A “terministic screen” from what can be gleaned from Kenneth Burke’s work Terministic Screens could be considered as a lens in which one views the world. It is their filter of perception that guides them in creating or interpreting meaning. Terministic screens can inhibit and/or expand one’s world view, I contest that achieving transcendence is capable through the acknowledgement of the ways in which ones terministic screen can be limiting or expanding. This can be evidenced in action through the Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s introduction to Writing “Race” and the Difference It Makes.
The Gates piece illustrates how race needs to be considered as a critical lens for viewing literature, one may consider race to be terministic screen through which text can be seen. Race had been previously ignored as a legitimate form of criticism because there was a “shared assumption among intellectuals that race was a “thing”, an ineffaceable quantity, which irresistibly determined the shape and contour of though and feeling” (Gates 3). It wasn’t believed to be a tangible concept that functions implicitly or deliberately. Western intellects were inhibiting their terministic screen because they refused to look further into how race functioned in text and society. They literally only saw “black and white” allowing their narrow perception to cloud reality. This is demonstrated in the example of Pope John Paul II meeting Aveto a “‘supreme priest’ of traditional African religion in Togo. (Gates 5-6) Aveto showed how his people have incorporated Western religion into their own beliefs but the Pope found this to be unacceptable because of his unrelenting world view that Africans are of the “mystic” and “lost” in a sort of confusion, denying Africans their interpretation of Christianity as opposed to the numerous white cultures who have adopted and remediated the religion to fit their needs or desires.
Gates demonstrates how problematic it is when ones terministic screen is inhibited as has been delineated above, race has become a trope of difference he says that has become a term used to mark any difference between peoples arbitrarily. Thousands have been killed because of these arbitrary differences that hold no stock because they’ve been socially constructed. Another way in which terministic screen has been inhibited as evidenced in the Gates piece is the accounts of Whites commodifying black writing and their own ignorance of race. Notable African-American poet Phillis Wheatley was subject to scrutiny because whites couldn’t fathom her work was of her own invention (Gates 7-8). This ignorance of Black intellect is entrenched in the early European philosophy of “…[conflating] color with intelligence” as evidenced by philosophers such as Kant who suggested that blackness is inherently equated with stupidity. (Gates 11) It's unfortunate and scary to realize that such vitriol is rooted in Black stereotypes that are still present to this day. Makes one think, how much of our terministic screens are defined by others? How steep is that influence? Kants views echoes the sentiment of the time and reflects how dangerous thinking is so pervasive and influential because it supposedly stems from someone who is reliable as an intellect.
Gates quotes Anthony Appiah in that we must not ask “the reader to understand Africa by embedding it in European culture” (Gates 15). This can translate to that one must change or alter their terministic screen in order to understand a culture because viewing it through the eyes of an outsider does not lend to full comprehension. This is why it’s important to be aware of our gaze and modes of interpretation when we happen upon stimuli beyond our worldview. One achieves transcendence when one is capable of rising above their terministic screen in such a self-reflexive way that promotes consciousness. If race is a terministic screen one must try to capable to understand that it is a multi-faceted issue that is deeply embedded within our society in visible and invisible ways. Being conscious or aware of this allows for a form of critical thinking beyond dialectic because it attempts to engage holistically. Perhaps this is the third point of view, like an omniscient presence one must be cognizant of everything. Realistically, that’s impossible but it is the attempt and intent that is important.
Altering our terministic screen shouldn’t mean mass-assimilation or conformity to what is the perceived dominating mode of thought. I believe this idea is at work when Gates discusses voice and self-representation of Black authors, “when we attempt to appropriate, by inversion, “race”…we yield too much…” (Gates 13). There shouldn’t be a sacrifice and loss of self in the self-reflexivity of one’s work, also at risk is generalization and erasure. He says blacks must “turn to the black tradition itself to develop theories of criticism indigenous to our literatures” which echoes the notion that terministic screens or lenses need to be particularly tailored when viewing, reading, etc. certain subjects, once again awareness is essential. This seems to be the key for understanding our terministic screens, self-reflexivity and openness.
I like what you had to say about the problems that society faces when clashing terministic screens come into contact. In doing so, however, I felt during your blog post that you essentially feel that terminisctic screens are pre-exsisting culture lenses. I would agree with you that these screens do exist in the public sphere. We often use these to view cultural or social identities. However, I would have to argue that these screens are more easily constructed than your blog post would suggest them to be.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the example you provide of Pope John Paul II, the explanation you provide is this issue in and of itself is a terministic screen. Your recount of the situation sides with the African Priest. In doing so, you are naturally forced to advocate for his side of the argument. In doing so, your recount frames the argument in a way that subjects the ideals of Pope John Paul II as infringing on the African faith. Another account might highlight or portray the Pope as advocating for the Catholic faith against what is being falsely represented by the African faith. In recounting the story, you naturally have to use one of these screens.
The point I'm trying to make in rehashing your example is that terministic screens are easily swapped and changed depending on which of the narratives we decide to recount. I loved what you had to say about the altering of terminstic screens. I think this leads to a self awareness and reflexivity. Good post!
Jessica -
ReplyDeleteWhen writing my blog post, I was unsure about how Burke’s “Terministic Screens” could relate to Gates Jr.’s “Writing Race and the Difference It Makes”, because I wasn’t confident in my understanding of “Terministic Screens” further than what they generally were. I could comprehend that it was a “lens” in which someone views the world, which is what you alluded to, but is a lens just something that shapes the way we look at things, much like different strengths of prescriptive or reading glasses change the way you can view an object?
You also said, “achieving transcendence is capable through the acknowledgement of the ways in which ones terministic screen can be limiting or expanding”. Transcendent can mean “being beyond comprehension” or “exceeding usual limits”, so I guess what you’re saying is that to achieve this comprehension beyond the usual limits, you must recognize that seeing something through one filter or lens just isn’t going to cut it – it’s limiting – and you must choose to look at text through differing lenses, or terministic screens. In the example that I used in my blog post, episode 14 of season 4 in the hit TV show, Scandal, Olivia Pope, the main character, and the others who were trying to figure out the murder case, had to look past the issue of the young man’s race, look through a different lens of a terministic screen, to come to a conclusion about why he was murdered and if it was done in defense of the officer and done justly. Unfortunately, when race becomes integrated with language, which it inevitably does, derogatory stereotypes become infused in the language and often, it is something difficult to overlook.
You made a fantastic point though when you said, “altering our terministic screen shouldn’t mean mass-assimilation or conformity to what is the perceived dominating mode of thought…terministic screens or lenses need to be particularly tailored when viewing, reading, etc. certain subjects, once again awareness is essential”. If we were to just mass-assimilate, it would be the exact same thing as having only one screen to look through, which defeats the entire purpose of Burke’s effort in writing “Terministic Screens”, diversity.
While Morgan couldn't quite grasp the ties between race and screens right away, I saw it almost immediately. I think that even though we might not want to admit it, we are human and we use our screens to assume things about others based off of previous information about them such as their race. I think that you might be right that we are capable of transcendence simply because race can be much more that what we take it as from its scientific definition. Looking past the screens and tackling the idea of race is something our country deals with every day because of the actions that come from the dramatic idea of race. I think we might have different ideas on altering our screens. While I agree that we shouldn't conform to any modes of thought, I do think society as a whole needs to work on looking past their screens especially race when interacting with others.
ReplyDelete