Proto-Bakhtinian and Pro-Bakunin Against Monologic Authority —
If you want your writing to thrive you need to know about these guys.
If you were a painter today and you could go back and learn from Michaelangelo or Da Vinci or Monet or even Picasso or Pollok, or better yet even, study under the people who inspired them to become who they became, you’d be a fool not to do so.
For a writer, we can read Shakespeare or Milton, or even more recent masters like Oscar Wilde or Charles Bukowski, but who taught them? What thinkers, influencers, came before them that mattered most in their development? And more importantly, who should you know about who might matter most to you?
Why are you writing what you write? What difference do you hope your writings might make? Does your writing answer the most important thematic question of all, why does what you write deserve to be read if at all, today and tomorrow and perhaps forever? What you are saying doesn’t matter as much as why you are saying it.
The term “proto-Bakhtinian” refers to the ideas or works that anticipate or influence the philosophy of Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian thinker who developed a theory of language, culture, and literature. Bakhtin is known for his concepts of dialogism, heteroglossia, chronotope, carnivalesque, and polyphony.* He wrote about various genres and authors, such as the novel, Dostoyevsky, Rabelais, and Goethe.
Some examples of proto-Bakhtinian thinkers or texts are:
Socrates, who used dialogue as a method of philosophical inquiry and challenged the monologic authority of the sophists.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who created novels that featured multiple voices, perspectives, and ideologies, and explored the ethical and existential implications of human freedom and responsibility.
François Rabelais, who wrote a series of novels that depicted the carnival culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and celebrated the grotesque, the bodily, and the popular.
Bakhtin’s theory about art and its role in human revolution is especially powerful today, as the American empire continues its slow creep and slide into authoritarianism. If you don’t know who Bakhtin is, he was a Russian philosopher and literary critic who lived in the 20th century. He had some very original and influential ideas about language, culture, and literature.
One of his main concepts is the dialogic nature of art. He argued that art is not a monologue, but a dialogue between the artist and the audience, between different genres and styles, between different historical and social contexts. Art is always open to interpretation, challenge, and transformation. It is never fixed or final.
Mikhail Bakhtin also believed that art has a revolutionary potential. He said that art can create new forms of consciousness, new ways of seeing and understanding the world. Art can expose the contradictions and conflicts of society, and inspire people to change it for the better. Art can also celebrate the diversity and creativity of human life, and foster a sense of solidarity and community.
I think Bakhtin’s theory is very relevant and inspiring for our times. We live in a world that is constantly changing, full of challenges and opportunities. We need art that can reflect this complexity, that can engage us in dialogue, that can empower us to act. We need art that can make us think, feel, and imagine.
Not to be confused with Bakhtin is Mikhail Bakunin, a political philosopher and founding creator of anarchism as both a political and social movement.
Bakunin’s theory about art and its role in human revolution is separate but overlapping with Bakhtin’s.
If you don’t know who Bakunin was, he was a badass Russian anarchist who wanted to overthrow capitalism and the state by any means necessary. He was also a critic of Marx and his idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, which he thought would just create a new form of oppression.
So, what did Bakunin think about art? He was not a big fan of the mainstream art of his time, which he saw as a tool of the ruling class to manipulate the masses and keep them in ignorance. He wrote: “The art of the ruling classes has always been and will always be the art of lying, of deceiving the people and keeping them in perpetual infancy.”
He also thought that art should not be separated from life, but rather be an expression of the people’s struggle for freedom and justice. He wrote: “Art is not a pastime, it is not a distraction or an amusement; it is a serious business, a great affair, indeed the most important of all affairs. Art is the expression of life itself.”
He believed that art had a revolutionary potential, as it could awaken the people’s instincts for rebellion and socialism. He wrote: “Art is the most powerful means of destroying all lies and hypocrisy, both within us and around us. Art is the awakening of our human dignity; it is the resurrection of all that is noble, beautiful, and generous in man; it is the revelation of his true nature.”
He also thought that art should be accessible to everyone, not just a privileged elite. He wrote: “Art belongs to the people; it is their highest delight and their most powerful weapon. Art must be made popular; it must become part of the daily life of every worker and peasant.”
He envisioned a future society where art would flourish in harmony with nature and humanity, where everyone would be an artist and a creator. He wrote: “In a free society, art will be everywhere, because everyone will have something to say or to sing or to paint or to sculpt. Art will not be confined to special places or special occasions; it will be the spontaneous expression of our joy and our love.”
Bakunin’s theory about art and its role in human revolution is elementary and revolutionary.
A horrifying concept relevant to our current media landscape is monologic authority. Monologic authority is basically the idea that some texts or speakers have the power to impose their views on others, without allowing for any dialogue or feedback. Think of a lecture, a sermon, a manifesto, or a propaganda piece. These are examples of monologic texts, where the author or speaker has the final word and expects the audience to accept it without question.
Why is this important? Well, because monologic authority can be used to manipulate, persuade, or indoctrinate people. It can also create a sense of distance and alienation between the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader. Monologic authority can prevent us from engaging critically with the information we receive, and from expressing our own opinions and perspectives.
How can we resist monologic authority? One way is to seek out dialogic texts or speakers, where there is room for interaction, exchange, and collaboration. Think of a conversation, a debate, a workshop, or a blog post. These are examples of dialogic texts, where the author or speaker invites the audience to participate, respond, and co-create meaning.
Another way is to challenge monologic authority when we encounter it, by asking questions, offering feedback, or expressing disagreement. We can also create our own dialogic texts or spaces, where we can share our views and listen to others. By doing so, we can foster a culture of dialogue and democracy, where everyone has a voice and a chance to learn from each other.
Bakunin and Bakhtinian are two thinkers who have very different perspectives on the role of authority in society. Bakunin was a revolutionary anarchist who advocated for the abolition of all forms of state and hierarchical power. Bakhtinian was a literary theorist who developed the concept of dialogism, which is the idea that meaning is created through the interaction of multiple voices and perspectives.
However, despite their differences, they share a common critique of monologic authority, which is the authority that imposes a single, dominant and final word on others. Monologic authority can take many forms, such as political dictatorship, religious dogmatism, ideological indoctrination or artistic censorship. Both Bakunin and Bakhtin argue that monologic authority is a bad thing because it stifles the diversity, creativity and freedom of human expression.
For Bakunin, monologic authority is the enemy of social justice and human emancipation. He believes that people should be free to organize themselves in voluntary associations based on mutual aid and solidarity, without any external coercion or domination. He rejects any form of government or law that claims to represent the general will or the common good, because he thinks that these are just excuses for the oppression of the masses by the elites. He writes: “The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatsoever, divine or human, collective or individual.”
Every utterance is a response to previous utterances and anticipates future ones, creating a dialogic chain of meaning.
For Bakhtin monologic authority is the enemy of cultural richness and artistic innovation. He believes that language and literature are not static or fixed, but dynamic and evolving. He argues that every utterance is a response to previous utterances and anticipates future ones, creating a dialogic chain of meaning. He rejects any form of language or literature that claims to be authoritative or definitive, because he thinks that these are just attempts to silence other voices and perspectives. He writes: “Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction.”
Creativity is a powerful force that can shape our lives and help us achieve our goals. But how do we develop our creative potential? Where does it come from? And what are the factors that influence it?
One of the most important steps to becoming more creative is to recognize the sources of our inspiration and motivation. These are the people, places, experiences, and ideas that spark our imagination and fuel our passion. They are the influences that shape our worldview, values, and identity.
By acknowledging and appreciating these influences, we can learn more about ourselves and our creative process. We can also discover new ways to connect with them, draw from them, and expand on them. We can use them as a foundation for our own original and authentic expression.
Knowing the granddaddies of our ideas and processes, of our values and those beliefs we hold to have real value for today and tomorrow and maybe forever, we need to search our intentions and thematic meanings, and find those who led us to realize who and what and why we are.
I’m going to explain some words that are often used in the study of narrative and discourse: dialogism, heteroglossia, chronotope, carnivalesque, and polyphony.
Dialogism is the idea that every utterance or text is in dialogue with other utterances or texts, either explicitly or implicitly. It means that language is not a neutral or fixed system, but a dynamic and interactive one, where meanings are constantly negotiated and contested. Dialogism is closely associated with the Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, who developed this concept in his analysis of novels, especially those by Dostoyevsky.
Heteroglossia is a term coined by Bakhtin to describe the diversity and multiplicity of voices, languages, styles, and perspectives that coexist in a text or a discourse. Heteroglossia reflects the social and historical context of the text, as well as the author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation. Heteroglossia can create various effects, such as irony, parody, satire, humor, or ambiguity.
Chronotope is another term introduced by Bakhtin to describe the way time and space are represented and interrelated in a text. Chronotope literally means “time-space”, and it refers to the specific configuration of temporal and spatial elements that shape the narrative world and the characters’ actions and identities. For example, a chronotope can be a historical epoch, a geographical location, a social milieu, a genre convention, or a symbolic motif.
Carnivalesque is a concept that Bakhtin derived from his study of the medieval carnival, a popular festival that inverted the social order and norms through humor, mockery, profanity, and grotesque imagery. Carnivalesque is a mode of expression that challenges the dominant or official discourse by celebrating the diversity, creativity, and vitality of the lower classes, the body, and the folk culture. Carnivalesque can be found in various literary genres and forms, such as satire, comedy, parody, picaresque, or magical realism.
Polyphony is a term that Bakhtin used to describe a type of novel that features multiple voices, perspectives, and consciousnesses that are not subordinated to a single authorial voice or worldview. Polyphony allows for the coexistence of different and sometimes contradictory truths, values, and ideologies in a text. Polyphony is opposed to monophony, which is a type of novel that presents a single and unified vision of reality. Bakhtin considered Dostoyevsky’s novels as examples of polyphony.
 | A guest post by
|