20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein dealt extensively with the functions of language. Like Gertrude Stein, he questioned our conventional understandings of words and their meanings. One possibility of language that he grappled with is our subjective meanings of words. Coined Private Language, this theory rejects the possibility of a subjective or personal language. A private language is one where we produce meaning to words based on our own personal experiences or sensations, thus maintaining an exclusive knowledge of the word’s meanings. So if my first encounter with a chair was one that had milk spilled all over it, I may understand the word “chair” to mean “wet”, while everyone else understands “chair” in its conventional sense, as an object meant for sitting on. Yet Wittgenstein argues that meaning is only created through social and communal encounters. Every person cannot have their own private language, because meaning only comes into fruition from human interactions. How can I generate a private meaning to the word “chair”, then, if not for the presence of other language users?
The non-existence of a Private Language made me question Gertrude Stein’s Tender Buttons. In her description of objects, Stein presents her readers with the opportunity to re-experience words with a primary excitement, blurring their meanings among other words. While the repetition, funny sounds, and incoherencies are all vital elements in Stein’s achievement of a reintroduction to words, her descriptions are undeniably personal. We enter into the mind of Gertrude Stein; we learn of her subjective associations with words and their meanings. Let’s look at the following as an example:
A Petticoat
A light white, a disgrace, an ink spot, a rosy charm.
Besides for the difficulty in understanding this fragmented line, the task to make meaning of it becomes even more of a challenge because we cannot relate to it. Somehow, Stein associates “an ink spot” with a petticoat, and as such, it becomes an integral part to its meaning. Only she can know her subjective meaning to “A Petticoat”, and therefore disconnects her readers from her personal description.
While Wittgenstein’s theory of Private Language can be used as a critique of Stein’s Tender Buttons as seen above, perhaps instead it can buttress the poet’s mission in unsettling her reader’s conventional perceptions of language and its functions. Instead of engaging the readers in identifying with her own meanings of words, she shuts them out, frustrating them with complex prose. Whereas they may have hoped to understand the descriptions and their meanings, the dense style and confusing form acts as a blockade to meaning. Readers instead are forced to take note of the aesthetic of the text, a literary element that Gertrude Stein certainly favors.
Great post! Your discussion about Wittgenstein and private language really clarified and explained the issues many of us seem to be having with Stein's writing.
ReplyDeleteI bet that Stein and Wittgenstein would not get along very well.. Her writing seems to defy Wittgenstein's theory about the non-existence of a Private Language. If you were to accept his theory, you'd have to reject Tender Buttons altogether, as her descriptions in each button do not relate to the titles according to our social/cultural understanding of words. Your post really makes me think about the philosophical nature of language and where Stein fits into that.
ReplyDeleteI love the sophistication of this post, but I do wonder if Wittgenstein isn't critiquing a different world of language altogether than Stein. Isn't he assuming some kind of rhetorical or at least descriptive intention on the part of the author (a reasonable assumption given how the vast majority use words)?
ReplyDeleteIs it really, as I take you to suggest, that Stein's meaning in more "private" and subjective than most writers? Or is her use of language actually so public and objective--lacking in subjective rhetorical intent altogether--that we are confused not by her delivery but by her lack of intended "content" altogether?
Really great post! For me, Private Language at the very least made me more comfortable with my struggle through Stein's writing. Also, you can not deny that while Stein's association with a petticoat includes an ink stain and this makes perfect sense to her, the reader is left only to come up with his or her own theories of why that is. There is nothing universally obvious about her writing, in fact, there is nothing even perfectly clear about "Tender Buttons." That must be considered somewhat private then. If not her writing, at least her meaning because the words themselves may be understood, but not, like Professor Miller said, their content.
ReplyDelete