Disassociation and Identification: Remy de Gourmont’s influence on Kenneth Burke A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Alexander Joseph Hayden IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Arthur Walzer June 2011 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES Minneapolis, MN Copyright © 2011 by Alexander Joseph Hayden i Table of Contents Chapter One – Overview & Kenneth Burke’s First Encounters with Remy de Gourmont p. 1 Chapter Two – Remy de Gourmont: Life, Theory, and Works p. 10 Chapter Three – Perspective by Incongruity and Identification p. 28 Chapter Four – Rhetoric of Motives, Identification, and “The Disassociation of Ideas” p. 56 Works Cited p. 67 1 CHAPTER ONE: Overview & Kenneth Burke’s First Encounters with Remy de Gourmont Overview He was both artist and philosopher, both poet and critic. He has left poems, novels, literary criticism, dialogues, essays in psychology and anthropology, ethics and biology; he was a skeptic who dabbled happily in mysticism and theology; a poet with an almost excessive respect for logic. We cannot say that any one of these aspects of his complexity is more marked than the others. He was more a poet in his youth, more a philosopher in his maturity; but he wrote poems in the last year of his life and some of his earliest writing is critical. This plentitude and versatility of mind [are what] make him so interesting. ----Richard Aldington, Selected Critical Writings, 1928-1960 As any avid reader of Kenneth Burke is probably aware, the above quotation makes a markedly decent description of him. In his youth, he produced poetry mimicking the style of free verse practitioners as well as that of traditional verse (Selzer 69). In his maturity, his work adjusted its focus into more critical, theoretical contributions on human motivation and rhetoric for which he would have gladded accepted the accolade “philosopher.” Yet, his poetry starts to remerge during his later years (especially after the death of this second wife, Libbie) and elements of critical, theoretical evaluation are scattered throughout his early works. He was a critic starting with his work for The Dial and The Nation and only ending with his death at Andover in 2 1993. Furthermore, his work as artist is displayed not only in his poetry, but also in his short stories, his novel, and his performative commentary on the debated status of art. In short, Burke’s own versatility and complexity of subject and approach is what makes him a scholar of continued examination to date. His utilization of psychology can be seen in Thorstein Veblen’s concept of “trained incapacity” to augment his description of occupational psychosis and human orientation, not to mention his employment of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis across various texts. Studies in anthropology supplement his study of mysticism and magic as a counterpart/point to science. Components of biology appear in his action/motion distinction as well as his infamous Demonic Trinity. Theology receives a special focus of study in his Rhetoric of Religion, and ethics has been conceived as the underlying project of Burke’s entire Motivorum. In borrowing the term and idea from Debra Hawhee’s latest book, Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke at the Edges of Language, we might truly call Burke and his works more than interdisciplinary; they are transdisciplinary. However, what is most interesting about the featured quote from Richard Aldington is that, while it could be used as an accurate description of Burke, it actually describes the life of French Symbolist Remy de Gourmont. Now regularly forgotten, de Gourmont was a prominent, though perhaps not central, figure in criticism and continental discussions of art (taking part in discussions of Art for Art’s Sake, etc.). The reason I choose the above quote is to illustrate early on some of the parallels that de Gourmont shares with Burke not only in produced works but in textual development as well. Both start as poet/novelist/critic in youth, remain critic, and develop into critic/theorist. 3 Still, their biographical similarities and parallels are not the sole thing I wish to propose here. Instead, I hope to establish the prominence of Remy de Gourmont in Burke’s thought, analysis, and writing. Whilst Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche are already understood as pivotal building blocks for Burke, de Gourmont is sadly, and I believe mistakenly, not. This thesis hopes to remedy such a misunderstanding through assessing and acknowledging Burke’s utilization of de Gourmont throughout his works. Though Jack Selzer has shown that de Gourmont plays a principal role early in Burke’s career, later biographies and commentaries still overlook his contributions in Burke. In fact, most biographies and commentaries never critically link Burke to de Gourmont, and only two authors have done so extensively: Jack Selzer and Glenn Burne. In his 1963 book Remy de Gourmont: His Ideas and Influences in England and America, Glenn Burne traces the life, philosophy, literary criticism, and overall influence of Remy de Gourmont in England and America. While this thesis will delve into his biography of de Gourmont in chapter two, it is important to note now that Burne does a fastidious job of tracing de Gourmont’s influence within America. Most notably for scholars of rhetoric, Burne makes two important connections. First and foremost is that “Kenneth Burke studied [de Gourmont’s] writings on language and the ‘dissociation of ideas’” (Burne 7) and that Burke produces a positive understanding of de Gourmont’s concept of dissociation when he noted “the great emphasis which this method [of disassociation] places upon division really serves to sharpen our understanding of identification” (Burne 63, italics in original). Second is that Remy de Gourmont’s “Probleme du Style” provides the aesthetic basis for certain rhetorical scholars. In Burne’s own words, “an elaboration of [de Gourmont’s] ideas can be seen in the complex 4 theories of aestheticians like I. A. Richards and Suzanne Langer” (110). Most important to this project, however, is the first connection made regarding de Gourmont and Burke. Unfortunately, Burne does not expound upon how identification and disassociation are relayed through Burke. While citations are provided, the claim that Burne makes (while well-taken by this writer) is never explicitly founded. Given that Burne’s goal was to describe Remy de Gourmont’s reach into England and America, it is understandable that he would not delve deeper to prove this claim. As such, while previously and implicitly asserted by Burne, the claim that de Gourmont’s disassociation grounds Burke’s identification is still largely unproven. Selzer too concentrates on the influence of de Gourmont on Burke’s earliest work, to the neglect of the way de Gourmont’s ideas shaped concepts Burke worked on throughout his career. While Selzer does make connections between de Gourmont and Burke, the scope and nature of Selzer’s work prevent critical examination of those connections. Burke is linked to de Gourmont, but never through means of identification and disassociation. In Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village: Conversing with the Moderns 1915-1931, Selzer traces Burke’s letters, writings, and life to provide a more holistic understanding of Burke and his early works. Correspondences with Malcolm Cowley, fictional works like The White Oxen, and Burke’s years with The Dial are all taken into account. Remy de Gourmont also makes occasional appearances within Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village. Most notably is de Gourmont’s appearance in conjunction with Selzer’s chapter on Counter-Statement. Here, Selzer remarks in more depth on de Gourmont’s influence not only on Burke but on the other members of “this youngest 5 generation” who were also influenced by de Gourmont: Richard Aldington, T. S. Eliot, Malcolm Cowley, and Ezra Pound. As with many members of “this youngest generation,” Burke would appreciate de Gourmont for what he was: “a prototypical Symbolist and modern” (Selzer 141). Yet, for a man who called himself a Flaubert, it is interesting to note that, of the three men chosen as Burke’s “Three Adepts” in Counter- Statement (namely Pater, Flaubert, and de Gourmont), de Gourmont’s essay would take up half the entry (Selzer 141). Through this and other examples, Selzer helps demonstrate the strength of influence de Gourmont would have on early Burke. Unfortunately, Selzer says little about de Gourmont and the later Burke. In fact, Selzer’s joint work with Ann George, Kenneth Burke in the 1930s, only mentions Remy de Gourmont twice. The first is in conjunction with Burke’s project “Auscultation, Creation, and Revision” where one section has Burke defending critics and writers like Eliot, I. A. Richards, and de Gourmont (George and Selzer 78). The second alludes to a connection made between Burke’s perspective by incongruity and de Gourmont’s own work (George and Selzer 108-9). Never, though, is identification mentioned beside de Gourmont in either of Selzer’s works. Again, given the scope and nature of Selzer’s works, critical examination of such a connection was not to be expected, and I do not intend to criticize those works for not doing so. Instead, I merely want to point out a still missing element in our understanding of Burke and identification. As for other authors and works critically relating to either Burke and de Gourmont or just de Gourmont himself, little exists. In The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke, Ross Wolin connects Burke to de Gourmont through Burke’s first major critical essay, “Approaches to Remy de Gourmont.” And, while Wolin notes that the 6 essay is largely overlooked by today’s readers of Burke (20), his project does not delve into how this essay should matter to today’s readers of Burke.