Richards and Weaver: The Ambiguously Concrete Duo

-->

By Aimee, Bruce, Janelle, and Jeff

Richards and Weaver both focus on textual deconstruction as a way of determining meaning and understanding the function of a text. However, they differ in the ways in which they approach this deconstruction. Weaver is like Richards in the sense that both believe language is not neutral. Weaver finds it impossible to believe that language is neutral and explains, “Language is a system of imputation, by which values and precepts are first framed in the mind and are then imputed on things” (1359). This resonates with Richards’s symbol/referent triangle, which makes the claim that symbol and referent are not directly connected. Words mean nothing by themselves, according to Richards, and "it is only when a thinker makes use of them that they stand for anything, or, in one sense, have 'meaning'" (1274). Richards seems more interested in meaning on a micro-level, focusing on words in the context of writing, poetry mainly. He wants to know how meaning is determined by a reader and how words signify. Whereas Weaver seems to be interested in looking at language on a macro scale; he is concerned less with what words mean and more concerned with what texts do. As Richards focuses heavily on the audience’s means of interpretation, Weaver keeps agency in the speaker’s realm. Weaver says that rhetoric is “the persuading of human beings to adopt the right attitudes and act in response to them” (1351). The rhetorician must be aware of the needs of his audience and craft his rhetoric in the best way to lead the audience towards an understanding of what is ethical.

Additionally, Weaver is concerned with attempts that have been made to purify language (give it a standard of objectivity) and equate language with science. Weaver explains how “It came to be believed increasingly that to think validly was to think scientifically, and that subject matters made no difference” (1352). Since scientific investigation is a method of logic, relating language to science situates man as a “logic machine” and “austerely unemotional thinker” (1352). Instead, Weaver says that man cannot be abstracted from his time or place, and these contexts greatly affect a man’s language. Weaver finds it impossible to believe that language is neutral and explains, “Language is a system of imputation, by which values and precepts are first framed in the mind and are then imputed on things” (1359). Weaver seems to be judgmental of Richards’ approach. He considers the study of literature “pedestrian”, dislikes the scientific turn in English studies, and argues for a recuperation of rhetoric as a focus on college campuses.

In spite of his desire to undue the scientific turn, Weaver believes that “there are degrees of objectivity” but that even that which appears purely objective “can be seen as enclosed in a rhetorical intention” (1359).  This can, in our estimation, be seen as deconstructing his own argument.  While we all agree with his claim of “degrees of objectivity,” we feel that he makes claims to an objective Truth yet attempts to hide this “rhetorical intention” in the guise of the realm of “’intellectual love of the Good’” (1371).  A vocal member of the Southern Agrarians, his values reflect a distaste for industrialization and demonstrate a desire to return to Pre-Civil War South with no regard to the material realities of slavery or the injustice (our own subjective observation) of that time. 

Richards appears to be more tethered to the ambiguity of language—his rhetoric is less imbued with notions of morality or an “ideal good.”  We are more prone to agree with Richards in this regard; however, Richards appears to believe that context is relatively stable in the form of written text whereas Weaver views all uses of language—spoken and written—as being rhetorical.  This belief in the context of written work being more stable appears to contradict Richards’ notion of the ambiguity of language. These authors’ differing views on the inherent ambiguity of language can be observed in their differing opinions on the essence of definitions. Weaver says that argument from definition is the most ethical form because it reflects a belief in the existence of the ideal order of beings. However, Richards says making meaning from definition presents an “opportunity for a grand misunderstanding” and calls the “comparison between the meanings of words” a problem (1286).  Weaver seems to attack this dilemma by introducing three levels of knowledge—awareness of brute facts, generalizations and theories (under which Richards’ close readings might fall), and Universals and first principles, which move toward a more transcendent knowledge. Richards would probably disagree with Weaver’s alignment with Platonic idealism, rejecting the notion of an abstract perfect essence.