Response 1 (Draft 1): Skepticism and Criticism

If we put a discussion about the term ‘skepticism’—the state of being ‘skeptical’, a ‘skeptic’—many people will only correlate it towards the idea of not being able to choose between several options, questioning too much about certain things, etc. Even though, some of which are acceptable, the term skepticism or being skeptical does not always imply that that particular person is not able to recognize the validity of certain proposition; it is the other way around. 

“The Greek word skepsis means enquiry or investigation. But a sceptic is not merely who investigates...Sceptical investigation is distinctively shaped by the possibility of deception and error” (Thorsrud, 2009: 1).

Tracing back to its roots, generally speaking, the word skeptic—or sceptic in its archaic form—is a state of having enquiries about certain issues or a will to investigate something even deeper than before. This condition implies that the seemingly indecisive behavior of a skeptic is not merely caused by the reason that he/ she was not willing to agree on a particular opinion—even though the term ‘to agree’ seems too strong for me as it enclose the possibility of further argumentation—but by the existence of unresolved explanation, resulting further questioning and enquiries, thus preventing themselves to fully accept or agree on one opinion. By being in doubt of their own thoughts, does not simply imply that they’re not doing anything about it as their own enquiries are the results of their ‘skepticality’—being skeptical.

However, in talking about criticism in studies of literature, relating to the idea of skepticism, there are several things that we could argue about as both seems to be related in a way.

“Every meaningful action—wearing a necktie, embracing a friend, cooking a meal—is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code” (Scholes, 1986: 1)

The matter of the ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’, as the pinnacle of analytical approach in language, cannot be ignored as Scholes pointed out that the meaning is a sign in form of interpretive codes, so as the meaning in language. Varied by political, cultural, geographical, and any other aspects related to our own existence, the possibility of deciphering those codes differently is obviously vivid. Hence, the ongoing lists of discourses, especially the one relating to literature—even though Scholes himself is aware that there are still questions about the literariness of a text—have been produced since the days when Plato and Horace talked about “poetry” and “poetic fiction” to even the very second when I typed additional letters and words into this writings. However, the existence of countless variation that the discourse about literary studies is problematic in a way that it vaporizes the border between one topic to another as some may thought that the topic about imperialism and capitalism is the same thing due to the lack of awareness and the lack of further investigation about the matter resulting in the act of accepting one’s argument about something carelessly. 

This is when being skeptical comes to be advantageous as it will uncover our repressed enquiries, questions, doubts, and uncertainty, with which we can dig deeper into a discourse, decreasing the odds for us to be misguided by the myth, general idea, and so on about any matter related to our own interests. Hence criticism in literary studies is one of the way for us to exploit the skeptical desire, or the state of being in doubt, that we have to ourselves regarding these situations in the realm of literary studies. Yet, as a product of skepticality, there is a possibility for us to be skeptical even against the criticism in literary studies itself. It is indeed ironic yet the continuity of skepticality is inevitable as to be curious is one of human’s characteristic—one that differs one from another is the willingness to elaborate his or her curiosity.

“Literary theory can be said to come into being when the approach to literary texts is no longer based on non-linguistic, that is to say historical and aesthetic, considerations or, to put it somewhat less crudely, when the object of discussion is no longer the meaning or the value but the modalities of production and of reception of meaning and of value prior to their establishment—the implication being that this establishment is problematic enough to require an autonomous discipline of critical investigation to consider its possibility and its status” (De Man, 1986: 7).

As people start to be skeptical in terms of determining the importance of studies in literature, De Man stated that there is a possibility to emphasize our analytical or even critical approaches towards the progress in constructing ‘literature’ and outcome of meaning that comes from the literature itself. Even though this statement can be used as a justification about such matter, the continuity of study in literature, yet it is also problematic in using this idea to justify the further analysis towards studies in literature. The term ‘justification’ itself is problematic as it encloses the idea of another possibility in terms of reasons on continuing the study in literature, preventing us to be what we are with our inevitable desire of curiosity. The language itself is arbitrary, thus how can we easily use De Man’s statement to become a justification that ought to last in the future. It is viable if we say that De Man’s statement can be used as a foundation for us in the present time to enrich the study in literature, not until, as a result from cultural, political, and economical—or any influential aspect of society—the emergence of new reasons in keeping the dedicated study in literature. Even though, the cycle of skepticality may reoccur when that new reasons do come out.

Coming back to the idea that curiosity is one of human’s behavior, and the cycle of skepticality that will always accompany our way of thinking—as long as we are able to exploit it properly, as long as we are aware that we can use our own doubt to enrich our own knowledge—it seems to be valid if I do say that the sense of skepticality, of being skeptical is the reason, or perhaps one of the necessary things for us to keep on criticizing, to improve our range of knowledge on studies in literature. As long as there is a possibility for us to want to know something more, to be curious, there won’t be any significant hurdles for us to keep being skeptical, to keep being critical—unless somehow we’re able to grasp all kinds of knowledge and be given the ‘truth’ about all thing, which is seemingly impossible as the concept of truth itself is doubtful and arbitrary. 

                                                                                                                                           

Work Cited

De Man, Paul. 1986. “The Resistance to Theory” in Theory and History of Literature, Volume 33. Minneapolis, United States: University of Minnesota Press.

Scholes, Robert. 1986. “The English Apparatus” in Textual Power. Yale, United States: Yale University Press.                                                                                                                                           

Thorsrud, Harald. 2009. Ancient Scepticism. Stocksflied, England: Acumen.