Hi everyone. Firstly to all the non-Brits who thought last week’s weather was surprisingly nice: welcome to the English autumn.
A couple of points. Firstly I was considering the relation of a word to the concept it represents and the extent to which we need to think about the word ‘catastrophe’. I thought this consideration is perhaps necessary so that catastrophe doesn’t simply become whatever our committee wants it to be. (Would that be a problem? I don’t know). Is it useful for us to anchor our consideration of 'catastrophe' in language? Would this be restrictive / prescriptive or an interesting way of generating new perspectives on the concept?
The Greek root of ‘catastrophe’ (from the OED) contains many of the elements we discussed last week but, it seems to me, without the violent or negative connotations:
[a. Gr. overturning, sudden turn, conclusion, f. to overturn, etc., f. down + to turn.]
The fuller OED definition of ‘catastrophe’, part of which is at the top of the Catastrophe course webpage, emphasises more the ideas of Finality, Negativity, Suddenness, Revolution, Violence. Perhaps the usage of the word has gained this more negative slant over time - is this something we should consider? I thought particularly interesting is the co-existence of ‘finality’ and ‘revolution’, which to some extent seem to me to be in opposition. A ‘Blanchotian’ paradox perhaps.
I also turned the definition into a ‘wordle’ - a very nice (if useless) tool that can be found here. I did edit the text to get rid of a huge skew toward the word ‘catastrophe’ and terms such as I, II, III, etc.
Secondly, I’m wary of sounding unsophisticated here but wanted to propose the idea that [cliché alert] media sensationalism and “round-the-clock coverage” of events desensitise both the public and the media themselves to the possibility of catastrophe. We are told that everything is newsworthy (if not catastrophic): does this lead to a situation where nothing is? I suppose this theory hinges on the question of whether catastrophe as an occurrence in the world is relative or necessarily absolute. Anyway, something to think about I hope. Feel free to criticise - everybody seems to be too polite to comment on anybody else on the blog so far!
Finally, for your enjoyment...
Barney
3 comments:
I'll comment! I think that we live in a time where editorial decisions play a huge role in the fates of billions of people (I don't think this is an exaggeration: think of the coverage of the HIV/AIDS crisis or environmental disaster in relation to the (growing) number of people currently affected).
Alfredo Jaar is doing some powerful work in this area (www.alfredojaar.net) (see the ''Newsweek project'' in 'recent projects' in relation to the Rwandan genocide).
The decision to be a newspaper-reader or not is a political one. I used to translate news in real time. Now I only go on the Guardian site to make sure that the headlines haven't put a date on the apocalypse yet. I wouldn't want it to clash with my pilates class.
Hey Barney,
I think that Heidegger uses the word strife to signify an opening up collision between opposites, but that is already translated from the German, so I would be interested to see if it is the same root as catastrophe. Heidegger's project is aimed at recovering the Greek etymological meaning of words and to undo negative trajectories. I do think that there is a usefulness to this line of thinking, though I also think that taking Greek or even ancient meanings as some absolute becomes its own enslavement at some point.
Also, I wanted to briefly note, and this is more general that what has been called paradoxical or contradictory in Blanchot, I think is most aptly called dialectical, which creates new meanings in opposition... of course the distinctions are rather small...
Thanks Helen. I agree, and I think the Newsweek project says it very eloquently. I suppose what I was trying to ask specifically is whether we can measure catastrophe. I.e., when a 'catastrophe' comes along, will we be able to recognise it? And does 'sensationalism' change that by the amount of so-called catastrophe we are exposed to?
Hi JR (Jake?). Interesting about Heidegger - I'll certainly look at that. Does anyone have enough Classics to help us work out the Greek roots of these words? I absolutely agree regarding not treating the root of a word as a 'truth', but thought it was interesting to note how the usage had changed.
Blanchot as dialectical I will have to think about more...
Post a Comment