undoubtedly came to repudiate the vie(s of 9armenides and others through their contact (ith cultures
outside the Dree/ peninsula. This contact ;made it increasingly obvious that customs and standards of behaviour
(hich had earlier been accepted as absolute and universal' and of divine institution' (ere in fact local and relative;
ADuthrie' The )o#hists !BC. 2o(ever' Duthrie believes other elements also led to the %ophistic movement and its
re6ection of earlier tradition' such as the advent of Athenian democracy A!"C and the gro(th of atheism and
agnosticism AE4C.
0ut regardless of (hat spa(ned the %ophistic movement' most of the %ophists (ere characteri8ed by an e)treme
s/epticism and a belief in linguistic relativity' (hich in turn caused them to endorse rhetoric as the only means by
(hich to shape the course of human affairs. 1n doing so' they challenged the earlier monism of 9armenides and other
Eleatic philosophers and ;abandoned the idea of a permanent reality behind appearances' in favour of an e)treme
phenomenalism' relativism and sub6ectivism; ADuthrie' The )o#hists #,C. The %ophists (ere often paid handsomely
for their services by (ealthy Athenians' (ho found their rhetorical instruction helpful in arguing their cases before
the Assembly and courts of la(.
9erhaps the most famous of the ancient %ophists (as 9rotagoras of Abdera' (hose sub6ective philosophy is best
e)emplified by his saying$ ;Man is the measure of all things' of the things that are that they are' and of the things
that are not that they are not; ADuthrie' The )o#hists !,!C. 9rotagoras (as famous for his school of rhetorical
instruction' in (hich he trained his pupils to argue both sides of an argument' but underlying this instruction (as his
belief that ;=t>ruth (as individual and temporary' not universal and lasting' for the truth for any man (as simply
(hat he could be persuaded of . . .; AThe )o#hists F!C.
Another of the (ell@/no(n early %ophists (as Dorgias' (hose philosophy is best summari8ed in the fragments of
his treatise *n 'ature or the 'on3e,istent. As Duthrie notes' Dorgias set out in this te)t to refute 9resocratic monism
by arguing three main points$ ;AaC that nothing e)ists' AbC that even if it does it is incomprehensible to man' AcC that'
even if it is comprehensible to anyone' it is not communicable to anyone else; AThe )o#hists !"4C.
During the past decade' there have been several attempts to resurrect the %ophistic tradition as a model for modern
rhetorical theory. #1$ Thomas Hent' for one' has noticed stri/ing similarities bet(een the %ophists and
deconstruction' the former of (hom ;understood that (e are prisoners of language; and ;that (e can find our (ay in
the (orld only by follo(ing the labyrinthian t(ists and turns of language; A;9aralogic; 4FC. Hent argues that the
%ophistic tradition can be used' along (ith poststructuralist thought' to forge a ;paralogic rhetoric; in (hich (e are
;forced to reconsider a history of rhetoric grounded in the commonplace notion that rhetoric springs fully formed
from the brain of Aristotle . . .; A4"C. 1n doing so' he invo/es 0a/htin as support' but he fails to ta/e into account the
distinctions bet(een 0a/htin and deconstruction' as (ell as those bet(een the %ophists and %ocrates' the latter of
(hom 0a/htin considered the founding father of dialogics.
&hile the 9latonic dialogues contain most of our information about %ocrates' (e can' as 0a/htin did' sense %ocrates+
underlying concept of dialectic that (as some(hat disfigured by the monologic transcriptions of 9lato' (ho (ent
(ell beyond %ocrates in positing a theory of absolute /no(ledge. According to 2aveloc/' %ocrates stands at the
crossroads bet(een the %ophistic and 9latonic traditions' embracing a some(hat parado)ical vie( that 0a/htin
(ould find appealing more than t(o thousand years later$
:n the one hand he clung to traditional orality @@ the uttered (ord only as heard. :n the
other' he brusquely turned a(ay from its e)pression in rhythmic poetry or casual
conversation and substituted a truly radical style' of inviting the e)pression of a
traditional oral statement from an interlocutor and then sub6ecting its terms' its meaning'
to a drastic interrogation. The process required a coincidental partnership of t(o or more
people? (hereas a te)t did not. A;The :rality; ,,@,GC
*ay 3arness also shares this parado)ical vie( of %ocrates and argues that (hile %ocrates condemns (riting in the
9latonic dialogues' ;specifically its distance from conversation and the dialogical situation of embodied language';
there is still much ;that is disconcertingly (riterly about the language style of this master of face@to@face discourse;
A#,C.
%ome of this parado) that 2aveloc/ and 3arness have noticed can be e)plained by (hat classical scholars refer to as
;the %ocratic problem'; that is' ho( to differentiate %ocrates as an historical figure from his representation (ithin
9lato+s dialogues. &hile some scholars might argue that such a tas/ is impossible' Duthrie feels (e can move
beyond this %ocratic problem by e)amining three other sources@@Aristophanes' Penophon' and Aristotle@@all of
(hom provide additional material not found in 9lato+s dialogues A%ocrates BC. Though some thin/ers have critici8ed
9lato for putting (ords into %ocrates+ mouth' Duthrie felt it (as a natural impulse for 9lato to ;defend the outloo/ of
%ocrates against criticisms inherent in the development of philosophy after his death; A%ocrates 4-C.
The main difference bet(een the method of %ocrates and the philosophical system of 9lato appears in 9lato+s
concept of absolute forms' as best e)emplified in the Allegory of the Cave. According to 9lato' our impressions of
such abstract concepts as truth and beauty are nothing but pale reflections of transcendental and absolute ideals. As a
result of the 9latonic dialogues' the figure of %ocrates has historically been associated (ith this concept of absolute
ideals. 2o(ever' Elinor *ane Maddoc/ &est argues against such a trend and states that ;(hat must be replaced is
that traditional identification of %ocrates (ith 9lato (hich has made metaphysical systems out of dialectical
conversations; A!4EC.
7et (ithout 9lato+s infusion of absolute forms' ho( does the philosophy of %ocrates differ from that of the %ophistsJ
&hile %ocrates critici8ed the %ophists for ta/ing money for their services ADuthrie' The )o#hists 4"C' their main
disagreement concerned the %ophistic concept of linguistic relativity' to (hich %ocrates responds in 9lato+s Cratylus.
1n this dialogue' %ocrates debates the issue of names (ith 2ermogenes' a follo(er of 9armenides' and Cratylus' a
philosopher (ho' legend tells us' ;came to mistrust language so profoundly that eventually he renounced speech
altogether and communicated to others by means of gesture only; A2arris and Taylor !@EC. 1t is no coincidence that
%ocrates debates this issue (ith both an advocate of monism and an e)treme linguistic s/eptic? 9lato undoubtedly
meant to demonstrate in the Cratylus ho( %ocrates+ beliefs on language fell bet(een the t(o e)tremes of his day'
6ust as 0a/htin can be vie(ed as residing bet(een the monologic tradition of &estern thought and the e)treme
s/epticism of deconstruction.
To summari8e in full detail the debate of the Cratylus (ould be too lengthy for our present inquiry' but %ocrates+
conclusions can be summari8ed as an insistence that dialectic serve as the locus for all linguistic definitions and
philosophical inquiries. The historical 9armenides no doubt argued that definitions stemmed from a divine source
that never changed' (hereas the %ophists believed that such definitions (ere a matter of /airos and (ere relative to a
given culture or situation. 7et in the Cratylus' %ocrates agrees (ith neither position and turns instead to the dialectic
for his ans(er' as .oy 2arris and Talbot *. Taylor have noted$
&e must not forget that throughout 9lato+s dialogues %ocrates is constantly engaged in
verbal battles (ith the %ophists...and is especially concerned to discredit the %ophistic
vie(' associated in particular (ith 9rotagoras' that truth is an illusion. %ocratic inquiry is
nothing else but a relentless pursuit of truth by the method of question and ans(er$ if
truth (ere an illusion this inquiry (ould be (orthless. A!GC
2arris and Taylor believe that at the end of the Cratylus' (e are ;driven...to reali8e that language reaches both
beyond our opinions and beyond itself; A!"C.
Though the question of (here ;beyond; language the truth resides is never resolved in the Cratylus' it is (hat
undoubtedly led 9lato to formulate his later concept of absolute forms. 0ut as Eric 2aveloc/ reminds us' the
%ocratic method ;stayed a(ay from the =9latonic> problem of (hether there e)isted a body of /no(ledge
independent of the consciousness that /ne( it; A;The :rality; GGC. &hile he remains uncritical of 9lato+s theories'
2aveloc/+s description of his te)tual eidos or absolute forms as being ;so final' so definite' so ultimate as to turn into
a reality beyond either linguistic or mental process; A;The :rality; "-C is reminiscent of 0a/htin+s condemnation of
the monologic tradition of &estern philosophy.
9lato+s system of philosophy' (ith its insistence on absolute forms' served for centuries as the very foundation of the
monologic tradition that both 0a/htin and many poststructuralist thin/ers have sought to overturn. As (e have seen'
0a/htin+s vie(s of language are closely aligned (ith the vie(s of %ocrates' (hereas deconstruction and
poststructuralism have assumed positions clearly similar to those of the %ophists.
2o(ever' in his boo/ Dissemination' Derrida (arns against a ;bac/@to@the@sophists; interpretation of his readings of
9lato+s 9haedrus A!-GC and attempts instead to describe %ocrates as the ;master of the pharma/on; and the ;spitting
image of a sophist; A!!,C. Additionally' he is critical of the dialectic process espoused in the Phaedrus and ta/es
issue (ith 9lato+s condemnation of (riting. 1n fact' Derrida+s reading of the Phaedrus is the primary foundation on
(hich he builds his argument that &estern philosophy has erroneously privileged speech over (riting.
0ut there are problems (ith Derrida+s reading of the Phaedrus' as *asper Neel has pointed out. Neel' in his boo/
Plato/ Derrida/ and Writin!' finds much in Derrida+s philosophy that is useful for modern composition studies' but
he argues that Derrida has engaged in an oversimplified reading of the Phaedrus by ignoring the important metaphor
of the t(o lovers' (hich demonstrates that ;=t>ruth is a 6ourney...=that> requires a lifetime of trying to /no( and
come near the right' the beautiful' and the good...; A!"GC. Neel feels that Derrida has erroneously vie(ed the
Phaedrus as advocating a closed concept of truth' (hereas Neel believes that if one reads Phaedrus as a ;truly
comple) (eaving of the play of meaning'; then it becomes clearly evident that 9lato (as ;a (riter
=(ho>...understood both the forever@playing nature of the search for meaning and the danger that (riting presents in
its ability to seem to end that play; A!"G@""C. 1ndeed' the inherent danger of absolute closure presented by the
(ritten (ord seems to be the main message behind 9lato+s condemnation of (riting in the Phaedrus and in other
te)ts.
Neel believes that in condemning dialectic and attempting to equate %ocrates (ith the %ophists' Derrida has missed
the entire point of the Phaedrus. 9lato may indeed privilege speech over (riting' but to insist that the entire scope of
&estern discourse is ;logocentric; is seemingly preposterous. Derrida simply overstates his case on this point' using
as 6ustification his reading of the Phaedrus and a fe( other select te)ts. &estern philosophy has in no certain terms
ever privileged speech over (riting' but perhaps it should' (hich is 0a/htin+s main point and that of %ocrates as
(ell.
&hile both 0a/htin and Derrida can be seen as (or/ing against the monologic tradition that stems from 9lato+s
concept of absolute forms' 0a/htin+s insistence on the dialogic nature of language differs from Derrida+s e)tremely
s/eptical vie( that language is nothing but the free play of signifiers. 1n fact' 6ust as %ocrates stands at a point
mid(ay bet(een the %ophists on the one hand and 9lato on the other' so too does 0a/htin stand in the center of a
linguistic spectrum that has at one end Derrida and at the other someone li/e E.D. 2irsch or the Ne( Critics of
decades past.
0ut to vie( such competing theories of philosophy of language as merely a static spectrum (ould be to perhaps
misrepresent the situation' especially in light of (hat some consider to be historical cycles of philosophy. Classical
scholar 0. A. D. 3uller' in the second volume of his &istory of Greek Philoso#hy' states that all of philosophy is
much li/e the stoc/ mar/et in that it e)periences polari8ed s(ings bet(een periods of
intellectual hope and enthusiasm and constructive activity' on the one hand' and intervals
of mental depression' loss of confidence in the po(er of reason to deal (ith the problems
of e)istence' and even out and out intellectual panic' on the other. A!C
1ndeed' 3uller believes such bi@polar shifts began (ith the highly constructive' 9resocratic epoch' (hich he says
later ;crashed in a turmoil of s/epticism; (rought by the %ophists A!C. The %ophistic enlightenment (as' in turn'
follo(ed by an ;up(ard s(ing; of the %ocratic era that culminated under 9lato and Aristotle. %imilarly' this second
period of certainty lead to another' more prolonged round of philosophical s/epticism' (hich then gave (ay to yet
another constructive period that (as /ept in chec/ by the moderate forces of the %toics and the Epicureans.
According to 3uller' it (as not until Neo@9ythagoranism and Neo@9latonism combined (ith advancing Christianity
that philosophy reached a relatively stable period that lasted for roughly a thousand years AEC.
Though 3uller vie(s the constructive periods of philosophy as highly productive' he is quic/ to point out the value
of the destructive periods of s/epticism' especially if they are dominated by acute and po(erful critics. 3uller
believes that such periods help to ;deflate current dogma and pretension' and stand as a perpetual (arning to
constructive philosophers against overcredence and over@speculation; AEC.
These philosophical mood s(ings that 3uller mentions shed a great deal of light on our current situation in
philosophy of language and English studies. *ust as the %ophists (ere responsible for overturning the e)treme
monism of the 9resocratics' so too has Derrida been instrumental in clearing a(ay the overly rigid vie(s of
language that e)isted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a result of the Cartesian quest for
certainty. 0ut it appears that this recent cycle of s/epticism has run its course' as (itnessed by the declining critical
influence of Derrida+s ideas in English studies' though the impact of his thought can hardly be considered dead.
<i/e(ise' as (e have seen' there are also a great deal of similarities bet(een the theories of 0a/htin and those of
%ocrates' (hose ideas began the reconstructive period of 9lato and Aristotle' (hich 3uller characteri8es as ;perhaps
the most prosperous years that philosophy has ever /no(n; AEC. 0a/htin+s position in modern philosophy resembles
that of %ocrates in that his vie(s mar/ the beginning of a ne( reconstructive period in philosophy of language' one
that hopefully (ill not lead us to(ard a ne( rigid and dogmatic system of philosophy. 3or such systems' though they
provide us (ith a sense of certainty and stability' fail to reflect the dialogic nature of language itself.
These historical analogies can also help us position 0a/htin+s theories of dialogics (ithin contemporary rhetorical
thought' for classical rhetoric has become increasingly important in composition studies during the past 4- years.
:ne of the first rhetoricians to address 0a/htin+s usefulness in rhetorical studies (as Charles %chuster' (hose !"GF
Colle!e +n!lish article' ;Mi/hail 0a/htin as .hetorical Theorist'; set the stage for 0a/htin+s assimilation into
composition studies. %chuster sees 0a/htin+s dialogics as modifying Aristotle+s rhetorical triangle into a rhetorical
circle' in (hich distinctions bet(een spea/er' listener' and sub6ect A(hich 0a/htin called the ;hero;C are blurred$
According to 0a/htin' a spea/er does not communicate to a listener about a ;sub6ect;?
instead' ;spea/er; and ;listener; engage in an act of communication (hich includes the
;hero; as a genuine rhetorical force. The difference here is significant. 1n our
conventional analyses of discourse...=s>ub6ects are actually conceived as ob6ects. They are
passive' inert' po(erless to shape the discourse. 1n 0a/htin+s terms' the hero is as potent a
determinant in the rhetorical paradigm as spea/er or listener. The hero interacts (ith the
spea/er to shape the language and determine form. At times' the hero becomes the
dominant influence in verbal and (ritten utterance. AF"FC
.. Allen 2arris' borro(ing %chuster+s idea of a 0a/htinian rhetorical circle' applies dialogics to an analysis of the
dialogue in Phaedrus and discovers mar/ed diversity in the remar/s of each spea/er' (hich in turn demonstrates
ho( ;the authorial voice is a distillation of an untold number of prior voices; A!,EC.
Iie(ed in 0a/htinian terms then' the ;%ocratic problem; is really no problem at all' for all communication
constitutes a borro(ing of other voices for purposes of individual authorial intent. 9lato borro(s %ocrates to ma/e a
point' as %ocrates during his lifetime borro(ed and imparted' accepted and challenged' the thoughts of others in a
never@ending' dialectical inquiry. ;Truth; in the Phaedrus emerges only through the act of dialectic' and once that
process stops' truth itself becomes suspect.
%chuster and 2arris both give us an idea of ho( 0a/htin stands in relation to classical rhetorical theory' but (hat
e)actly is 0a/htin+s standing (ithin modern composition studiesJ <ouise &etherbee 9helps sees 0a/htin as one of
four modern philosophers A0ur/e' .icoeur' and 9olanyi being the othersC (ho have formulated positive' constructive
ideas (ith great relevance for rhetoric and composition' as opposed to the thought of ;poststructuralism' critical
theory' Mar)ism' and +edifying+ philosophy that others find gloomy' s/eptical' and paraly8ing; ACom#osition FBC.
7et to ans(er fully the question of 0a/htin+s influence in modern composition theory requires an e)amination of the
various pedagogical vie(s that have arisen during the past decade and no( seem to be merging to(ard a unified
paradigm. <ester 3aigley has noted that during the !"G-s' three competing schools of pedagogy vied for the
attention of composition scholars$ the e)pressive' the cognitive' and the social.
2o(ever' recent developments indicate that the e)pressive and cognitive vie(s are moving increasingly to(ard a
social vie( of language and literacy. 9eter Elbo(' considered to be the top practitioner in the e)pressivist camp' has
throughout his (or/ e)pressed an interest in ho( individual e)pression operates (ithin a social setting' such as in
collaborative (riting and peer evaluation. As %tephen M. 3ishman has noted' many critics have ignored the social
emphasis of Elbo(+s (or/. Though the e)pressivist school indeed has roots in eighteenth@century Derman
romanticism' 3ishman argues that to ;understand romanticism as championing the artist as a lonely' spontaneous
genius is to adopt too narro( a vie( of romanticism; AB#"C. 1nstead' he believes a central concern of romanticism
(as ;finding common ground among individuals'; and that by ;seeing e)pressivism as isolating' Elbo(+s critics
ma/e it easy to neglect the communitarian ob6ectives of his approach; AB#"C.
1n a similar vein' <inda 3lo(er' the foremost proponent of cognitive composition studies' has in recent years
directed her research to(ard a socio@cognitive e)amination of student collaborative planning. 1n t(o recent (or/s @@
%eadin!3to3Write$ +,#lorin! a Co!nitive and )o"ial Pro"ess and Makin! Thinkin! 0isible$ Writin!/ Collaborative
Plannin!/ and Classroom In4uiry @@ 3lo(er has 6oined (ith a host of collaborators to e)plore the social dimensions
of her earlier research into the cognitive processes of individual (riters.
As the current (or/ of Elbo( and 3lo(er (ould suggest' the e)pressive and cognitive schools that 3aigley mentions
as being distinct from social constructionism appear instead to be moving to(ard a unified study of composition
(ithin social settings. As a result' it could be argued that social constructionism is quic/ly becoming the reigning
paradigm in composition studies.
Henneth 0ruffee' one of the leading e)ponents of a social constructionist pedagogy' believes that a social vie( of
language can help place the unified acts of reading and (riting at the ;center of the liberal arts curriculum and the
(hole educational process; A;%ocial Construction; ,,GC. As 0ruffee e)plains' social constructionism
assumes that the matri) of thought is not the individual self but some community of
/no(ledgeable peers and the vernacular language of that community. That is' social
construction understands /no(ledge and the authority of /no(ledge as community@
generated' community@maintaining symbolic artifacts. 1ndeed' some social
constructionists go so far in their nonfoundationalism as to assume . . . that even (hat (e
thin/ of as the individual self is a construct largely community generated and community
maintained. A;%ocial Construction; ,,,C
%uch an emphasis on the generation of /no(ledge by discourse communities appears to be the driving force behind
the recent &riting Across the Curriculum movement.
0ruffee believes that (ithin literary studies' social constructionist thought is dominated by the (or/ of t(o
philosophers' .ichard .orty and 0a/htin' the latter of (hom 0ruffee sees as stressing ;the Kvoices+ in literary
language . . . that are traceable to a diversity of social groups . . .; A;%ocial Construction; ,G4C. 7et in composition
studies' 0ruffee feels social constructionist thought has focused mainly on the (or/s of .ussian psychologist <ev
Iygots/y' (hose Thou!ht and an!ua!e and Mind in )o"iety had a tremendous influence on the field during the
!"G-s. Through a socio@linguistic approach to developmental psychology' Iygots/y posited that ;(e learn to use
language instrumentally' Ktal/ing through+ our tas/s (ith another person and then internali8ing that conversation as
thought. 1n this (ay (riting re@e)ternali8es the language of internali8ed conversation; A0ruffee' ;%ocial
Construction; ,GFC.
&hile no one can deny the tremendous influence that Iygots/y has had on composition theory' one could argue that
0a/htin+s influence in recent years has become equal if not greater than that of Iygots/y. 7et to place these t(o
.ussian thin/ers in competition as to theoretical influence is some(hat ludicrous considering the vast similarity of
their ideas. 1n fact' in recent years (henever Iygots/y has been mentioned as a theoretical influence in composition
studies' 0a/htin is often cited at the same time as having espoused similar ideas concurrently. #!$ 0ut because
0a/htin+s ideas have been (idely applied in both literature and composition studies' one could argue that his theories
have had a greater influence than those of Iygots/y' (ho concerned himself mainly (ith child development and the
relations bet(een language and thought. And as *ames Thomas Oebros/i has noted' in 0a/htin+s ideas ;(e find a
more fully elaborated model of (riting as dialogue; AThinkin! !,#C.
1ndeed' 0a/htin seems to have become the theorist of choice in social constructionist philosophies of language and
composition studies during the past decade. Donald 0ialostos/y' (ho (as responsible for introducing 0a/htin+s
ideas into literary criticism during the !"G-s' treats dialogics as distinct from other social constructionist vie(s in
that 0a/htin sees discourse as people involved in ideological struggles
over the meanings of things and the o(nership of (ords. 1t de@emphasi8es rhetorical
commonplaces' calling attention instead to the appropriated' if not al(ays proper' places
of persons (ho have identified themselves (ith certain (ords' ideas' (ays of tal/ing' and
social positions. A;<iberal Education; !FC
0ialostos/y believes 0a/htin+s ideas have found favor in composition studies because they help e)plain the
difficulties students have in assimilating the discourse of the academy into their natural uses of language. Dra(ing
on 0a/htin+s distinctions bet(een ;authoritative discourse; and ;internally persuasive discourse; in The Dialo!i"
Ima!ination' 0ialostos/y suggests that (riting classes can open up ;a space in (hich individual ideological
development can become not 6ust the accidental outcome of encounters (ith the disciplinary languages but the
deliberate goal of a reflective practice; A!BC.
1n fact' the insights that 0a/htin had into the dialogic nature of language acquisition are the prime influence that his
thought has had on composition studies. As *ohn .. Edlund has noted' 0a/htin+s dialogics is ;more than a linguistic
=process>? it is the fundamental process of human intellectual gro(th; AF,C. As a result' Edlund believes the
composition classroom can be vie(ed as ;an attempt to hasten and direct the appropriation5assimilation process'; in
(hich students predictably produce ;unintentional heteroglossia and garbled internal dialogue; AB!C. The result is
that teachers should no longer respond to grammar and synta) problems as errors' but instead as imperfect attempts
to harness the voices of dialogic language into specific authorial intent$
0a/htin+s vie( of language as ideological through and through allo(s us to see syntactic
and grammatical stumblings' as (ell as rhetorical failures' as possible manifestations of
ongoing social and cognitive processes' rather than simply as deficiencies of s/ill. 1t also
allo(s us to see substantial incoherence as a possible sign of intellectual increase to
come. AEdlund B,C
This vie( of student te)t closely resembles the theories of Mina %haughnessy' (hose +rrors and +,#e"tations (as
highly instrumental in sho(ing composition teachers the promise to be found in the problems of basic (riters.
7et any attempts to apply 0a/htin+s ideas mechanically to the (riting classroom are bound to meet (ith failure' for
his ideas serve mainly to provide composition instructors (ith tacit insights into the often difficult engagements that
students have (ith their o(n te)ts and those of others. The role of the teacher thus becomes one of helping students
guide their processes of transforming ;authoritative discourse; into ;internally persuasive discourse'; and then
helping them shape the disparate internal and e)ternal voices of their lives into a te)t voicing their o(n intentions.
As Nancy &elch has noted' 0a/htin helps us see (riting not 6ust as a means of private reflection or public
production' but ;rather as the dynamic meeting of reflection and production$ a comple) and ongoing interplay
among personal and public voices; A#"#C. 0y being /eenly a(are of ho( the often discordant inner voices of our
students operate (ithin this interplay bet(een reflection and production' &elch believes the (riting teacher can
open up a dialogue that helps guide students+ language development$
Through responses that a(a/en ne( (ords and open up the possibilities for continued
dialogue and continued learning' a teacher can help a student . . . to continue this
evolution from ;reciting by heart; to claiming and asserting the po(er of her o(n (ords.
And through this evolution' =the student> ta/es charge not only of a particular te)t and a
particular revision but also of the person she is and the person she is becoming. AF-!C
1n a similar vie(' *oy %. .itchie states that the various linguistic influences our students bring to the classroom
contribute to their ;confusion and an)iety; as (ell as the ;rich te)ture of possibilities for (riting' thin/ing' and for
negotiating personal identity; A!F,C. .itchie feels that 0a/htin+s ideas sho( us that (e learn ;by appropriating
various voices from the community and transforming those into our o(n unique idioms; A!,4C.
Most of the above authors have focused on ho( 0a/htin can illuminate our understanding of individual student
discourse as being an assimilation of both e)ternal and internal influences. 0ut 0a/htin+s ideas have also been used
to e)tend these dialogic vie(s of authorship into the field of collaborative (riting' as <isa Ede and Andrea <unsford
have done in )in!ular Te,ts5Plural Authors$ Pers#e"tives on Collaborative Writin!. As an e)ample of those literary
theorists (ho have informed their study of collaborative (riting practices' Ede and <unsford state that ;0a/htin+s
notion of heteroglossic language implies a polyphonic self' one that can never constitute the single Kvoice+
traditionally ascribed to the author; A"EC.
Ede and <unsford are not the only ones to have cited 0a/htin as support for a collaborative composition pedagogy.
*anet Eldred also mentions 0a/htin as support for a collaborative vie( of composing' (hich she believes (ill gain
even greater prominence (ith the advancement of computer technology' especially local area net(or/s that lin/ ;not
6ust terminal (ith terminal' but individual (ith individual or groups' mind (ith minds; AE!BC.
<i/e(ise' Timothy &eiss evo/es the 0a/htin Circle as primary theoretical support for a collaborative model of
communication' sho(ing ho( 0a/htin+s ideas ;strengthen the (ea/nesses (ithin 0ruffee+s theoretical foundation for
collaborative learning@(riting . . .; A4"C. &eiss sees 0ruffee' in his A )hort Course in Writin!' erroneously
;collaps=ing> any difference bet(een /no(ledge on the one hand and opinions and beliefs on the other; A4FC. 1n
contrast' &eiss believes 0a/htin' in one of his later noteboo/ entries' #%$ firmly distinguished bet(een the t(o$
1n 0a/htin+s division' the natural and human sciences have different ends as (ell as
different foci$ the end of the former is knowled!e' (hereas the end of the latter is
understandin! . . . . 1n sum' the natural sciences see/ to ;/no(; ob6ects' (hereas the
human sciences see/ to ;understand; signs' te)ts' discourses. A#-C
Additionally' &eiss vie(s 0ruffee+s concept of consensus as a monologic construct' (hereas true collaborative
(riting practices are more accurately reflected in 0a/htin+s dialogics' (hich demonstrate ho( ;difference and
struggle are inherently part of the bridge@building of understanding; A#BC.
1n a recent bibliographic essay in Colle!e Com#osition and Communi"ation' 2elen .othschild E(ald presents a
fairly comprehensive overvie( of 0a/htin+s influence in composition studies' though she argues that most scholars
citing 0a/htin have ignored /ey elements of his (or/ @@ such as his concepts of ;ans(erability; and the ;hero;
A44"C. %he also sees varying interpretations of 0a/htin+s theories (ithin composition studies as evidence of the
field+s struggle bet(een an increasingly entrenched social constructionism and an emerging e)ternalist vie(' (hich
transforms ;the social perspective by ma/ing situatedness the definitive quality of communicative interaction and by
denying the dualism of self and society; A44GC.
As a prime e)ample of this e)ternalist vie(' E(ald cites the (or/ of Thomas Hent' (ho builds on his earlier
attempts to formulate a ;paralogic rhetoric; by synthesi8ing %ophistry and poststructuralism. #&$ 1n his more recent
(or/' Hent sees 0a/htin as ta/ing an ;assiduously e)ternalist position; that rests on t(o basic propositions$ !C that
language is holistic and achieves meaning only in concert (ith a ;comple) net(or/ of other utterances'; and EC that
communication ta/es place (ithin a dialogic sphere that affords no room for private language A;2ermeneutics and
Denre; EG4C. 3or Hent' 0a/htin+s concept of speech genres is essential for moving beyond strictly cognitive vie(s of
composition that are rooted in the rationalist tradition and often emphasi8e internal (riting processes over social
conte)t. 1nstead' 0a/htin helps us forge a unified concept of ;communicative interaction; free of Cartesian dualities$
&hen (e understand that communicative interaction ta/es place largely through genres
and . . . that genres are public constructs @@ and not internal transcendental categories @@
(e no longer need to thin/ of the production and the reception of discourse in terms of
internal cognitive processes that' in turn' lead directly to the old Cartesian problems of
s/epticism and relativism. 0ecause all communicative interaction ta/es place through the
utterance and is consequently genre bound' both the production and the reception of
discourse become thoroughly hermeneutical social activities and not the internal
sub6ective activities of a private mind. A;2ermeneutics and Denre; 4-EC
Amy *. Devitt also sees 0a/htin+s concepts of utterance and speech genres as essential ingredients in helping us
forge a unified theory of language (hereby (e can ;reintegrate te)t and conte)t' form and content' process and
product' reading and (riting' individual and social; AFG#C.
E(ald believes' ho(ever' that (hile 0a/htin has some similarities (ith the e)ternalists' mainly his ;stance to(ard
old Cartesian dualisms' such as self5other'; he is neither ;fully social constructionist nor e)ternalist; and therefore
;seems yet to straddle our theoretical fences; A4#-C. 7et she tends to overemphasi8e the theoretical differences
bet(een social constructionism and e)ternalism' ignoring ho( the t(o (ere born of the conflicts bet(een
rationalism and poststructuralism.
E(ald+s criticism of the various interpretations of 0a/htin (ithin composition studies also presumes a monologic
understanding of theory formation (ithin any given discipline? as <ouise &etherbee 9helps has noted' theory
development in composition studies often follo(s an ;arc; from practice to theory and bac/ again in a dialogic
process that deepens over time A;1mages of %tudent &riting; 4,@#GC. Diven such a vie( of theory formation' it
seems logical that 0a/htin+s vie(s should be appropriated in a variety of practical (ays before returning to
theoretical consensus.
Additionally' the t(o 0a/htinian terms that E(ald says have been ignored in composition theory @@ ;ans(erability;
and the ;hero; @@ have been ta/en up recently by *ames Thomas Oebros/i' (hose boo/ Thinkin! Throu!h Theory
e)plores the impact that both Iygots/y and 0a/htin have had on composition studies. Oebros/i believes 0a/htin+s
concept of ;ans(erability'; (herein art and life must be ans(erable to one another' can serve as a model for
establishing a dialogue bet(een theory and practice AThinkin! EC. 3urthermore' Oebros/i states in an earlier article
that the ;hero; of any te)t is a ;super@addressee (ho is infinitely distant from...dialogue' but (hose responsive
understanding of it is assumed . . .;? for Oebros/i' the hero is a summation of all ;those voices through history' both
from the past and from the future; that account for communication in the absence of immediate dialogue A;A 2ero;
4,C. Oebros/i believes this concept of the hero has given him greater insight into student papers' allo(ing him to
hear the ;history of our dialogue . . . as 1 read a student te)t . . . . 1 listen for the voices. 1 6oin the dialogue. 1 search
for the hero . . .; A;A 2ero; 4GC.
Dra(ing deeply on Iygots/y+s theories and 0a/htin+s dialogics' Oebros/i esche(s traditional' library@bound research
assignments in favor of ethnographies that turn students+ attention to ho( language operates in subcultures outside
the classroom. After observing first hand ho( language is used in these communities' the students then report their
findings to their o(n ;collective of developing (riters'; (ho in turn use the ethnographic method to investigate the
uses of language in their o(n (riting community AThinkin! !"!C. Oebros/i believes such ethnographies not only
help students to understand the dialogic nature of language (ithin a living conte)t' but represent a more effective
means for learning ho( to synthesi8e large amounts of information and to develop critical thin/ing s/ills' both of
(hich students can later apply to traditional research assignments.
At the same time' Oebros/i believes 0a/htin+s theories can help teachers become more sensitive to the internal
struggles that ta/e place in the (riting processes of both themselves and their students. 3or Oebros/i' 0a/htin+s ideas
call into question traditional concepts of te)tual structure and unity and help e)plain ho( coherence in (riting often
is achieved through the difficult tas/ of interior dialogue$
2o( often do (e e)perience this otherness (ithin our o(n individual utterance and ta/e
it to be a symptom that something is (rong' that (e are not being ;structured; enough'
that (e are not being purposive and single@minded enoughJ 0a/htin suggests that such
conflict is natural' even inevitable' and that (e need to accept such dialogue or quarrel as
a starting point since real coherence in a te)t may come about less because the many
voices have been suppressed and silenced' than because they have become dialogic'
spea/ing (ith' even at times yelling at' each other and the ;(riter; (ho is made up of this
community of voices. Maybe (e need to be more open to accepting this plurality and this
struggle. AThinkin! E4EC.
%imply stated' many composition scholars vie( 0a/htin+s dialogic vie( of language and literacy as a main
theoretical influence in e)plaining (hat transpires (hen a reader pic/s up a novel or manuscript and (hen a (riter
ta/es pen to paper.
The insistence of such scholars as 9helps and Oebros/i on a firm connection bet(een theory and practice is (hat has
mar/ed composition studies as an academic field of gro(ing significance and influence in recent years. And as
mentioned earlier' the social constructionist emphasis on the role that language plays in the generation of /no(ledge
(ithin any given discipline has been the driving force behind the most practical movement to arise from English
studies in quite some time @@ &riting Across the Curriculum.
0ut (ith the present dichotomy bet(een literary criticism and composition studies' ho( are (e in English studies to
play the central role that has been cast for us in demonstrating ho( literacy s/ills are at the heart of all learningJ The
ans(er is that (e cannot. 7et as (e have seen' 0a/htin+s dialogic theories of language and literacy and his
simultaneous influence in both fields can serve as a much needed bridge bet(een the differences that no( divide us
and prevent us from assuming a central position (ithin the emerging information age. 3or (hat is at sta/e is nothing
less than the question of (hether (e (ill rule technology' or (hether technology (ill rule us.
Chapter & - 'nd (otes
!. 3or additional e)amples of %ophistic revivalism' see Cro(ley' *arratt' and Neel.
E. 3or comparisons of Iygots/y and 0a/htin' see Emerson' ;:uter &ord and 1nner %peech;?
&ertsch? and Oebros/i' Thinkin! Throu!h Theory.
4. The essay to (hich &eiss ma/es reference is ;The 9roblem of the Te)t in <inguistics' 9hilology'
and the :ther 2uman %ciences$ An E)periment in 9hilosophical Analysis; in )#ee"h Genres and
*ther ate +ssays' !-4@!4E.
#. %ee Hent+s ;9aralogic 2ermeneutics and the 9ossibilities of .hetoric.;
Chapter ) - .ia"ogics and
the /uture of 'ng"ish 0tudies
As (e have seen' a host of scholars in English studies have argued in recent years for a theoretical union of literature
and composition studies based on social and rhetorical vie(s of te)tual interpretation and production. At present'
none of these scholars has made much head(ay in such a 2erculean tas/' and for those readers (ho began this
thesis hoping to see this labor completed' 0a/htin+s ideas (ill ultimately prove to be some(hat disappointing.
0a/htin (as an eccentric philosopher (ho reveled in the comple)ities and parado)es of life and language' and he
(ould undoubtedly oppose any theory of language that tried to pass itself off as ;unifying; anything? one can
imagine him' (ith a (ry' bemused loo/' vehemently condemning such an idea as a monological illusion.
7et 0a/htin+s dialogic vie( of language' (ith its simultaneous influence in both literary criticism and rhetorical
theory' has given us the first in/lings of (hat a theoretical union bet(een the t(o disciplines might loo/ li/e' even
though a systematic' unified theory of literature and composition may forever remain a dream deferred. Though his
ideas are scattered across several te)ts and have been interpreted in a variety of (ays' 0a/htin is the first theorist
popular enough in both fields to present an influential conceptual schema that e)plains ho( people acquire language
and read and (rite te)ts. 1n this period of present disharmony' his gro(ing influence in both disciplines should be
cause for celebration. As Dregory Clar/ notes in his boo/ Dialo!ue/ Diale"ti"/ and Conversation$
3or people studying rhetoric and composition as (ell as for those studying literature'
0a/htin+s (or/ provides perhaps our most comprehensive e)planation of the process
through (hich social /no(ledge is constructed in a cooperative e)change of te)ts.
2o(ever diverse its particular applications' 0a/htin+s e)planation persistently and
e)plicitly affirms the t(o complementary assumptions about language that support a
social constructionist point of vie($ that our language creates rather than conveys our
reality . . . and that it does so in a process that is collaborative rather than individual . . . .
AG@"C
As English studies begins to move beyond its traditional scholastic solipsism to(ard a more active role at the center
of modern education' 0a/htin+s ideas seem to fill a definite need in formulating a general theory of ho( people read
and (rite.
0a/htin believed that our individual acts of e)pression' both (ritten and oral' are the result of a difficult internal
struggle in (hich the various voices of our past and present are lin/ed to one another through the social (eb of
language. &e acquire language by internali8ing the voices of others' and (e spend our lives re@e)ternali8ing these
assimilated forms in a never@ending dialogue (ith our peers. Additionally' each individual act of language ta/es
shape and becomes meaningful in the space bet(een ourselves and our audience and is highly dependent on our
often unconscious choice of stable' yet transparent genres of both speech and te)t.
1n addition to being influential in both literary criticism and rhetorical theory' 0a/htin+s ideas seem similarly poised
to help us e)plain the drastic changes the printed (ord (ill undergo as the result of ne( computer technologies'
changes that should not be vie(ed as necessarily threatening to our humanist values. As .ichard <anham notes in
his recent boo/' The +le"troni" Word' the presentation of (ords through the static te)tual display of print is quic/ly
being replaced by the more fluid te)tual forms of the computer screen' (hich are radically altering our e)isting
definitions of literacy. <anham believes these ne( te)tual forms @@ such as e@mail' net(or/ e)changes' and hyperte)t
@@ are shifting our intellectual perception bac/ to the root source of &estern rhetoric$
&e can . . . thin/ of electronic prose as moving bac/ to(ard the (orld of oral rhetoric'
(here gestural symmetries (ere permitted and sound (as omnipresent. Any prose te)t'
by the very nature of the denial5e)pression tensions that create and animate it' oscillates
bac/ and forth bet(een literate self@denial and oral permissiveness' but electronic te)t
does so much more self@consciously' simply by the volatile nature of the (ritten surface.
A volatile surface invites us to intensify rather than subdue this oscillation' ma/e it more
rather than less self@conscious. A,FC
<anham+s descriptions of the ;oscillations; that ta/e place in any printed te)t and that are enhanced by the ne(
te)tual forms of the computer age sound very much li/e the tension of ;voices; that 0a/htin mentions in his dialogic
philosophy of language. 1n contrast to our monological perception of unity in any given te)t' 0a/htin+s dialogics
demonstrates ho( our language' both oral and (ritten' is saturated (ith the (ords of others and ho( our tas/ as both
authors and readers is to orchestrate these inherent oscillations of language into an illusion of te)tual unity.
3urthermore' (hile some may feel the electronic e)plosion of static te)tual forms serves to mar/ the death of the
&estern self' as e)emplified in the linear forms of print' <anham believes it achieves quite the opposite and brings
literacy more in line (ith another oscillation that &estern thin/ing has al(ays e)hibited. 2is description of ho(
these ne( te)tual forms achieve this also bears a stri/ing similarity to 0a/htin+s position (ithin current philosophies
of language$
Allo(ing the simplicities neither of Arnoldian sincerity nor of deconstructive despair'
=electronic literacy> (ill force these e)tremes into that bi@stable oscillation (hich has
created our richly felt &estern life since 9lato and 1socrates first started it roc/ing t(o@
and@a@half millenia ago. AEFC
Though this particular oscillation that <anham mentions has more to do (ith the enduring conflict bet(een
philosophy and rhetoric' 0a/htin' (ho anchored his dialogic philosophy in the historical e)ample of %ocrates' seems
to reside in the center of such an oscillation' ta/ing into consideration both sides of recent debates about philosophy
of language.
:f all the philosophies currently espoused (ithin both literary criticism and composition studies' 0a/htin+s dialogics
seems to best e)plain the emerging te)tual revolution (rought by computer technology. As the static te)tual
e)pressions of the print age give (ay to the dynamic te)ts of electronic literacy' 0a/htin+s vie(s on language' based
on the oral origins of the (ord' help us to understand the ne( electronic literacy and ho( its dynamic te)tual forms
interact (ith the ;secondary orality; that &alter :ng believes television and the telephone have produced in our
society.
3ar from feeling alienated from this emerging electronic literacy' (e in English studies should feel empo(ered by
the ne( technologies' for they give us the ability to transfer the dialogic conflict of values displayed in various
forms of literature into more accessible forms for those students (ho are learning' despite our efforts' via the mi)ed
media of the electronic age. Digital dialogics can serve as a theoretical model for English studies in the t(enty@first
century.
1n Brave 'ew World' Aldous 2u)ley spins a tale of a futuristic dystopia in (hich the character of *ohn the %avage
finds sole comfort in the (or/s of &illiam %ha/espeare. .aised on a Native American reservation far from the
technological advances of a dehumani8ing society' the %avage has memori8ed every (ord from a ragged copy of
The Com#lete Works' (hich has someho( survived both temporal and technological destructive forces. &hen he is
brought into the modern age' the %avage+s musings on %ha/espeare are foreign to the citi8ens of this (orld' (hich
has banned boo/s in favor of social conditioning lessons doled out over loudspea/ers and through classroom
lectures.
&hile our society is e)periencing immense technological changes that some feel parallel those in 2u)ley+s novel' it
(ould be folly to suggest that %ha/espeare+s entire body of (or/ is in danger of disintegrating into historical dust.
The 0ard has survived the ravages of time so far' and (e have every reason to believe he (ill continue to do so in
the future. 0ut (hat 2u)ley+s novel points out is the danger that advancing technology poses to our treasured human
values and ho( such values' often residing in (or/s of literature' can become lost in the chaotic changes of history.
:ne has only to loo/ at the Middle Ages to find historical e)amples of ho( many of the te)ts of antiquity' including
Luintilian+s Institutio *ratoria' (ere lost for centuries before being recovered through the efforts of 9etrarch and
others at the advent of the .enaissance.
1n a similar light' the seeming lac/ of interest that many incoming freshman have in the canonical te)ts of the
academy has spa(ned dire (arnings in recent years of a pending ;literacy crisis'; in (hich students have forsa/en
the traditional pleasures of te)t for the ne(@fangled visual delights of the television and movies. 0ut perhaps this
;crisis'; as <anham points out' is instead a revolution in technology' one a/in to that of Dutenburg+s printing press
some F-- years before. 1nstead of engaging in petty squabbles over te)tual versus visual narrative' perhaps (e in
English studies should be loo/ing outside the academy to e)amine the (ays in (hich our society+s concept of
literacy is quic/ly changing as a result of computers and the mass media.
1f The 0ard is to escape the reservations of our brave ne( (orld' (e must transform his (or/s to digital' on@line
forms of e)pression? his (or/s must move from linear page to digital hyperte)t and multi@media visuals' to more
holistic' electronic forums that rival the Dlobe Theatre in the scope of their presentation. <anham believes that such
emerging technologies' combined (ith other social and theoretical forces' (ill help return liberal arts to a central
role in education' a repositioning that has already begun (ith the &riting Across the Curriculum movement AThe
+le"troni" Word !!BC.
Merrill &hitburn ma/es a similar argument in calling for more active participation by English departments in
shaping the values of our emerging information society. &hitburn believes that the solely contemplative nature of
many literary scholars' along (ith their gadfly attitude ;to(ard the rest of academic and public and professional
life'; has /ept English studies from assuming its proper place in the information age AE4GC. 2e is also critical of
these same scholars for their often disparaging attitude to(ard
a range of educators in areas such as speech' rhetoric' and 6ournalism (ho (anted to
move from a concern for the private life alone to a concern for the public and
professional life as (ell. Although literary scholars have allo(ed these educators to/en
development' they have tended to dismiss their aspirations as vocationalism' a term once
again in currency. AE#BC
&hitburn+s point here is that if our humanist values are to survive into the future' than English studies must ta/e a
more active role in shaping ho( /no(ledge and information are to be preserved and presented in the emerging
electronic age.
1f (e accept this challenge' then (e can ta/e advantage of ;the e)traordinary opportunity to move the humanities to
the heart of American life' to be as much at the center of learning and society as the orator in classical antiquity;
A&hitburn E#,C. 1n order to prevent the much@touted ;information high(ay; from being dominated by commercial
billboards and scientific information pitstops' (e in English studies must put our theoretical differences behind us
and become united in our efforts to preserve the humanist tradition (ell into the t(enty@first century.
&e have only to preserve this tradition in ne( forms' ones that (ill ensure the tradition+s survival for centuries to
come' for though %ha/espeare+s (or/s (ere (ritten in a conte)t specific to Eli8abethan England' they have survived
these past centuries because of their (ide@spread acceptance as being classical te)ts that spea/ to the human heart
and mind beyond their original time. As 0a/htin understood too (ell' language itself has the po(er to move beyond
the vagaries of specific time and to influence those in ages to come. 1n the last noteboo/ entry before his death'
published under the title ;To(ard a Methodology for the 2uman %ciences'; 0a/htin (rote$
There is neither a first nor a last (ord and there are no limits to the dialogic conte)t Ait
e)tends into the boundless past and the boundless futureC. Even past meanings' that is'
those born in the dialogue of the past centuries' can never be stable Afinali8ed' ended once
and for allC they (ill al(ays change Abe rene(edC in the process of subsequent' future
development of the dialogue. At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are
immense' boundless masses of forgotten conte)tual meanings' but at certain moments of
the dialogue+s subsequent development along the (ay they are recalled and invigorated in
rene(ed form Ain a ne)t conte)tC. Nothing is absolutely dead$ every meaning (ill have its
homecoming festival. The problem of great time. A)#ee"h Genres !,-C
Works Cited
!. Abrams' M. 2. A Glossary of iterary Terms. Bth ed. Ne( 7or/$ 2arcourt 0race *ovanovich' !"GF.
E. Angenot' Marc. ;%tructuralism as %yncretism$ 1nstitutional Distortions of %aussure.; The )tru"tural Alle!ory$
%e"onstru"tive +n"ounters with the 'ew 6ren"h Thou!ht. Ed. *ohn 3e/ete. Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9'
!"G#.
4. Averintsev' %ergei. ;Mi/hail 0a/htin$ .etrospective and 9erspective.; )oviet iterature G A!"GGC$ !E#@EG.
#. 0a/htin' Mi/hail M. Art and Answerability$ +arly Philoso#hi"al +ssays. Eds. Michael 2olquist and Iadim
<iapunov. Trans. Iadim <iapunov. Austin$ U of Te)as 9' !""-.
F. @@@. The Dialo!i" Ima!ination. Ed. Michael 2olquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael 2olquist. Austin$ U of
Te)as 9' !"G!.
B. @@@. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s. Trans. .. &. .otsel. Ann Arbor$ Ardis' !",4.
,. @@@. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s. Trans. Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9' !"G#.
G. @@@. %abelais and &is World. Trans. 2Q lR ne 1s(ols/y. !st ed. Cambridge$ M1T 9ress' !",4.
". @@@. %abelais and &is World. Trans. 2Q lR ne 1s(ols/y. End ed. 0loomington$ 1ndiana U9' !"G#.
!-. @@@. )#ee"h Genres and *ther ate +ssays. Eds. Caryl Emerson and Michael 2olquist. Trans. Iern &. McDee.
Austin$ U of Te)as 9' !"GB.
!!. 0a/htin' Mi/hail59avel Medvedev. The 6ormal Method in iterary )"holarshi#$ A Criti"al Introdu"tion to
)o"iolo!i"al Poeti"s. Trans. A.*. &ehrle. Cambridge$ 2arvard U9' !"GF.
!E. 0arthes' .oland. ;The Death of the Author.; Ima!e Musi" Te,t. Trans. %tephen 2eath. Ne( 7or/$ 2ill and
&ang' !",,. !#E@#G.
!4. 0auer' Dale M.' and %usan *aret McHinstry' eds. 6eminism/ Bakhtin/ and the Dialo!i". Albany$ %tate U of Ne(
7or/ 9' !""!.
!#. 0ergman' %hmuel 2ugo. Dialo!i"al Philoso#hy from 7ierke!aard to Buber. Trans. Arnold A. Derstein. Albany$
%tate U of Ne( 7or/ 9' !""!.
!F. 0ergon8i' 0ernard. +,#lodin! +n!lish$ Criti"ism/ Theory/ Culture. :)ford$ Clarendon' !""-.
!B. 0ialostos/y' Don 2. ;0ooth+s .hetoric' 0a/htin+s Dialogics and the 3uture of Novel Criticism.; Why the 'ovel
Matters$ A Postmodern Per#le,. Eds. Mar/ %pil/a and Carolina McCrac/en@3lesher. 0loomington$ 1ndiana U9'
!""-. EE@E".
!,. @@@. ;Dialogics as an Art of Discourse in <iterary Criticism.; PMA !-!.F A!"GBC$ ,GG@",.
!G. @@@. ;<iberal Education' &riting' and the Dialogic %elf.; Contendin! with Words$ Com#osition and %hetori" in a
Postmodern A!e. Ed. 9atricia 2ar/in. Ne( 7or/$ M<A' !""!.
!". 0i88ell' 9atricia. ;:n the 9ossibility of a Unified Theory of Composition and <iterature.; %hetori" %eview #.E
A!"GBC$ !,#@G-.
E-. @@@' and 0ruce 2er8berg' eds. The %hetori"al Tradition$ %eadin!s from Classi"al Times to the Present. 0oston$
%t. Martin+s' !""-.
E!. 0ooth' &ayne C. ;3reedom of 1nterpretation$ 0a/htin and the Challenge of 3eminist Criticism.; Bakhtin$
+ssays and Dialo!ues on &is Work. Ed. Dary %aul Morson. Chicago$ U of Chicago 9' !"GB. !#F@,B.
EE. @@@. 1ntroduction. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeti"s. 0y Mi/hail 0a/htin. Ed. and Trans. Caryl Emerson.
Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9' !"G#. )iii@))vii.
E4. 0ristol' Michael D. Carnival and Theater$ Plebian Culture and the )tru"ture of Authority in %enaissan"e
+n!land. Ne( 7or/$ Methuen' !"GF.
E#. 0ruffee' Henneth A. A )hort Course in Writin!$ Pra"ti"al %hetori" for Tea"hin! Com#osition throu!h
Collaborative earnin!. 4rd ed. 0oston$ <ittle' !"GF.
EF. @@@. ;%ocial Construction' <anguage' and the Authority of Hno(ledge$ A 0ibliographic Essay.; Colle!e +n!lish
#G.G A!"GBC$ ,,4@"-.
EB. Cain' &illiam E. The Crisis in Criti"ism$ Theory/ iterature/ and %eform in +n!lish )tudies. 0altimore$ *ohns
2op/ins U9' !"G#.
E,. Clar/' Dregory. Dialo!ue/ Diale"ti"/ and Conversation$ A )o"ial Pers#e"tive on the 6un"tion of Writin!.
Carbondale$ %outhern 1llinois U9' !""-.
EG. Clar/' Haterina' and Michael 2olquist. ;A Continuing Dialogue.; )lavi" and +ast +uro#ean 8ournal 4-.!
A!"GBC$ "B@!-E.
E". @@@. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge$ 2arvard U9' !"G#.
4-. Comley' Nancy ..' and .obert %choles. ;<iterature' Composition' and the %tructure of English.; Com#osition
9 iterature$ Brid!in! the Ga#. Ed. &inifred 0ryan 2orner. Chicago$ U of Chicago 9' !"G4.
4!. Cro(ley' %haron. ;:f Dorgias and Drammatology.; Colle!e Com#osition and Communi"ation 4-.4 A!","C$
E,"@G#.
4E. de Man' 9aul. ;Dialogue and Dialogism.; Morson and Emerson' %ethinkin! Bakhtin !-F@!#.
44. Derrida' *acques. Dissemination. Trans. 0arbara *ohnson. Chicago$ U of Chicago 9' !"G!.
4#. @@@. ;<imited' 1nc. abc.; Gly#h E A!",,C$ !BE@EF#.
4F. @@@. *f Grammatolo!y. Trans. Dayatri Cha/ravorty %piva/. 0altimore$ *ohns 2op/ins U9' !",B.
4B. @@@. ;%ignature' Event' Conte)t.; Gly#h ! A!",,C$ !,E@",.
4,. @@@. ;%tructure' %ign and 9lay in the Discourse of the 2uman %ciences.; The Criti"al Tradition$ Classi" Te,ts
and Contem#orary Trends . Ed. David 2. .ichter. Ne( 7or/$ %t. Martin+s 9ress' !"G". "F"@,!.
4G. Devitt' Amy *. ;Denerali8ing about Denre$ Ne( Conceptions of an :ld Concept.; Colle!e Com#osition and
Communi"ation ##.# A!""4C$ F,4@GB.
4". Dia8@Diocaret8' Myriam. ;0a/htin' Discourse' and 3eminist Theories.; Criti"al )tudies !.E A!"G"C$ !E!@4".
#-. Dissertation Abstracts :nline Database. 4- Dec. !""4 Compuserve online database search. University
Microfilms 1nternational.
#!. Eagleton' Terry. iterary Theory$ An Introdu"tion. Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9' !"G4.
#E. @@@. ;&ittgenstein+s 3riends.; 'ew eft %eview !4F A!"GEC$ B#@"-.
#4. Ede' <isa' and Andrea <unsford. )in!ular Te,ts5Plural Authors$ Pers#e"tives on Collaborative Writin!.
Carbondale$ %outhern 1llinois U9' !""-.
##. Edlund' *ohn .. ;0a/htin and the %ocial .eality of <anguage Acquisition.; The Writin! Instru"tor ,.E A!"GGC$
FB@B,.
#F. Eldred' *anet. ;Computers' Composition 9edagogy' and the %ocial Iie(.; Criti"al Pers#e"tives on Com#uters
and Com#osition Instru"tion . Eds. Dail E. 2a(isher and Cynthia <. %elfe. Ne( 7or/$ Teachers College 9ress'
!"G". E-!@!G.
#B. Emerson' Caryl. ;.ussian :rthodo)y and the Early 0a/htin.; %eli!ion and iterature EE.E@4 A!""-C$ !-"@4!.
#,. @@@. ;The .ussians .eclaim 0a/htin Aas of &inter !""EC.; Com#arative iterature ##.# A!""EC$ #!F@E#.
#G. @@@. ;The :uter &ord and 1nner %peech$ 0a/htin' Iygots/y' and the 1nternali8ation of <anguage.; Morson'
Bakhtin$ +ssays and Dialo!ues E!@#-.
#". Evans' 3red. ;<anguage and 9olitical Agency$ Derrida' Mar)' and 0a/htin.; The )outhern 8ournal of
Philoso#hy EG.# A!""-C$ F-F@FE4.
F-. E(ald' 2elen .othschild. ;&aiting for Ans(erability$ 0a/htin and Composition %tudies.; Colle!e Com#osition
and Communi"ation ##.4 A!""4C$ 44!@#G.
F!. 3aigley' <ester. ;Competing Theories of 9rocess$ A Critique and a 9roposal.; Colle!e +n!lish #G.B A!"GBC$ FE,@
#E.
FE. 3arness' *ay. Missin! )o"rates$ Problems of Plato's Writin!. University 9ar/$ 9ennsylvania %tate U9' !""!.
F4. 3elperin' 2o(ard. Beyond De"onstru"tion$ The 1ses and Abuses of iterary Theory. :)ford$ Clarendon' !"GF.
F#. 3ishman' %tephen A. ;9eter Elbo( and the .omantic Movement$ A Defense of E)pressivism.; 1n ;1s
E)pressivism DeadJ .econsidering 1ts .omantic .oots and 1ts .elation to %ocial Constructionism.; 0y %tephen
A. 3ishman and <ucille 9ar/inson McCarthy. Colle!e +n!lish F#.B A!""EC$ B#,@B!.
FF. 3lo(er' <inda' Iictoria %tein' *ohn Ac/erman' Margaret *. Hant8' Hathleen McCormic/' and &ayne C. 9ec/.
%eadin!3to3Write$ +,#lorin! a Co!nitive and )o"ial Pro"ess. Ne( 7or/$ :)ford U9' !""-.
FB. @@@' David <. &allace' <inda Norris' and .ebecca E. 0urnett' eds. Makin! Thinkin! 0isible$ Writin!/
Collaborative Plannin!/ and Classroom In4uiry. Urbana$ NCTE' !""4.
F,. 3rye' Northrop. Anatomy of Criti"ism$ 6our +ssays. 9rinceton$ 9rinceton U9' !"F,.
FG. 3uller' 0. A. D. The )o#hists/ )o"rates/ Plato. Iol. E of &istory of Greek Philoso#hy. 4 vols. Ne( 7or/$
Dreen(ood' !"BG.
F". Doodson' A. C. ;%tructuralism and Critical 2istory in the Moment of 0a/htin.; Tra"in! iterary Theory. Ed.
*oseph Natoli. Urbana$ U of 1llinois 9' !"G,. E,@F4.
B-. Duthrie' &. H. C. )o"rates. Cambridge$ Cambridge U9' !",!.
B!. @@@. The )o#hists. Cambridge$ Cambridge U9' !",!.
BE. 2alase/' Hay. ;3eminism and 0a/htin$ Dialogic .eading in the Academy.; %hetori" )o"iety :uarterly EE.!
A!""EC$ B4@,4.
B4. 2arris' .. Allen. ;0a/htin' 9haedrus' and the Deometry of .hetoric.; %hetori" %eview B.E A!"GGC$ !BG@,B.
B#. 2arris' .oy' and Talbot *. Taylor. andmarks in in!uisti" Thou!ht$ The Western Tradition from )o"rates to
)aussure. <ondon$ .outledge' !"G".
BF. 2aveloc/' Eric A. The Muse earns to Write$ %efle"tions on *rality and itera"y from Anti4uity to the Present.
Ne( 2aven$ 7ale U9' !"GB.
BB. @@@. ;The :rality of %ocrates and the <iteracy of 9lato$ &ith %ome .eflections on the 2istorical :rigins of
Moral 9hilosophy in Europe.; Helly B,@"4.
B,. 2errmann' Anne. The Dialo!i" and Differen"e$ An5*ther Woman in 0ir!inia Woolf and Christa Wolf. Ne(
7or/$ Columbia U9' !"G".
BG. 2erndl' Diane 9rice. ;The Dilemmas of a 3eminine Dialogic.; 0auer and McHinstry ,@E#.
B". 2itchcoc/' 9eter. Dialo!i"s of the *##ressed. Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9' !""4.
,-. 2olquist' Michael. 1ntroduction. Art and Answerability$ +arly Philoso#hi"al +ssays by M-M- Bakhtin. 0y
Mi/hail 0a/htin. Eds. Michael 2olquist and Iadim <iapunov. Trans. Iadim <iapunov. Austin$ U of Te)as 9'
!""-. i)@)li).
,!. @@@. ;The %urd 2eard$ 0a/htin and Derrida.; iterature and &istory$ Theoreti"al Problems and %ussian Case
)tudies. Ed. Dary %aul Morson. 9alo Alto$ %tanford U9' !"GB. !4,@FB.
,E. @@@. ;The 9olitics of .epresentation.; Alle!ory and %e#resentation. Ed. %tephen *ay Dreenblatt. 0altimore$
*ohns 2op/ins U9' !"G!. !B4@G4.
,4. 2op/ins' Mary 3rances. ;1ntervie( (ith &ayne C. 0ooth.; iterature in Performan"e E.E A!"GEC$ #B@B4.
,#. 2u)ley' Aldous. Brave 'ew World. Ne( 7or/$ 2arperCollins' !""E.
,F. 1vanov' Iyacheslav I. ;Dro(th of the Theoretical 3rame(or/ of Modern <inguistics.; Current Trends in
in!uisti"s !E A!",#C$ G4F@GB!.
,B. *a/obson' .oman. )hifters/ 0erbal Cate!ories/ and the %ussian 0erb. Cambridge$ 2arvard University'
Department of %lavic <anguages and <iterature' .ussian <anguage 9ro6ect' !"F,.
,,. *ameson' 3redric. The Politi"al 1n"ons"ious$ 'arrative as a )o"ially )ymboli" A"t. <ondon$ Methuen' !"G!.
,G. @@@. The Prison3&ouse of an!ua!e$ A Criti"al A""ount of )tru"turalism and %ussian 6ormalism. 9rinceton$
9rinceton U9' !",E.
,". *arret' %usan C. %ereadin! the )o#hists$ Classi"al %hetori" %efi!ured. Carbondale$ %outhern 1llinois U9' !""!.
G-. Helly' Eugene' ed. 'ew +ssays on )o"rates. <anham$ U9 of America' !"G#.
G!. Hent' Thomas. ;2ermeneutics and Denre$ 0a/htin and the 9roblem of Communicative 1nteraction.; The
Inter#retive Turn$ Philoso#hy/ )"ien"e/ Culture. Eds. David .. 2iley' *ames 3. 0ohman' and .ichard
%husterman. 1thaca$ Cornell U9' !""!. EGE@4-4.
GE. @@@. ;9aralogic 2ermeneutics and the 9ossibilities of .hetoric.; %hetori" %eview G.! A!"G"C$ E#@#E.
G4. Hershner' .. 0. 8oy"e/ Bakhtin/ and Po#ular iterature$ Chroni"les of Disorder. Chapel 2ill$ U of North
Carolina 9' !"G".
G#. Hristeva' *ulia. ;&ord' Dialogue and Novel.; Trans. Alice *ardine' Thomas Dora' and <eon %. .oudie8. The
7risteva %eader. Ed. Toril Moi. Ne( 7or/$ Columbia U9' !"GB. 4#@B!.
GF. <aCapra' Dominic/. ;0a/htin' Mar)ism' and the Carnivalesque.; %ethinkin! Intelle"tual &istory$ Te,ts/
Conte,ts/ an!ua!e. 1thaca$ Cornell U9' !"G4. E"!@4E#.
GB. <anham' .ichard A. The +le"troni" Word$ Demo"ra"y/ Te"hnolo!y/ and the Arts. Chicago$ U of Chicago 9'
!""4.
G,. @@@. itera"y and the )urvival of &umanism. Ne( 2aven$ 7ale U9' !"G4.
GG. <odge' David' ed. After Bakhtin$ +ssays on 6i"tion and Criti"ism. <ondon$ .outledge' !""-.
G". MacCannell' *uliet 3lo(er. ;The Temporality of Te)tuality$ 0a/htin and Derrida.; Modern an!ua!e 'otes
!--.F A!"GFC$ "BG@GB.
"-. McClellan' &illiam. ;The Dialogic :ther$ 0a/htin+s Theory of .hetoric.; )o"ial Dis"ourse 4.!@E A!""-C$ E4#@
#".
"!. Mate6/a' <adislav' and 1... Tituni/. Translators+ 9reface to Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e. 0y
Ialentin N. Ioloshinov. End ed. Cambridge$ 2arvard U9' !"GB. vii@)ii.
"E. Miller' %tephen. .ev. of %abelais and &is World' by Mi/hail 0a/htin. 'ew (ork Times Book %eview !" *an.
!"B"$ 4B.
"4. Moi' Toril. )e,ual5Te,tual Politi"s$ 6eminist iterary Theory. <ondon$ .outledge' !"GF.
"#. Morson' Dary %aul. ;The 0a)tin 1ndustry.; )lavi" and +ast +uro#ean 8ournal 4-.! A!"GBC$ G!@"-.
"F. Morson' Dary %aul' and Caryl Emerson. Mikhail Bakhtin$ Creation of a Prosai"s. %tanford$ %tanford U9' !""-.
"B. @@@' eds. %ethinkin! Bakhtin$ +,tensions and Challen!es. Evanston$ North(estern U9' !"G".
",. Neel' *asper. Plato/ Derrida/ and Writin!. Carbondale$ %outhern 1llinois U9' !"GG.
"G. Norris' Christopher. De"onstru"tion$ Theory and Pra"ti"e. <ondon$ Methuen' !"GE.
"". :ng' &alter *. *rality and itera"y$ The Te"hnolo!i;in! of the Word. Ne( 7or/$ Methuen' !"GE.
!--.9echey' Draham. ;0a/htin' Mar)ism' and 9ost@%tructuralism.; The Politi"s of Theory$ Pro"eedin!s of the +sse,
Conferen"e on the )o"iolo!y of iterature/ 8uly <=>?. Eds. 3rancis 0ar/er' 9eter 2ulme' Margaret 1verson' and
Dianna <o)ley. Colchester$ University of Esse)' !"G4. E4#@E4,.
!-!.9erlina' Nina. ;0a/htin and 0uber$ 9roblems of Dialogic 1magination.; )tudies in Twentieth Century iterature
".! A!"G#C$ !4@EG.
!-E.9helps' <ouise &etherbee. Com#osition as a &uman )"ien"e$ Contributions to the )elf31nderstandin! of a
Dis"i#line. Ne( 7or/$ :)ford U9' !"GG.
!-4.@@@. ;1mages of %tudent &riting$ The Deep %tructure of Teacher .esponse.; Writin! and %es#onse$ Theory/
Pra"ti"e/ and %esear"h. Ed. Chris M. Anson. Urbana$ National Councils of Teachers of English' !"G". 4,@B,.
!-#..ichter' David 2.' ed. The Criti"al Tradition$ Classi" Te,ts and Contem#orary Trends. Ne( 7or/$ %t. Martin+s
9ress' !"G".
!-F..itchie' *oy %. ;0eginning &riters$ Diverse Ioices and 1ndividual 1dentity.; Colle!e Com#osition and
Communi"ation #-.E A!"G"C$ !FE@,#.
!-B..oberts' Mathe(. ;9oetics 2ermeneutics Dialogics$ 0a/htin and 9aul de Man.; Morson and Emerson'
%ethinkin! Bakhtin !!F@4#.
!-,.%aussure' 3erdinand de. Course in General in!uisti"s. Eds. Charles 0alley and Albert %echehaye. Trans. &ade
0as/in. Ne( 7or/$ McDra(@2ill' !"BB.
!-G.%chuster' Charles 1. ;Mi/hail 0a/htin as .hetorical Theorist.; Colle!e +n!lish #,.B A!"GFC$ F"#@B-,.
!-".%earle' *ohn. ;.eiterating the Differences$ A .eply to Derrida.; Gly#h ! A!",,C$ !"G@ E-G.
!!-. %elden' .aman. A %eader's Guide to Contem#orary iterary Theory. End ed. <e)ington$ U of Hentuc/y 9'
!"G".
!!!. %haughnessy' Mina. +rrors and +,#e"tations$ A Guide for the Tea"her of Basi" Writin!. Ne( 7or/$ :)ford U9'
!",,.
!!E. %tephens' Mitchell. ;*acques Derrida Considers the 1mpossible.; 'ew (ork Times Book %eview E4 *an. !""#$
EE@EF.
!!4. %tevenson' %heryl. ;<anguage and Dender in Transit$ 3eminist E)tensions of 0a/htin.; 0auer and McHinstry
!G!@"G.
!!#. Theunissen' Michael. The *ther$ )tudies in the )o"ial *ntolo!y of &usserl/ &eide!!er/ )arte/ and Buber. Trans.
Christopher Macann. Cambridge$ M1T 9' !"G#.
!!F. Thomson' Clive' ed. The Bakhtin 'ewsletter 'o- .. Hingston' :N$ Lueen+s University' Department of 3rench
%tudies' !""!.
!!B. @@@. ;Mi/hail 0a/htin and Contemporary Anglo@American 3eminist Theory.; Criti"al )tudies !.E A!"G"C$ !#!@
B!.
!!,. Tituni/' 1... ;0a/htin N5or Ioloshinov N5or Medvedev$ Dialogue N5or Doubletal/J; an!ua!e and iterary
Theory. Eds. 0en6amin A. %tol8' 1... Tituni/' and <ubomSr Doleel. Ann Arbor$ U of Michigan 9' !"G#. F4F@B#.
!!G. @@@. ;The 0a)tin 9roblem$ Concerning Haterina Clar/ and Michael 2olquist+s Mikhail Bakhtin.; )lavi" and +ast
+uro#ean 8ournal 4-.! A!"GBC$ "!@"F.
!!". Todorov' T8vetan. ;A Dialogic CriticismJ; %aritan # A!"G#C$ B#@,B.
!E-.@@@. Mikhail Bakhtin$ The Dialo!i"al Prin"i#le. Trans. &lad Dod8ich. Minneapolis$ U of Minnesota 9' !"G#.
!E!.Ioloshinov' Ialentin N. Mar,ism and the Philoso#hy of an!ua!e. Trans. <adislav Mate6/a and 1... Tituni/.
!st ed. Ne( 7or/$ %eminar 9ress' !",4.
!EE.Iygots/y' <ev. Mind in )o"iety$ The Develo#ment of &i!her Psy"holo!i"al Pro"esses. Eds. M. Cole' I. *ohn@
%teiner' %. %cribner' and E. %ouberman. Cambridge$ 2arvard U9' !",G.
!E4.@@@. Thou!ht and an!ua!e. Ed. Ale) Ho8ulin. Cambridge$ M1T 9' !"GB.
!E#.&eiss' Timothy. ;0ruffee' the 0a/htin Circle' and the Concept of Collaboration.; Collaborative Writin! in
Industry$ Investi!ations in Theory and Pra"ti"e. Eds. Mary M. <ay and &illiam M. Haris. 3armingdale' N7$
0ay(ood' !""!.
!EF.&elch' Nancy. ;:ne %tudent+s Many Ioices$ .eading' &riting' and .esponding (ith 0a/htin.; 8ournal of
Advan"ed Com#osition !4.E A!""4C$ #"4@F-E.
!EB.&elle/' .ene. German/ %ussian/ and +astern +uro#ean Criti"ism/ <=@@3<=A@. Ne( 2aven$ 7ale U9' !""!. Iol.
, of A &istory of Modern Criti"ism/ <BA@3<=A@. End ed. G vols. !"GB@!""!.
!E,.@@@. ;1ntroduction$ A 2istory of Dostoevs/y Criticism.; Dostoevsky$ A Colle"tion of Criti"al +ssays. Ed. .ene
&elle/. Engle(ood Cliffs$ 9rentice@2all' !"BE. !@!F.
!EG.&ertsch' *ames I. ;The %emiotic Mediation of Mental <ife$ <.%. Iygots/y and M.M. 0a/htin.; )emioti"
Mediation$ )o"io"ultural and Psy"holo!i"al Pers#e"tives. Eds. Eli8abeth Mert8 and .ichard *. 9armentier.
:rlando' 3<$ Academic 9ress' !"GF. #"@,!.
!E".&est' Elinor *ane Maddoc/. ;9lato and %ocrates$ The Men and Their Methods.; Helly !4!@4F.
!4-.&hitburn' Merrill D. ;The 1deal :rator and <iterary Critic as Technical Communicators$ An Emerging
.evolution in English Departments.; +ssays on Classi"al %hetori" an