chapter 1 introduction 1.1 backgroundshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38900/6/06_chapter...
TRANSCRIPT
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Art Buchwald is one of the few writers to have devoted his
whole life for the cause of exposing the corrupt and evil practices in the social
and political order. He is a lover and follower of truth. In his intellectual
approach to truth, he is uncompromising. Naturally, he tends to use the tools
of irony and satire in his writings.
A deconstructive reading of Buchwald’s selected essays reveals that
the essayist has employed a few deconstructive strategies to expose the
common social evils through his writings. As there are certain traces of
deconstructive elements in Buchwald’s writings, this thesis attempts to
explore these aspects in detail. In other words, this thesis examines the
selected essays of Buchwald deconstructively by a close reading with a focus
on linguistic and literary elements.
1.2 AIM, SCOPE AND HYPOTHESIS
The aim of this study is to analyze the essays of Art Buchwald
deconstructively and to prove that he is a deconstructive essayist.
This study reviews more than 450 essays of the essayist and
considers 246 essays for the deconstructive analysis. Although a few political
satires are taken for this research, most of the essays selected have social
themes. Of the numerous deconstructive strategies, three are chosen for this
study, namely binary opposites, indeterminacies, and dissemination.
2
A careful study of Buchwald’s selected essays reveals that he is a
serious satirist. He has used certain deconstructive strategies in his writings
that support a deconstructive analysis.
This thesis focuses on three aspects of the deconstructive strategies.
First, by way of reading the texts of Buchwald, an attempt is made to show
and challenge the implicit metaphysical presuppositions of Western thought -
the binary oppositions, which are the important elements of structure in
language that is logocentric. Second, the fictionality, the rhetoricity, and the
figurative approaches used in the essays of Buchwald make the “right
reading” or “correct reading” (Abrams 1999) of the text impossible. Third, a
deconstructive reading of the essays shows that they lack a center. The
impossibility and possibility of totalized boundary is shown. Further, by a
play of internal counter-forces like differance, trace, and, supplement, the text
“disseminates into an indefinite range of self-conflicting significations”
(Abrams 1999).
Thus, the deconstructive technique of reading, analysis, and
interpretation is adopted in this research as the critical tool to examine binary
opposites, indeterminacies, and dissemination, which suggests that Art
Buchwald is a deconstructive essayist.
1.3 POST-STRUCTURALISM, DERRIDA, AND
DECONSTRUCTION
This section introduces post-structuralism, its emergence and
importance in the area of literary studies, and the concept of deconstruction. It
also gives a brief account of the life and works of Jacques Derrida, who is the
architect of deconstruction.
3
Post-structuralism is an intellectual movement that emerged in
France in the late 1960s. It is the outcome of both the structuralist phase of
analyzing sign and structure, and the humanist model of focusing on the text,
the author, the reader, and history. Jacques Derrida gave the basic grounding
to the theory of deconstruction with his lecture ‘Structure, Sign and Play in
the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ in 1966. Based on this, various other
post–structuralists propounded their theories. ‘Jacques Lacan in
psychoanalysis, Michel Foucault in philosophy, Roland Barthes in semiotics,
Julia Kristeva in criticism, Jean-Francois Lyotard in political theory, and
Jacques Derrida with his deconstruction theory’ are the most ‘celebrated
practitioners’ of the movement (Quinn 2004).
Derrida was born in 1930 at El-Biar near Algiers. In 1949, he
moved to Paris where he studied at the Lycee Louis-le-Grand and Ecole
Normale Superieur. He was a student of Jean Hyppolite and Michel Foucault.
Later he taught at the ENS as maitre-assistant until he became the directeur
d’etudes at the Ecole des Hartes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in 1984. It was
only at the time of ‘publishing his first paper, he signed himself as Jacques
Derrida’ (Wolfreys 2006).
It was in 1967 that Derrida published three volumes of his
important works which attracted worldwide attention: ‘Speech and
Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs,’ ‘Of
Grammatology,’ and ‘Writing and Difference.’
If ‘Of Grammatology’ privileges writing over speech, ‘Writing and
Difference’ discusses various seminal thinkers. In ‘Speech and Phenomena,’
Derrida argues the desire for absolute truth in the ‘imperfections of language’
(Hunter 2007).
4
Since the publishing of these books, although highly influential, he
has been in controversy for his philosophical and critical theories.
‘Dissemination,’ ‘Glas,’ ‘The Postcard,’ ‘Specters of Marx,’ ‘The Gift of
Death,’ and ‘Politics of Friendship’ are some of his other notable books which
spread the concept of deconstruction. Derrida was awarded an honorary
doctorate by Cambridge University in 1992. He died in 2004.
Echoing several researchers and academic intellectuals Hunter
(2007) declares that “Derrida’s writing has consistently addressed important
political, ethical, legal, and social issues, making him a key figure in fields
outside of literature and philosophy as well.”
The word deconstruction is derived from the French verb
“deconstuire,” meaning “to undo the construction of, to take to pieces.”
Deconstruction is a process of ‘building’ that involves ‘all other allied
requirements of building centrifugally and incessantly,’ and / or “comprises
both destruction and construction in itself giving room for the explanation that
there is no destruction without construction and vice versa” (Dhanavel 2005).
As formulated by the French thinker, the theory is a fundamental
critique of certain intellectual assumptions that underlie Western thinking. It
‘focuses on the inherent, internal contradictions in language and
interpretation,’ says Quinn (2004). The theory neither ‘has a concept’ nor is ‘a
form of analysis’ (Eliot and Owens 1998). It is a process of deconstructing the
text. According to Derrida (1978c), in deconstructing a text, the “structure” is
“methodically threatened in order to be comprehended more clearly and to
reveal not only its supports but also that secret place in which it is neither
construction nor ruin but liability.”
Further Derrida (1978c) observes, “meaning is neither before nor
after the act.” At one end, the figurative language of literature and the arts
5
brings the ambiguity between the actual and the implied dimensions. At the
other end, the endless chain of signifiers leads to no conclusion of meaning.
Deconstructive analysis enlists several strategies and terms examine
“logocentrism” which tends to fix the final meaning to particular source.
An introduction to the poststructural theory without the mention of
the ‘Yale critics’ is incomplete. Yale critics are a group of critics who were
associated with deconstruction in the 1970s and ’80s. The group included Paul
de Man, J. Hillis Miller, and Geoffrey Hartman.
Thus, post-structuralism is a late 20th century ‘intellectual
movement’ of linguistic and philosophical studies that gained a new
dimension with Jacques Derrida introducing the concept of deconstruction.
The Yale critics were closely linked to the theory. Deconstruction chiefly
focuses on the contradictions in language and interpretation.
1.4 THE ROLE OF A DECONSTRUCTIONIST
This section explains the role of a deconstructionist. A
deconstructionist engages in the task of identifying the unconscious dimension
of the literary text, rather than the conscious dimension. He considers the text
to be the subject and object of analysis.
Verbal signs, binary opposites, puns, metaphors, and allusions
found in the text make reading and interpretation complicated to the
deconstructionist. The deconstructionist “sets out to show that conflicting
forces within the text itself serve to dissipate the seeming definiteness of its
structure and meanings into an indefinite array of incompatible and
undecidable possibilities” (Abrams 1999).
6
A deconstructionist has the firm belief that no single and correct
meaning can be accorded to a text. Besides, the influence of the external
world has its own impact on the text. This means that the text may be a
composite of various ‘internal contradictions,’ ‘discontinuities,’ and
‘inconsistencies.’ “Internal contradictions may be in the form of paradoxes;
discontinuities as gaps, fissure, tense, time, person, or attitude; and
inconsistencies in ‘plurality of significance’ ” (Barry 2002).
The deconstructionist assumes four roles (Barry 2002). He is at
times a reader, an interpreter, an analyst, and at some other times, a critic. The
reader is an observer who is physically outside the text, but intentionally
involved within the text. He constantly shifts and adopts his stance to the
varying angles seen in the text and comes to a consensus of the meaning
implied or derived. Derrida’s description of deconstructive reading is that the
deconstructionist as a reader must “aim at a certain relationship, unperceived
by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of
the patterns of language that he uses” (Barry 2002). That is, the reader
identifies gaps and fills them up by bringing the various social, historic, and
cultural norms relevant to the text before interpreting it. He brings together
the, language, history, “the notion of structure” and “phenomenon of fashion”
(Derrida 1978c). In this endeavor, he deduces several deconstructive elements
while understanding and interpreting the work of literature.
As an interpreter, he has to adapt the ‘deconstructive’ approach of
‘producing the text’ rather than ‘reproducing what the writer thought and
expressed in the ‘text’ (Barry 2002). That is, the interpreter engages in
“assembling significations, recognizing themes, ordering constants and
correspondences” (Derrida 1978c).
In “structure,” which refers to “space, geometric or morphological
space, the order of forms and sites,” the analyst sees in it “the structure of an
7
organic or artificial work, the internal unity of an assemblage, a construction,”
the “unifying principle” in the work, and “the architecture that is built and
made visible in a location” (Derrida 1978c). In other words, as an analyst, the
deconstructionist must look for causes of disunity in the text at the ‘verbal,’
‘textual,’ and ‘linguistic’ stages (Barry 2002). He locates the literary strategies
that the writer had adopted to express his ideas and / or develop the plot by
using some defamiliarizing devices. The analyst needs to “scrutinize the
contradictory elements in a text until they reach an aporia (an impasse), the
point at which the text’s contradictory meanings are shown to be
irreconcilable, illustrating the ‘indeterminacy of meaning’ ” (Quinn 2004).
Derrida (1978c) says, “… structure, the framework of construction,
morphological correlation, becomes in fact and despite his theoretical
intention the critic’s sole preoccupation” (emphasis in the original). As a
critic, the deconstructionist understands that a textual meaning is infinite. He
locates the contradictions in the use of the word(s) or the sentence structure(s).
It is not only the ‘surface features of the words’ that the post–structuralist
critic works upon in order to highlight their importance in the text, but also
determine ‘conflicts,’ ‘absence’ or ‘omissions,’ ‘linguistic quirks,’ and
‘aporia’ while analyzing the text (Barry 2002).
Although all the four roles have varied functions, they are all
integrated to the common objective, that is, to deconstruct the text.
Deconstructionists cannot assume only one standard role for themselves. They
have to function on a multiple role. Sometimes they have to be a reader, and at
other times, an interpreter, an analyst, or a critic. Based on the deconstructive
strategy discussed in the text, in this thesis the deconstructionist gives the
response of a reader, the description of an interpreter, the scrutiny of an
analyst, and/ or the observations of a critic.
8
Thus, the deconstructionist assumes four roles. The reader
perceives certain relationship in the pattern of language that the writer has
used without having explicitly realized it. The interpreter is expected to
‘deconstruct’ and not ‘reconstruct’ the text. The analyst reads and re-reads the
text so as to analyze each passage intensively and carries out a step-by-step
examination to identify the ‘internal contradiction,’ ‘discontinuities,’ and
‘inconsistencies.’ The critic reads ‘the text against itself’ to bring out the
‘textual unconsciousness.’ The deconstructionist fixes ‘the surface features’ of
words and brings them to the foreground establishing their importance or
necessity in the overall play of text. However, in this thesis the
deconstructionist assumes all the four roles of being a reader, an interpreter,
an analyst, and a critic, at various junctures.
1.5 ESSAY IN BRIEF
This section provides an overview of the essay as a literary form, its
relation to satire, and the satirical essay.
An essay is a genre of literature that is ‘informal and conversational
in manner’ and has ‘a direct and even intimate appeal to the reader’ (Fowler
1978). The term is derived from the French word ‘essayer,’ which means an
attempt.
Edmund Goose defines an essay as, “A composition of moderate
length …which deals in an easy, cursory way with the external conditions of a
subject, and, in strictness, with that subject only as it affects the writer” (Rees
1993).
The concept of essay originated with the Roman writers Cicero and
Seneca, whose ‘Epistles,’ which were initially considered as letters, were later
brought under the category of essays. Plutarch’s ‘Moralia,’ essays on ‘moral’
9
themes also belong to this category. The term “essay” goes back to 1588 when
the writer Michel de Montaigne published his book “Essais.” He introduced
not only the word and the form but also pioneered the subjective or the
concept of ‘personal essay.’ Such personal touch could be seen in the essays
of Ben Jonson also, in the later years. In England, Bacon initiated essays. He
‘showed that the essence of good writing is to have something to say, and to
say it as shortly as possible’ (Rees 1993). Consequently, he differed from
Montaigne in giving his aphoristic essays, an objective or impersonal tone.
Writers like Abraham Cowley, Joseph Addison, Virginia Woolf, and J.B.
Priestley took to this mode of writing.
Richard Steele and Joseph Addison launched the social essays.
They brought out over 550 issues of the Spectator (March 1711 to December
1712) ‘to enliven morality with wit, and to temper wit with morality.’ The
essays of Dr. Johnson, and those of Oliver Goldsmith, are all valuable
contributions to the daily newspapers and periodicals.
In the Southern parts of America, literary essays ‘were almost
neglected in the general enthusiasm for forensic and pulpit oratory.’ Even if
they were written, they had the ‘formal style of public speeches.’ William
Wirt (1772–1834) was prominent under this category of essayists. ‘The
Letters of a British Spy’ gave him the initial boost ‘as a critic and master of
eloquence.’ His ‘The Rainbow,’ a collection of ten essays written in
collaboration with his friends, dealt with various political and social queries.
James Kirke Paulding (1779–1860) was an ardent admirer of the ‘American
scenes’ and described them in his essays. He also had his share of prose satire.
Nathaniel Parker Willis (1806-61) revived the ‘discursive literature.’
Emerson’s first published essay was ‘Nature’ (1836). The most characteristic
and influential of his books are the two volumes of ‘Essays,’ issued
respectively in 1841 and 1844. The first volume was a ‘voice of
10
independence’ (Leary 1980), and had discourses on Self-Reliance,
Compensation, and The Over-Soul, which gave the typical traces of what has
been termed as ‘Emersonianism.’ The second volume advocated confidence
and responsibilities. William Ellery Channing, the earliest of the lecturer-
essayists, in 1838, wrote ‘The Essay on Self-Culture,’ which was written as an
address which had ‘the practical and poetical blending of humanity with the
humanities.’ Nathaniel Parker Willis ‘is the prototype of later semi-literary
American journalists.’ Washington Irving, an American author and a
diplomat, brought what may be known as ‘the story-essay,’ which has an
element of narration and description. Donald Grant Mitchell and George
William Curtis also came up sharing their mood of tender sentiment and
gentle satire.
Benjamin Franklin’s periodical essays were the first to be printed in
colonial newspapers which had a conscious moral purpose in them. Timothy
Dwight and John Trumbull came up with their spice of wit in almost a
hundred series of light periodical essays, which they contributed to various
journals in New England. Joseph Dennie (1768–1812) earned the honor of
being known as the “American Addison.” His periodical writings exhibited
his talent with the Farrago essays and earned him fame.
An essay is a flexible and short literary form of composition, which
focuses on a particular subject. Besides, its ‘usefulness,’ it also becomes ‘a
pretext for beauty.’ It may be short, long, factual, fictional, practical, or
playful. It has various literary elements like character, structure, theme, text,
tone, and style. It may serve any purpose and take any form that the essayist
wants it to be. Not all essays are literary. They may be just a ‘practical piece
of writing, designed to report something, or explain something, or make a case
for something.’ Such essays are business-oriented and so proceed
systematically.
11
Essays have various forms like character-sketch, critical essays,
periodical essays, social essays, personal essays, satirical essays, subjective
essays, aphoristic essays, etc. They have various functions too. Some essayists
attempt to change the world; some stay neutral, by being quite indifferent to
the practical ends of the world. Although essayists have some point to make,
they are not always persuasive. According to Virginia Wolf, the main purpose
of an essay is to give pleasure. Pleasure, to her, is ‘the principle which
controls’ and ‘the desire which impels’ the reader to read the text (Scholes et
al. 1991).
Essays are basically categorized into four types: argumentative,
narrative, dramatic, and poetic. An argumentative essay persuades the reader
through an argument. It shows the truth in the argument and convinces the
reader of the writer’s viewpoint. In a narrative essay, the essayist becomes a
narrator, a storyteller, and a reporter and presents the subject in the form of
history. A dramatic essay has dialogues between characters, and the presence
of the author is mostly obvious. A poetic essay has the poet talking to himself
rather than to others and takes the form of a meditation “overheard” by the
reader (Scholes et al. 1991).
An essayist is licensed to express his views effectively as he feels.
His expression may be a personal view, an analytical comment, or an
‘interpretive literary composition.’ The tone he assumes for the purpose can
be formal, passionate, intimate, serious, witty, ironic, or even meditative. A
satire is a literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or
weakness, often with the intention of correcting or changing some vices.
Irony, humor, wit, sarcasm, and derision are used to mock the vice or
imperfection. The satire on someone worthy of scorn or something ridiculous
may be in the form of an essay, a play, a poem, or a novel.
12
The late 2nd millennium BC ancient Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi
contains the text of a satirical letter in which the writer initially praises the
virtues but then gradually mocks the limited knowledge of the recipient of the
letter.
In the Greco-Roman literature, the terms cynicism and parody were
used in the place of what was later called satire. The ancient classic comedies
of the Greek playwright Aristophanes are political and societal commentaries.
In Rome, Quintilian first discussed satire critically and he was the
one who invented the term to describe the writings of Lucilius. The cool
satires of Horace and the ferocious ones of Juvenal served as the base for the
later classification of satires into two types, biting and mild satires.
Classic among the medieval satires of the Renaissance period were
Chaucer’s ‘The Canterbury Tales,’ Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote,’ Ben Johnson’s
plays, and Samuel Butter’s ‘Hudibras.’ The Elizabethan satire was typically in
pamphlet form. These contained more direct abuse than gentle irony. The
social commentaries via satire became more straight forward and coarse in the
16th century, when farcical texts like the works of François Rabelais dealt
with more serious issues incurring the wrath of the crown. In the Age of
Enlightenment, the creation of Tory and Whig groups gave rise to an
intellectual movement in the 17th and 18th century that advocated rationality,
which aimed to convey the true meaning of criticism. The 18th century was the
Golden Age of Satire in England. During this period, poets like Alexander
Pope, and essayists like Addison and Steele emerged. In the 19th century,
satire took to smoother forms of criticism and featured more in novels, besides
casting its outlook in Lord Byron’s poems, William S. Gilbert’s librettos, in
the plays of Oscar Wilde and G. B. Shaw. Satirists like Mark Twain, Oscar
Wilde, Jonathan Swift, George Bernard Shaw, Aldous Huxley,
W.M.Thackeray, Charles Dickens, Samuel Butler, Washington Irving, James
13
Russell Lowell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sinclair Lewis, James Thurber, W.H.
Auden, Khushwant Singh and Art Buchwald contributed their best to world
literature.
Depending on the demands of their times, satirists choose their
central idea of ridicule. Chaucer attacked the lack of morality of the Church
by gently laughing at it. In ‘The Rape of the Lock,’ Pope brings the absurdity
of the rich and fashionable London Society. Samuel Butler’s negative Utopia -
‘Erewhon’ is a satire on the importance given to machines, relegating human
to a secondary position. Thus, “a great satire can often do more practical good
than a hundred speeches by good democratic politicians, or a thousand
sermons by well-meaning preachers” (Rees 1993).
To sum up, an essay is an informal, incomplete, short literary
writing with scientific, political, historical, or philosophical themes. It may be
argumentative, narrative, dramatic, or poetic. It can have varied forms like the
personal essay, subjective essay, objective essay, aphoristic essay, critical
essay, periodical essay, and satirical essay. Although an essayist has the
license to design any impression of himself or herself, his ultimate aim is to
make the reader feel that the writer is addressing him/ her directly. An essayist
may use any tone to convey his or her views effectively. Satire is a powerful
tone of expression to ridicule the vices. Although varied in tone ranging from
the ancient satires to the 20th century satirical columns of Art Buchwald,
satirical essays have contributed considerably to world literature.
1.6 LIFE AND WORKS OF ART BUCHWALD
This section presents the life and works of Art Buchwald. Arthur
Buchwald was born to Joseph Buchwald and Helen Kleinberger on 20th
October, 1925 at Mount Vernon, New York. His childhood was not very
happy. His mother was committed to an asylum soon after he was born. It was
14
in Mount Vernon where he and his two sisters spent their youth in foster
homes. He joined the U.S. Marine Corps at the age of 17 and served in World
War II. In 1948, he joined the ‘Tribune Herald International’ in Paris, and
started writing for ‘The Washington Post’ from 1961.
His columns are syndicated in 550 papers throughout the world and
he is the author of several books. The Jewish-American author, columnist,
dramatist, journalist, satirist, humorist, and essayist got the Pulitzer Prize for
outstanding Commentary in 1982. He is one of the few voices on the social
and political evils that corrupt the natural order and ruin the social harmony.
His gentle satire wrapped up in humor with implicit wit earned him wide
appreciation and acceptance in the newspaper world. He died on 17th January
2007, at the age of 81.
Besides columns, he wrote a play ‘Sheep on the Runaway’ in 1970,
and two novels - ‘A Gift from the Boys’ ‘The Bolo Caper’ which were
published in 1958 and 1974, respectively.
His famous lawsuit against Paramount Pictures cannot be forgotten.
He filed a case against Paramount Pictures in 1988 for having stolen his script
for the Eddie Murphy film ‘Coming to America’. Buchwald won after a long
battle. He was awarded the compensation and a settlement from Paramount.
The case was also the subject of a book, ‘Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story
of Buchwald V. Paramount’ by Pierce O'Donnell and Dennis McDougal,
published in 1992.
He wrote a memoir ‘Leaving Home’ in1994. In 1996, he wrote his
own experiences in ‘I’ll Always Have Paris.’ His last book was ‘Too Soon to
Say Goodbye’ (2006), which talks of his time at the hospital after he was told
that because of the kidney problem, he would live for only a short time. In this
work, he reflects on his own passing.
15
Newspaper columns are transient but Buchwald’s essays were
published in newspapers. The question here is why his essays have been taken
for research when editorial columns in general are considered momentary. In
fact, date and events may go past the time, but they are recorded as history
and history never dies. So are Buchwald’s essays, which are documentations
of the day-to-day happenings, blended with a little imagination, humor, and
wit. They serve as valuable pieces of observations made by the essayist on the
socio-political issues, enabling serious deliberations on matters and widening
the avenue of research. Thus, Buchwald’s essays, which belong to a rather
ephemeral genre of newspaper editorial, is a valuable body of writing like any
other American literary prose fiction for purposes of deconstructive analysis.
According to Antonio Gramsci, society is divided into ‘two major
superstructure levels’ – the “civil society” and the “political society.” The
former is basically ‘Private’ and of ‘Group/class’ concern and the latter is of
‘the state’ and its administrative jurisdiction (Rivkin and Michael 1998).
Based on Gramsci, Art Buchwald’s essays are classified into two categories –
social (civil) and political. Buchwald’s social essays are the contemporary
social satires in the context of events and figures in history, while his political
satires deal directly with news stories and political figures.
In Buchwald’s essays, the social issues include problems related to
global warming, environmental pollution, nuisance due to tele-callers, deceit
by insurance companies, racial and gender discrimination, problem of
unemployment, neglect of senior citizens, degrading value education, growing
business attitudes, high price of gas, oil, and drugs, etc. His political subjects
highlight constitutional violations, political corruptions, legal irregularities
and loopholes, adoption of illegal methods to outwit law, misuse of power and
authority, false promises during elections, the ‘mud-sling’ before and ‘blame
16
game’ after elections, election campaigning and fund raisings, war policies,
and so on.
Buchwald’s readers admire him for his use of polite language. He
hardly uses rough and provocative words. He is well informed about the
matter he writes and his subjects are backed up with dependable and
legitimate evidences and incidences that are not hidden from many. He does
not follow any conservative style, set pattern, traditional norm, or standard
plan in writing his essays. The only thing common to all his columns is that
they are satirical essays with much humor and sufficient wit in them. A story
is fluently found in all his essays. Sometimes he blends various genres like
poetry, prose, commentary, notes, and interview. His use of putative speakers,
parodies, ironies, and ambiguities adds intensity to the events. His dialogues
give a sense of drama to his essays. And his characterization is distinguished
by a combination of knowledge creativity, humor and wit.
However, his essays appear to be weak in terms of structure. There
is no formal ending or finality in his essays. This is because his essays are not
just prosaic to feature his thoughts, but more of a narration, a drama, or a story
and not a summary of his ideas or judgement.
Buchwald overcame many difficulties in life and emerged as a
successful essayist. His social and political essays provide an insight into the
various social and political issues that disturb the virtuousness of the society
and humanity as a whole. His tactful use of language enables him to deal with
numerous serious issues very lightly.
1.7 ART BUCHWALD AS A POPULAR SATIRIST
Buchwald is a popular satirist avidly read and appreciated by the
general public. He is a universal and eternal writer par excellence.
17
Art Buchwald admits that he is a satirist. He claims, “Satire is my
business” in his essay ‘Satire under Fire.’ Although he considers satire ‘a
malicious business,’ he insists that ‘someone has to do it’ and he explains
satire as, “a way to express an opinion and also make the reader laugh. The
important thing is for the person reading to have knowledge of what is being
satirized so he/she can be in on the joke.”
For him, the theme of satire is ‘anything.’ In the same essay, he
says, “We live in a country where writers can satirize anything they want to,
even their own satire.” Satires suit best when they are topical in nature
because the reader is aware of the real nature of the event that is being
mocked at.
The essayist who considers satire to be ‘malicious’ is uncertain
about being fair to himself and to his writing. However, a satire is believed to
have some truth in it. The satirist is expected to exploit the truth. Buchwald
does it beautifully in his writing.
Buchwald shows the power of satire in ‘Murdoch’s Fair Warning’.
He refers to ‘a billionaire,’ who is capable of hiring ‘the best lawyers in the
world’ but could not ‘win a lawsuit’ against a ‘satirist.’ In the essay, he
reveals not only the power of satire but also its close connection with politics.
“Nearly everybody is a satirist in a small way… The real satirist
however differs from most of us, both in the strength of his feeling and in
having the wit and genius to express it in novel or poem or play. He must have
some of the qualities of the moralist or the preacher, and some of the qualities
of the clown- because the best way of attacking wickedness and foolishness is
by laughing at them” (Rees 1993). Buchwald has immense strength of
feelings, both in the form of courage in expressing sensitive issues, and in the
sense of being well-expressive of his feelings. He presents his ideas seriously
18
and also sarcastically. While appreciating the seriousness of the matter, he
makes the reader laugh at the follies of human beings. He does not become a
preacher with a fixed idea of his own. As a moralist, he delights the readers
with his insights into the problems confronting the society. Perhaps there is a
satirical author in every reader. The reader’s response is one of wonder and
regard which earns Buchwald the status of being a satirist.
Every satirist has a purpose behind his writings. Buchwald also
intends to bring to limelight the social failings, which are caused by the
businesspeople on one side, and the politicians on the other. He exposes in his
essays the irregularity, lavishness, greed, wickedness, corruption, and
violation of rules, which are prevalent in the society. By drawing the attention
of the public to these shortcomings and vices, he wishes for some correction
in the social and constitutional order for a better life.
To attack the wickedness and foolishness of mankind, the satirist
may use the simplest weapon of being invective which is defined as a violent
attack in words. However, the satirist’s ‘ability to amuse and entertain the
reader’ (Rees 1993) is his most important weapon. At places where he
actually pronounces the names and activities of individuals, groups,
institutions, or government bodies, Buchwald seems invective, but his ‘ability
to amuse’ lightens up the harshness of the comments. In the 20th century, the
possible misuses of science and technology have been a major point of worry
among historians, journalists, and sociologists. However, the most effective
warnings have come from imaginative writers. As a well-wisher of the
society, Buchwald is no exception. He is concerned about this issue also,
which is discussed in this study.
The fame of the essayist can be attributed to the universal appeal in
his columns. Poverty and hunger are global issues that Buchwald examines in
‘The Cost of Democracy’ and ‘Trigger Treat.’ Although the essayist outlines
19
incidents mostly from the American world, they are relevant to the rest of the
world.
Buchwald himself believes that his columns have an appeal that
energized the authorities and the public. That is why, in his essay ‘Satire
under Fire,’ he writes about a situation ‘that almost every town in America
had four or five organizations to fight communists -- but the towns didn't have
any communists’ where he satirically comments that ‘each one imported a
communist to come there and be the threat.’ Buchwald admits that ‘the
column caused a tremendous reaction, some negative, some positive,’ but felt
contented that he had made his point. V. Gangadhar (2007) states in ‘Laugh
with Art Buchwald’ that after Buchwald wrote ‘Jackie had no right to marry’ -
the debate that went on all ‘popular TV shows, media editorials, and public
discussion’ had triggered some thought for deliberation among the public.
In conclusion, Buchwald is a popular satirist who believes that
satire is his business. He aims at making the readers laugh, though he also
attacks them genially. He gained his global recognition as a great satirist. As a
moralist, he comments on various social and political issues affecting the
society. His essays are creative commentaries on contemporary universal
problems facing mankind. Above all, he is a great satirist with mass appeal to
all readers across the world.
1.8 BUCHWALD, DERRIDA, ART AND DECONSTRUCTION
Deconstruction is said to have had an enormous impact on Anglo-
American criticism. First, this part looks at some co-incidental similarities in
the lives of both Buchwald and Derrida. Then, it tries to bridge literature and
deconstruction, art and Art [Buchwald], and Art and deconstruction.
20
Several common features are seen in both Buchwald and Derrida.
Both of them belong to the same period and are Jewish by birth. Since his
childhood, Derrida experienced the evil of discrimination. He was not
permitted to pursue his studies in two schools because he was a Jew. It could
be argued that such experiences contributed much to his ideas upon the
importance of the marginalized. Similarly, Buchwald too underwent hardships
and struggles during his childhood, which enabled him to think about
humanity at large. Derrida’s acquaintance with French intellectuals and
academics at the age of 19 enabled him move from Algiers to France where
he began to play a major role in the leftist journal ‘Tel Quel.’ His initial work
in philosophy was largely phenomenological. Inspirations from the thoughts
of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Saussure, Levinas and Freud led him develop his
approach to texts known as 'deconstruction.' In 1967, Derrida gained
worldwide recognition as a philosopher. Likewise, the essayist moved to Paris
to start his career in journalism. In 1961, Buchwald began his major writings
(columns).
Where certain instances and co-incidences bring the essayist and
the theorist on equal grounds, what binds literature, which is an art form, and
deconstruction, which is a theory?
Culler (2006) defines literature as the “language in which the
various elements and components of the text are brought into a complex
relation”. In ordinary terms, language refers to “words, their pronunciations,”
and “a given system for communicating ideas or feelings via the use of signs,
sounds, gestures or marks” (Wolfreys et al. 2002). “Language is one with
meaning, that form belongs to the content of the work,” says Derrida (1978c).
On the other hand, ‘literary language’ is defined as ‘deviations’ or ‘distortions
of ordinary language’ where, figures of speech or tropes, which are deviations
21
from ‘ordinary or literary language, characterize literary texts (Bennett and
Nicholas 2004).
Theory is an interdisciplinary discourse with effects outside an
original discipline. It is analytical and speculative. It is a ‘critique of common
sense’ and is ‘reflexive, thinking about thinking, enquiry into the categories’
(Culler 2006). Hence, deconstructive theory is a form of textual practice.
Literature allows infinite reinterpretations as it conveys no message
but a system of signs (Blamires 2000) and deconstruction applied to literature
claims that “language is non-referential because it refers neither to things in
the world nor to our concepts of things but only to the play of signifiers of
which language itself consists” (Tyson 2006). Theory is “internal to the very
idea of structure, and yet not definable within the logic of the self-same by
which ideas, concepts and beliefs maintain their ‘truth’ or significations”
(Wolfreys et al. 2002). Where literature relies upon language, deconstruction
aims to “demonstrate the inherent instability of both language and meaning”
(Eliot and Owens 1998).
In analyzing literature, deconstructionists “look for and exploit
relations between form and meaning or theme and grammar” and attempt “to
understand the contribution each element makes to the effect of the whole”
(Culler 2006). They try to find the ‘integration, harmony, tension, or
dissonance’ in the text. They focus their “attention on the implicit knowledge
that readers (and writers) bring to their encounters with texts” to answer
questions like - “what sort of procedures do readers follow in responding to
works as they do?” and “what sort of assumptions must be in place to account
for their reactions and interpretations?” (Culler 2006).
A deconstructionist believes that ‘there is no conclusive meaning
attributable to a text.’ He ‘argues that language is an inadequate method of
22
imposing order on the world, and that writers cannot organize and express
their experience effectively or accurately using words’ (Miller 2001). He
challenges the capacity of language to pinpoint center (Castle 2007) and also
tries to demystify the truth hidden in the text.
Furthermore, deconstruction is a social event. Nothing beyond the
human sphere of existence can be deconstructed. Even if a writer’s
imaginative expression is interpreted, it is perceived within the knowledge of
humans and not beyond. For instance, God is presented in the way people (the
writer or reader belonging to a community) understand God to be – in the
form of a Spirit, as Christ, as Buddha, as one with a human body and the face
of a lion, as light, etc. Let it be evolution of humankind, civilization, politics,
technology, education, law, business, culture, religion, art, literature or any
other area. Each one of these platforms is created by humans, experienced by
them, and taken from the society where they live. None of the events excludes
humans or human-related functions. For example, the description of a
dinosaur is not only an effect of visualizing but also a society-related aspect.
Though the dinosaur might have lived when no human was born, it is still
human-related. The dinosaur had lived in the same earth where the human
race is living. Men and women trace the once-existed dinosaur. Archeologists
excavate the remains of dinosaurs (their bones, footprints, etc), and scientists
work out the behavior, attitude, and nature of the species. Hence, human
findings and imagination of the huge creatures give them shape and life,
centuries after they have become extinct.
Another illustration is the discovery of a new planet or star as seen
in most science fiction. An assumption of planet Mars evidently projects that
humans have studied it or is in the process of studying it. Similarly, if a writer
presents an unknown planet X in his narration, it is evident that he or she
somehow knows it. With his little or more findings or mere imagination, he
23
dictates probabilities or postulations about the planet X. When the concept of
planet X is recorded (in books and / or in the minds of the writer / reader), the
unknown planet X becomes known. Planet X with its assumed compositions
or features finds its existence. Hence, deconstruction that is applied to
literature and various fields like psychology, literary theory, cultural studies,
linguistics, science, technology, and sociology, involving the experiences of
the society, is a social phenomenon.
Satire aims to restructure and streamline the social problems of a
particular time and place in history. On the other hand, deconstruction is
famous for its skepticism about referentiality. The question, how can
deconstruction be applied to a satire when both seem to have contradictory
features, need to be answered. When Derrida says “there is nothing outside
the text,” it means that language with its various features comprise
“textuality,” which ‘governs all interpretative operations.’ For example, “there
is no history outside of language or textuality; history itself is a linguistic and
textual construct” (Habib, 2008). And satire is a linguistic description of some
feature of history. In other words, logocentrism is the system of thought that is
based on the constancy and authority of ‘logos’ - the divine word.
Deconstruction aims at unraveling the operations of “logocentrism” in any
“text.” However, the meaning of “text” is widened by the influence of various
political, social, and intellectual backgrounds. Consequently, a text can be a
satire, which focuses on some social or political dimension. Therefore, deconstruction can be applied to a satire.
Conflict between the internal mind and the external world, the ideal
virtues and the prevailing vices, the pressure and composure of human
balance of integrity towards survival, and the stress and relaxation of the
present age underlies Buchwald’s essays. Overall, his satire against the
existing corrupt socio-political environment gives his essays a social
experience that is well-realized and experienced by the reader.
24
There is a bond between Art [Buchwald] and the literary art. It is
imagination - the power and ability to produce ‘vivid images, usually visual
images’ (Richards 2001) which is essential to a writer to present his thoughts
in a way that it imparts ‘pleasure’ to the reader. Imagination is “the power of
mediation or synthesis between meaning and literality.” It ‘is the freedom that
reveals itself only in its works.’ It is ‘a powerful agent for creating, as it were,
a second nature out of the material supplied to it by actual nature.’ To Kant,
‘the imagination was already in itself an “art”’ (Derrida 1978c).
Imagination is the cornerstone of Buchwald’s essays that fortifies
the fictional realm in his writings. An even and spontaneous flow of
imagination perceived in his essays successfully places the plot and characters
in appropriate situations and dispositions to enable the reader enjoy the
laughter, reason the wit, and sense the satire.
The resource of the essayist lies in his capability to imagine things
in both simple and complex forms. At one point, Buchwald brings in complex
narration in the essay ‘The Fugue of War,’ wherein he discusses the movie
‘The Fog of War – Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara,’ by
making McNamara narrate his experience of the Vietnam War. It is complex
because the essayist brings a narration within a narration. Although the
narrative is complex, the imaginative development of the idea or plot, put
forth in simple language gives the reader a relaxed feeling. At the other end,
he brings in simple imagination like visualizing the odds of how Bush would
react and respond to a situation if he is dressed up as Santa Claus in ‘Santa
Bush Finds an Election in the Bag.’ ‘Inventiveness,’ that is “the bringing
together of elements which are not ordinarily connected” (Richards 2001), is
yet another outcome of imagination, which is also a major characteristic found
in Buchwald’s essays. This is what Derrida calls “creative imagination”
whereby one turns “oneself toward the invisible interior of poetic freedom,”
25
and which is the operation found in “the literary act” of both reading and writing (Derrida 1978c).
When deconstruction can be applied to any text, it is obvious
that it can be applied to the essays of Buchwald also. Buchwald uses satire as
an invective tool to project the abuses of the world. The interpretation of
satires gives numerous dimensions to varied readers. The level of
understanding of history and happenings around the world determine
interpretation of the satirical comments, resulting in multiple meanings..
Eventually, deconstruction helps in separating humor and wit in satire. It
unveils the wit of the writer and of course the situation, both of which effect
serious thinking. Further, as a satirist, Buchwald invents puns. A pun is a
word that may be a part of some other word, or a combination of two or more
words to give the sound that agrees with a particular word, but varies in sense
and meaning. Understanding is deferred due to various reasons like ignorance
of external facts, limited exposure to language, inability to see critically, and
restrictions in thinking on par with the writer. A deconstructive approach to
puns forces the analyst to magnify the avenues of examination through the
microscopic lens of questioning what, why, how, when, and why not? Thus,
the deconstructive techniques elucidate the satiric purpose of Buchwald’s
essays.
Deconstruction, used as a tool, analyses the figural features in
Buchwald’s satires to find the extent of argument it can provide with respect
to the literal facets of the text. . It enables in revealing remarkable facts hidden
in the text. The analyst tries to link the diverse elements within the text and at
times, also with elements outside the text. The deconstructionist attempts to
interlace tightly the freely knit structures of language and literature, reason
and expression, logic and style in Buchwald’s writings that reveal the power
and essence of deconstruction as an analytic tool.
26
Deconstruction deals with indeterminacies in various matters. Binary
opposites present a variance between terms in the pair. Dissemination
propagates the instability and non-totality of criterion. It supports the idea that
the social composition is conditional to the ever-changing socio-cultural and
political behaviours. In tune with the changes, information like the binary
opposites is prone to reinterpretation. For instance, the deconstructive
argument over the privilege accorded to man in the man and female
opposition is the expansion of the account of the feminism that had started a
few decades ago.
Consequently, application of deconstruction to satiric essays exposes
the fissures and shortfalls in not only language and structure, but also in
values prevailing in today’s society.
The following three chapters endeavor to identify concepts and
satirical expressions from some of his essays that display various
deconstructive strategies.
Therefore, some coincidental common features observed between
Derrida and Buchwald interestingly bridge them both. Although literature
emphasizes language and deconstruction rejects the conclusion of any final
meaning, language is the prime platform for both art and the theory. Literature
is centered around social and fictional events limited to human perception,
and deconstruction applied to literary texts is a social phenomenon.
Imagination is the basis of any literary work. Buchwald’s proficiency in
imagining plots, using figurative language, and in being inventive paves the
way for a deconstructive analysis of his essays.
27
1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
This dissertation consists of five chapters. The introductory chapter
presents the background and aim of the study. It deals with post-structuralism,
Jacques Derrida, deconstruction, role of a deconstructionist, chronological
development of essays, and an overview of Buchwald’s essays, the universal
appeal in his writings, and the common features seen in both Buchwald and
Derrida and the binding force between art / Art [Buchwald] and
deconstruction.
The second chapter examines two aspects of binary opposites in the
essays of Art Buchwald. One is binary opposite in the natural and cultural
order. Four pairs of binary opposites are discussed in this segment: light and
darkness from the natural order; religion and science, and humanity and
business from the cultural order; and male and female from both the orders,
considered natural by the naturalists, and claimed cultural by the feminists.
The second is the binary opposition of nature and culture itself with various
features of culture like economics, intellect, politics, law, and society.
The third chapter deconstructs Buchwald’s essays using the seven
indeterminacies put forward by Barbara Johnson. The sources of
indeterminacies are i) ambiguous words, ii) undecidable syntax, iii)
incompatibilities between what a text says and what it does, iv)
incompatibilities between the literal and the figurative, v) incompatibilities
between explicitly foregrounded assertions and illustrative examples or less
explicitly asserted supporting material, vi) obscurity, and vii) fictional self-
interpretation.
The fourth chapter projects Art Buchwald as a deconstructive
essayist who tends to defer meaning and interpretation in his essays.
Deconstructive concepts like center, totalization, non-totalization, the endless
28
process of signification in free-play, trace, differance, and supplement are
found useful to show the deferral in Buchwald’s satires.
The fifth chapter concludes that the various deconstructive
strategies used by Buchwald prove him to be a deconstructive essayist. It also
records the findings and observations of the study as well as the scope for
further research.