Previously, Natalie pointed out that though Wordsworth waxed loquacious on the use of low or rustic language in poetry, he rather failed to adhere to that principle, employing high or distinctly unrustic language (btw: you should totally read that blog post. Go on, scroll down. This entry will still be here when you’re done). I think Marx/Engels has a pretty decent explanation of this inability of Wordsworth’s: “men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” (656). Wordsworth may have failed in his attempts to glory in low diction because his life was not one of low birth or life. He was the educated son of a lawyer; he was not the working lad of a coalminer or a farmer. And because his life was not one of “rustic” qualities, his consciousness and thoughts—and subsequently his language—was likewise unrustic. Marx/Engels had also stated that “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life” (655); language, it would seem, still has power. It may not be in direct line with Wordsworth’s ideas of linguistic impact or the same message he believes it capable of conveying, but they agree that language, “real” language, is connected to the mind and, if you stretch it, imagination. After all, imagination exists in the mind and is an expression of ordinary ideas via ordinary diction; consciousness and ideas are directly connected to and intertwined with language. The thread is thin, but it is there.
Pax,
ReplyDeleteI love your blog titles so much :)
Pax,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the nod. I appreciate it. Therefore, I feel that I must respond. Also, I want to. :)
I like this application to Wordsworth. It makes sense, based on what all three of these folk say. Wordsworth wants "real life" to be seen, so he writes about...daffodils? Sitting on couches? Using highbrow words? Which all make sense based on his social standing.
This makes me think that, much as anyone can try, they can't quite reach another person's viewpoint (postmodernism anyone?). You are what your class status is, and you can't break from that. It seems a little too hard, but I can't reason out of it (based on these philosophers, with Wordsworth as an example). I like to think that now we are more "culturally aware" and less "class conscious" but I still wonder. Can we even today try and approach another culture or class through their language, and actually succeed? Or would we be better off staying where we're at, and hoping everyone makes sense to everyone else?