The Concept of Liminality as a Theoretical Tool in Literary Memory Studies: Liminal Aspects of Memory in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Journal of Literary Theory Pub Date : 2022-08-30 DOI:10.1515/jlt-2022-2025
Claudia Mueller-Greene
{"title":"The Concept of Liminality as a Theoretical Tool in Literary Memory Studies: Liminal Aspects of Memory in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children","authors":"Claudia Mueller-Greene","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is something peculiar about memory insofar as it tends to be formed across boundaries. We can think of it as located in an in-between zone, on the threshold »where the outside world meets the world inside you« (Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). Somehow, memory oscillates between the inside and the outside, connecting the subjective and the objective, the imaginary and the real, the self and the other, the individual and the collective. Memory involves all aspects of human life, be they biological, psychological, social, or cultural. Due to its omnipresence, memory is the object of a diverse range of disciplines. Correspondingly, the field of memory studies is situated at the intersection of a bewildering variety of disciplines, which creates exciting interdisciplinary opportunities, but also epistemological and methodological challenges. According to Mieke Bal, interdisciplinarity »must seek its heuristic and methodological basis in concepts rather than methods«. Liminality is a concept that seems particularly well-suited to address problems that arise from the distinctive in-between position of memory. So far, however, it has been largely ignored in memory studies. The concept of liminality deals with ›threshold‹ characteristics. Liminal phenomena and states are »betwixt and between«; they are »necessarily ambiguous« and »slip through the network of classifications« (Victor Turner). The concept of liminality helps to avoid »delusions of certainty« (Siri Hustvedt) by drawing attention to interstitial entities and processes that resist clear-cut categorizations and are inherently blurry and impalpable. »Every brain is the product of other brains« (Hustvedt) and so is memory: »we always carry with us and in us a number of distinct persons« (Maurice Halbwachs). Instead of being able to distinguish clearly between individual, social, and cultural memory, we are confronted with their dynamic interactions and complex entanglements: »to understand me, you’ll have to swallow a world« (Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). There is »the constant ›travel‹ of mnemonic contents between media and minds« (Astrid Erll), as well as their ›migration‹ from one culture to another (Aby Warburg). Memory is deeply relational and always in motion in regions of the ›between‹. This contribution focuses on these qualities through the lens of liminality. Its purpose is to introduce the concept of liminality as an analytical tool in literary memory studies and to put it to the test by applying it to a paradigmatic literary text about memory. Section one provides an introduction to the concept of liminality as it was developed by the anthropologist Victor Turner. The second section brings liminality and memory together and reflects on liminal, relational, and complex aspects of memory, with the main emphasis on complexity. In section three, the focus shifts to literature and the applicability of liminality as a concept in literary memory studies. Theories implicitly dealing with liminality are given special consideration: the triadic model of Wolfgang Iser’s literary anthropology, Paul Ricœur’s circle of threefold mimesis, and Homi Bhabha’s theory of ›Third Space‹. Section four examines liminal aspects of memory in Midnight’s Children, using the concept of liminality as a tool for literary analysis. The article ends with a brief conclusion and outlook. This contribution argues that liminality is an innovative concept in literary theory and literary memory studies. Liminality facilitates processual approaches and helps to avoid false certainties created by static concepts. Two different perspectives on liminality can be taken in literary memory studies: we can either study the mnemonic liminality of literature itself or the mnemonic liminality represented in literature. The ›fictional privileges‹ of literature in dealing with mnemonic liminality receive particular attention. Literature’s experientiality and its unique freedom in the depiction of consciousness allow fictional texts to portray the subjective experience of mnemonic liminality. Literature can represent mnemonic liminality in practically all of its aspects. Such representations concern, for instance, the multi-layered overlappings between memory and imagination, the complex interactions between the individual and collective levels of memory, the intricacies of communication and the crucial role of language and media in these processes. As a theoretical tool in literary memory studies, the concept of liminality enables us to identify and interpret the literary staging and reflection of these liminal aspects of memory as well as the narrative techniques involved. Although the variety of techniques is potentially unlimited, some devices seem especially effective. The analysis of Midnight’s Children shows that magic realism as well as metaphors and allegories are particularly powerful means of representing the liminality of memory. Furthermore, the narrator’s behavior plays a crucial role in the staging of mnemonic liminality. In the case of Midnight’s Children, the narrator’s partial unreliability as well as his numerous intertextual and intercultural references signify liminal aspects of his memory. The narrator crosses certain boundaries when his remembering self overlays his remembered self or when he oscillates between his first-person perspective and a miraculous omniscience that makes him appear to be the receptacle of other people’s memories. Moreover, structural means of representation such as leitmotifs and the semanticization of space and objects are forceful techniques to depict mnemonic liminality.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract There is something peculiar about memory insofar as it tends to be formed across boundaries. We can think of it as located in an in-between zone, on the threshold »where the outside world meets the world inside you« (Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). Somehow, memory oscillates between the inside and the outside, connecting the subjective and the objective, the imaginary and the real, the self and the other, the individual and the collective. Memory involves all aspects of human life, be they biological, psychological, social, or cultural. Due to its omnipresence, memory is the object of a diverse range of disciplines. Correspondingly, the field of memory studies is situated at the intersection of a bewildering variety of disciplines, which creates exciting interdisciplinary opportunities, but also epistemological and methodological challenges. According to Mieke Bal, interdisciplinarity »must seek its heuristic and methodological basis in concepts rather than methods«. Liminality is a concept that seems particularly well-suited to address problems that arise from the distinctive in-between position of memory. So far, however, it has been largely ignored in memory studies. The concept of liminality deals with ›threshold‹ characteristics. Liminal phenomena and states are »betwixt and between«; they are »necessarily ambiguous« and »slip through the network of classifications« (Victor Turner). The concept of liminality helps to avoid »delusions of certainty« (Siri Hustvedt) by drawing attention to interstitial entities and processes that resist clear-cut categorizations and are inherently blurry and impalpable. »Every brain is the product of other brains« (Hustvedt) and so is memory: »we always carry with us and in us a number of distinct persons« (Maurice Halbwachs). Instead of being able to distinguish clearly between individual, social, and cultural memory, we are confronted with their dynamic interactions and complex entanglements: »to understand me, you’ll have to swallow a world« (Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). There is »the constant ›travel‹ of mnemonic contents between media and minds« (Astrid Erll), as well as their ›migration‹ from one culture to another (Aby Warburg). Memory is deeply relational and always in motion in regions of the ›between‹. This contribution focuses on these qualities through the lens of liminality. Its purpose is to introduce the concept of liminality as an analytical tool in literary memory studies and to put it to the test by applying it to a paradigmatic literary text about memory. Section one provides an introduction to the concept of liminality as it was developed by the anthropologist Victor Turner. The second section brings liminality and memory together and reflects on liminal, relational, and complex aspects of memory, with the main emphasis on complexity. In section three, the focus shifts to literature and the applicability of liminality as a concept in literary memory studies. Theories implicitly dealing with liminality are given special consideration: the triadic model of Wolfgang Iser’s literary anthropology, Paul Ricœur’s circle of threefold mimesis, and Homi Bhabha’s theory of ›Third Space‹. Section four examines liminal aspects of memory in Midnight’s Children, using the concept of liminality as a tool for literary analysis. The article ends with a brief conclusion and outlook. This contribution argues that liminality is an innovative concept in literary theory and literary memory studies. Liminality facilitates processual approaches and helps to avoid false certainties created by static concepts. Two different perspectives on liminality can be taken in literary memory studies: we can either study the mnemonic liminality of literature itself or the mnemonic liminality represented in literature. The ›fictional privileges‹ of literature in dealing with mnemonic liminality receive particular attention. Literature’s experientiality and its unique freedom in the depiction of consciousness allow fictional texts to portray the subjective experience of mnemonic liminality. Literature can represent mnemonic liminality in practically all of its aspects. Such representations concern, for instance, the multi-layered overlappings between memory and imagination, the complex interactions between the individual and collective levels of memory, the intricacies of communication and the crucial role of language and media in these processes. As a theoretical tool in literary memory studies, the concept of liminality enables us to identify and interpret the literary staging and reflection of these liminal aspects of memory as well as the narrative techniques involved. Although the variety of techniques is potentially unlimited, some devices seem especially effective. The analysis of Midnight’s Children shows that magic realism as well as metaphors and allegories are particularly powerful means of representing the liminality of memory. Furthermore, the narrator’s behavior plays a crucial role in the staging of mnemonic liminality. In the case of Midnight’s Children, the narrator’s partial unreliability as well as his numerous intertextual and intercultural references signify liminal aspects of his memory. The narrator crosses certain boundaries when his remembering self overlays his remembered self or when he oscillates between his first-person perspective and a miraculous omniscience that makes him appear to be the receptacle of other people’s memories. Moreover, structural means of representation such as leitmotifs and the semanticization of space and objects are forceful techniques to depict mnemonic liminality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有限性概念作为文学记忆研究的理论工具——萨尔曼·拉什迪《午夜的孩子》中记忆的有限方面
摘要记忆有一种特殊之处,它往往是跨越边界形成的。我们可以把它想象成一个介于两者之间的区域,在门槛上“外面的世界与你内心的世界相遇”(Salman Rushdie,《午夜的孩子》)。不知怎的,记忆在内部和外部之间振荡,连接着主观和客观、想象和现实、自我和他人、个人和集体。记忆涉及人类生活的方方面面,无论是生物的、心理的、社会的还是文化的。由于记忆无处不在,它是各种学科的研究对象。相应地,记忆研究领域处于令人困惑的各种学科的交叉点,这创造了令人兴奋的跨学科机会,但也带来了认识论和方法论的挑战。Mieke Bal认为,跨学科必须在概念而非方法中寻求启发式和方法论基础。Liminality是一个似乎特别适合解决由记忆的独特中间位置引起的问题的概念。然而,到目前为止,它在记忆研究中基本上被忽视了。界限的概念涉及›阈值的特征。极限现象和状态介于两者之间;它们“必然是模糊的”并且“在分类网络中溜走”(维克托·特纳)。界限的概念有助于避免“确定性错觉”(Siri Hustvedt),通过吸引人们对间隙实体和过程的关注,这些实体和过程抵制明确的分类,并且本质上是模糊和不可触及的。“每个大脑都是其他大脑的产物”(Hustvedt),记忆也是如此:“我们总是随身携带着许多不同的人”(Maurice Halbwachs)。我们无法清楚地区分个人、社会和文化记忆,而是面对它们的动态互动和复杂纠缠:“要理解我,你必须吞下一个世界”(Rushdie,《午夜的孩子》)。媒体和思想之间存在着“记忆内容的不断传播”(Astrid Erll),以及他们从一种文化迁移到另一种文化(Aby Warburg)。记忆是深刻的关系,并且总是在›之间的区域中运动。这一贡献通过有限性的视角聚焦于这些品质。其目的是引入有限性的概念,将其作为文学记忆研究的一种分析工具,并将其应用于关于记忆的典型文学文本中进行检验。第一节介绍了人类学家维克托·特纳提出的极限概念。第二节将界限和记忆结合在一起,反思记忆的界限、关系和复杂方面,主要强调复杂性。在第三节中,重点转移到文学以及作为一个概念的界限在文学记忆研究中的适用性。隐含处理界限的理论得到了特别的考虑:Wolfgang Iser的文学人类学的三元模型,Paul Ricœur的三重模仿圈,以及Homi Bhabha的›第三空间理论。第四节探讨了《午夜的孩子》中记忆的边缘方面,将边缘概念作为文学分析的工具。文章最后给出了简要的结论和展望。本文认为,界限是文学理论和文学记忆研究中的一个创新概念。Liminality促进了过程方法,并有助于避免静态概念产生的虚假确定性。在文学记忆研究中,可以从两个不同的角度来看待记忆的限度:一是研究文学本身的记忆限度,二是研究文学所代表的记忆限度。文学在处理记忆极限方面的“虚构特权”受到了特别关注。文学的经验性及其在意识刻画上的独特自由性,使小说文本得以刻画记忆极限的主观体验。文学可以在几乎所有方面表现记忆的极限。例如,这种表征涉及记忆和想象之间的多层叠加,个人和集体记忆水平之间的复杂互动,沟通的复杂性,以及语言和媒体在这些过程中的关键作用。作为文学记忆研究的理论工具,界限概念使我们能够识别和解释记忆的这些界限方面的文学舞台和反映,以及所涉及的叙事技巧。尽管技术的多样性可能是无限的,但有些设备似乎特别有效。对《午夜的孩子》的分析表明,魔幻现实主义以及隐喻和寓言是表现记忆极限的特别有力的手段。 此外,叙述者的行为在助记符界限的分期中起着至关重要的作用。在《午夜的孩子》中,叙述者的部分不可靠性以及他众多的互文和跨文化参考意味着他记忆的边缘方面。当叙事者的记忆自我覆盖了他记忆中的自我时,或者当他在第一人称视角和奇迹般的无所不知之间摇摆时,叙事者跨越了某些界限,这使他看起来像是其他人记忆的容器。此外,主旋律、空间和对象的语义化等结构表征手段是刻画助记符界限的有力手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Literary Theory
Journal of Literary Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Die Autonomie der Literatur auf dem Prüfstand. Bourdieus feldtheoretischer Ansatz als Alternative zu soziologistischen Kurzschlüssen Experiencing Literary Audiobooks: A Framework for Theoretical and Empirical Investigations of the Auditory Reception of Literature Autor und Subjekt im lyrischen Gedicht: Rezension und Neukonzeption einer Theorie der lyrischen Persona Die Literaturautonomie im deutschen Rechtssystem. Grenzen, Widersprüche und literaturtheoretische Potenziale Ästhetische Autonomie zwischen Ethik und Ästhetik
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1