The
literary critic William Empson took Freud's idea of intrapsychic conflict as a
springboard for appreciating the art of the poet, which in turn is a way of
understanding the poet. Empson conceptualized intrapsychic conflict along
psychoanalytic lines, but his ideas can just as well be relevant to a conflict
between the individual's self and the family system to which that self belongs.
In the book, Seven Types of Ambiguity, he
listed different types of literary ambiguities which indicate increasing levels
of confusion in the minds of the reader, the characters, and perhaps the author.
One of the
reasons that literature excites us is because we identify with or contrast our
feelings with the feelings of the characters as they
encounter various predicaments. Those feelings are frequently not fixed, but
mixed. Both we and they are plagued with doubts and contradictions. In much the
same way, we can enter the internal world of others within our social system. In both cases, we are confronted with various degrees of
ambivalence and confusion.
Empson's
seven ways in which levels of "two-mindedness" are manifested in
language are the subject of this post. Their presence can be used to alert a
listener to the possibility that a motivational conflict is present in the
speaker. Being able to spot this is key to understanding and then constructively discussing (metacommuncating about) repetitive dysfunctional family interactions. In general, the degree or level of the speaker's awareness of his or
her ambivalence increases as we proceed down the list.
1. A statement's
makes possible comparisons to several points of likeness or difference. This
type of ambiguity turns on the fact that any idea or emotion causes a multitude
of associations within the mind of the listener, and also because different
people have different associations. A choir, for instance, can lead one person
to recall positive images such as grand churches and angelic singing, while for
another it summons negative images such as overbearing nuns in Catholic school
or guilt-inducing sermons. This is precisely why people use metaphors and why
metaphors make language so rich; a single word can stand for so much. A statement
is ambiguous when the listener finds himself or herself wondering which of
these many potential references and feeling states is in the mind of the author
or speaker.
2. Two or
more alternate meanings are fully resolved into one because to what a metaphor
is really referring seems fairly clear. This device may or may not be ambiguous,
depending on whether or not a question exists as to the actual meaning of the
author.
3. Two apparently unconnected ideas are
suddenly connected. A good example of this type of ambiguity is the pun. An
ambiguity arises whenever a question exists as to whether or not to connect the
meanings, or about how to connect them. I remember an instance in high school
in which I made a remark to a friend about another fellow student whom I disliked - which that guy overheard - about how he belonged to an anti-nuclear weapons organization. I mentioned that the fellow "was in SANE."
4. The speaker
indirectly expresses mixed feelings or ambivalence without admitting to them,
through the use of exaggeration. Confusion can be communicated, for instance,
by provoking in the listener a sense of "methinks he doth protest too
much." In other words, when individuals overstate their feelings, a
listener may get the idea that they are covering up opposite feelings. The
process involved can also be understood as a manifestation of a the defense
mechanism known as reaction formation.
Individuals may defend against an unacceptable idea by becoming obsessed with
the opposite idea, or defend against an unacceptable impulse by compulsively
acting in ways contrary to the impulse. A good example was the scandal that
surrounded the television evangelist, Jimmy Swaggert. He had vociferously
condemned from the pulpit all those who gave in to the "sins of the
flesh." As it turned out, and as many of his critics had suspected all
along, he had been giving in to the same temptations himself.
5. An
individual communicates two ideas which may contradict one another in passing
from one of them to the other, but does not address the question of their
apparent inconsistency. The speaker either does not seem to be holding both
ideas in mind simultaneously or never juxtaposes them, so that the issue of
their possible mutual exclusiveness can arise for discussion and clarification.
For example, a man may expound on his belief that the only road to satisfaction
is hard work, and then go on to complain about how bummed out he feels at his
own job. As a therapist, I often notice such possibly contradictory statements
made literally weeks or even months apart. A therapist really has to pay
attention and write good notes about sessions to pick up on this.
6. The speaker says something in a way that
actively signals to the listener that there should be some doubt as to what has
been said. The speaker appears to have avoided making a commitment to an idea
or expressing his or her true feelings. In this situation the speaker cannot be
held accountable for holding any particular opinion. Damning with faint praise
would be one example. When a basketball coach describes a player as
"tenacious on defense, and always gives one hundred and ten percent,"
he is generally not describing one of his starters. A second example is the use
of words like "strictly," "exactly," or
"totally," as in, "she was not, strictly speaking, very
intelligent!” A third way is through the use of nonverbal communication. A grin
or a raised eyebrow will often negate the content of what is being said at the
lexical level. In all of these cases, the listener is forced to guess what the
speaker really means.
7. The
last type of ambiguity is a full contradiction, in which the author or speaker
obviously seeks to "have it both ways." In type seven, speakers make
statements which indicate neuroticism or indecisiveness. They may go on and on
ad nauseam describing the pros and cons of particular viewpoint or course of
action without ever making a decision. They may obsessively waver back and
forth on an issue. They may without warning plunge from the heights of ecstasy
to the depths of despair, or from the idealization to the denigration of a
person, thing, or concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment