Tradition is an attitude of life in the domains of intellect, creed, and practice
Literature is a vast expanse of observations, interpretations, illustrations, indications, explorations, permutations and combinations et al. Since the inception of the literary theory, writers have been applying themselves to the study and practice of literature from various angles with a view to determining its multi-dimensional functionality.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was perhaps the originator of this tradition when he composed his epoch-making treatise, Poetics, focusing on the ‘first principles’ of the theory of literature. In his system of metaphysics, ‘poetics’ and ‘rhetoric’ are classified under aesthetics. He took cognizance of the niceties of language, rhythm and melody which he viewed as the quintessence of poetic creativity. Homer (8 BC), Aeschylus (525-456 BC), Euripides (480-406 BC), and Sophocles (406-316 BC) may have been his inspirers, if not models, in the formulation of his literary dicta.
Tradition is thus an attitude of life in the domains of intellect, creed, and practice. Its notional significance lies in the socio-cultural precepts being cherished and pursued in a given community of men. It is dynamic, not static. The perpetuity of tradition is analogous to that of change. The dynamics of change incorporate a whole process of fruition, transposition, innovation, and adaptation catalyzed by the charisma of what T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) would fondly term ‘individual talent’.
Since literature is a global activity and its variegated themes converge on the exploration of the human psyche with language as a conveyer, its universality can hardly be gainsaid. The undulating course of its metamorphic evolution bears such momentous signifiers as Hellenic classicism, medieval conformism, Renaissance revivalism, neo-classical rationalism, romantic ‘revolutionism’, psycho-moral realism, impressionism, Marxist socialism, existentialism, and progressivism or modernism.
The ascending graph of the literary tradition would thus exemplify the transformation of literature into a contemporaneous socio-cultural reality tempered and refined by aesthetics. Thus the topical literary scenario is not an exception to the implication of this observation. Poets, fiction writers, and critics seem to attest the theme of literary tradition and contemporaneity in their critical pronouncements. Extracts that follow, will illustrate the paradigm.
Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi (On progressivism in Urdu)
“The progressive movement facilitated the contact of Urdu literature with the actualities of life and their artistic transference in its fold. Literary progressivism enabled the writer to renounce the confines of his self and exposed him to the beauty, as also immensity, of the universe. It also served to establish a rapport of sympathy
and mutual understanding between the individual and the nation. Without the progressive movement our literature would have been ‘mute’ and ‘senseless’”.
Dr. Wazir Agha (On structuralism)
“Structuralism had its heyday in the sixties when, fortified by the Saussurian (Saussusre:1857-1913) linguistics and Levi-Straussian (Levi-Strauss:1908-2009) odyssey into the domain of Myth, it gained popularity as a movement directed towards peeling off the parchment of the text to reveal its core called ‘poetics’. The structure it promoted was no longer the centre-oriented structure of the 19th century, rather it was a structure more akin to the ‘web-of-relations’ as propounded by Quantum Physics and advocated by the synchronic stance of Saussure. In the seventies of the 20th century however, there appeared a deviation from the orthodox structural stance. The phenomenological approach, the reader response criticism, deconstruction, New Historicism and feminist criticism — a whole scenario of critical approaches became pronounced.”
Dr. Muhammad Ali Siddiqui (On the function of a critic)
“We are living in a technological age. We have to appreciate the increasing emphasis on the paradigmatic approach to development. Science and technology cannot minimise the importance of literature and a critic should be able to give due allowance to the complexities of his times so that he or she could appreciate the ‘content’ and ‘creative process’ of a work of art. The tools of criticism will have to be compatible with the requirements of the age. Criticism should also strive for acquiring a scientific method — not the way the structuralists have shown it to be. Structuralism is now dead and gone in Europe and USA but it tried its best to trim the subjectivity of ‘meaning’ in studying a Text. Derrida’s (1930-2004) relativism of ‘meaning’ sought to cripple Marxism and Existentialism but the new wave of post-structuralism, fusing the self-same method, has turned the table on structuralism.”
Shaukat Wasti (On empiricism vs creativity)
“Empiricism signifies observation. Experience and experiment are the basis of all humanities (arts) and science. Man does not have the faculty to create out of sheer nothing. All our knowledge, objective as well as subjective, flows from the natural phenomena, discernible or otherwise, by the naked eye. We do not create, but only innovate, invest. The five senses assist in formulating and promoting, establishing different levels/standards according to one’s capability/capacity to utilise each one of them. The poet’s perception derives conclusion from common observations to establish the universal truth. Experiment may help, experience may still more, to bestow sublimity upon what we symbolically call ‘creativity’! Imagination is the first principle in this case.”
Shahzad Manzar (On symbolism vs communication)
“Communication is a relative term which has been undergoing contextual changes from time to time. The academic proficiency and mental level of the reader was directly related to the problem of communication. Presently there seems to be a yawning gap between the mental levels of the writer and the reader for reasons quite obvious. Deficient academic standards, lack of literacy and other sociological factors tend to determine the intellectual level of the readers. Symbolism is not new to Urdu literature, especially poetry. In short story, however, symbols at times tend to aggravate the problem of communication. This may perhaps be attributed to the fact that the aesthetic taste of our readers relates to the pure narrative and conventional short stories and fiction in general.”
The writer is a Faisalabad based former bureaucrat, poet, literary and cultural analyst, and an academic. He can be reached at: [email protected].
