What is Spiritual Autobiography? How might we define the genre and is it actually a genre as such?
We might surmise that spiritual autobiography consists of writing about the self--or multiple selves--in confrontation with some notion of transcendence or growth. But how can such a notion be explained and do these two terms complement or exist in conflict with one another? One useful approach in investigating the genre might be to split our two terms here. After all, what makes us so sure that the two should go together?
Let's begin by discussing the term, "autobiography," which is ostensibly the least problematic of the two. "Autobiography," comes from the Greek--αὐτός-autos self + βίος-bios life + γράφειν-graphein "to write." Autobiography is a genre in which the author is also the primary subject of his own work, and that work is purportedly true. Autobiographies can take a reader chronologically through an author's entire life, or be bound to a short time frame within a broader life. Thus, an autobiography can be written by a 40-year-old man and only concern his teenage years, or it might be written by the same man who interpolates those years into the larger narrative of his life story.
Let's take our 40-year-old man and examine his narrative more closely here. One salient problem that immediately arises is the veracity of his accounts. Even if the author has every intention of relating the truth to his reader, how is his a reliable testimony from a time frame which passed so many years before its relation? Can it really be claimed that he is the same "I" as the one from so many years ago?
In his book On Autobiography (1989), Philippe Lejeune offers a distinction which both further complicates and helps us to understand these narrative problems found in many genres but exaggerated here. LeJeune poses a distinction between the "enunciated I" and the "I-of-enunciation." The "enunciated I" could be likened in a fictional text to the protagonist, while the "I-of-enunciation" would correspond to the narrator. The assumption of autobiographical narratives is that these two are one and the same; however, there is difference (or Derridean différance) between them. Other scholars of autobiography enumerate other "I"s, including an ideological "I" and a real "I" in this splintering of self. To quote Rimbaud in his well-known discussion of himself as a visionary in a letter to Georges Izambard, Je est un autre ("I is another").
Another problem in considering autobiography is the problem of coaxing. Just what made the author of a given work decide to relate his or her story? This question is deeply connected with the intention and audience of the work, as well the amanuensis or ghost writer--if the work has one. The factors that lead to an author's desire or urge to relate his or her life story often ideologically and factually frame that life story. Nevertheless, we are not just studying autobiography but "spiritual" autobiography and works which present themselves as relating mystical experience.
When related in a personal sense, the spiritual often blurs into the mystical, so we might employ "mysticism" as an analogous term here. "Mysticism" is a word that is etymologically related to "mystery" and comes from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, meaning "an initiate." Mysticism sees the purpose of religion as the direct experience of God, Self, Absolute Reality--or however we might define such an ineffable experience--and not simply the adherence to dogma or the expectation of some sort of a reward. In his essay "Mysticism" (1901) from the Varieties of Religious Experience, the great psychologist of religion, William James, defines four aspects which pertained to mystical experience(s):
1) Ineffability
2) Noetic Quality
3) Passivity
4) Transience
Items 2-4 are fairly transparent and will be helpful for us; item 1, however, presents a particular problem in this genre. Ironically, we will be reading books and watching films expressed with and through language that seeks to convey an experience that defies language. Do you think this can be done? Assuming we accept the ontological possibility of mystical experience, can a mystical experience be conveyed--at least by analogy-- and should we believe those who try?
I am interested and excited to see the way in which the enunciated "I" and the "I of enunciation" relate to one another in the texts we read and if we can say, without doubt, that they merge as one within a spiritual autobiography. It is impossible for us to know if everything the author shares about himself is true and if his current state of mind has an effect on the way in which he views his past and specifically, in the case of most spiritual autobiographies, his past state of mind. For example, in Augustine Confessions, Augustine discusses his past and how he used to identify as a Manichee. Augustine reflects on this as a major regret that hindered him from experiencing and loving God in the Christian way. How can we know that the current Augustine is accurately depicting the past Manichee Augustine who had a completely different set of values and morals. Also, there obviously must have been a time in which Augustine did not believe in the Christian experience and way of loving God because he chose to identify with the Manichees. He is only now, in his old age and full of wisdom, able to denounce his time as a Manichee and classify it as just another stop on his road to finding truth in Christianity. At the time he was a Manichee he did not know that his belief system would change and evolve into Christianity. This whole idea reminds me of the “monday morning quarterback” phenomenon in which people say a team should have done things differently or better after the game. They are biased by the fact that they know what went wrong and they already know the outcome of the game. In the same way, Augustine already know the outcome of his life and his current religion and belief system. Therefore, it is easy for him to go back and trace through his life a “path” that led him directly to his conversion to Christianity, including his involvement as a Manichee and his eventual conclusion that their beliefs were wrong.
ReplyDeleteKristin, do you think that the conflation of the the self of the past and the self of the present who recounts the experience might make the relation of that experience any more or less true? Also, I appreciate your "Monday-morning quarterback" analogy, though in a professional sporting event where there is a clear objective such speculation about whether or not anything could have been done in order to change the results is more linear. But in a life, who is to say what the "right" course might have been unless one were to consider the intention and framing of that life's narrativization?
DeleteAs the semester goes on I am eager to read a number of spiritual autobiographies as I analyze the authors work more in depth. One specific question in the blog post that caught my eye was when you asked, “Just what made the author of a given work decide to relate his or her story?” Thinking deeply into this question, I asked myself if I were to write an autobiography, what would be my intensions to the audience? I would tell my life story as this: “As I go through every experience good or bad and whether it be significant or insignificant, each one brought to me to where I am in life now and made me into the person I am today. I can’t regret going through dark times in life but rather be thankful for the lessons they taught me as it only made myself that much stronger.” Essentially I can relate this back to the spiritual autobiography of Augustine’s Confessions. Augustine first narrated his story to the audience of his young/adolescent self. During this time, he was living a sinful life. However, Augustine recognized that he could certainly escape the selfish and sinful dark days only through the power of God. Augustine comprehended as a child that he needed to experience being away from God as it taught him a fundamental lesson of how to escape darkness. Only through the grace of God would he feel a manner of redemption and return to living a fulfilling and successful life. Augustine illustrated his spiritual autobiography to inspire his audience on the God’s greatness and the love He shares for all of His creatures.
ReplyDeleteEric, would you say that hindsight forces us to project meaning onto past events?
DeleteImagine a square. It is a shape that only exists in 2-dimensions. In these 2-dimensions there is no concept of a third dimension. If the square were given consciousness it would not be able to perceive a shape that has more then 2 dimensions because it exists in a world with only 2 dimensions. Does this mean that a cube cannot exist? No. In fact, the cube is made up of squares. Our square friend could exist within our cube. But the square could have no idea because it only perceives in the dimensions of which it exists.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I believe to be the ineffable dilemma of spiritual autobiography in describing a mystical experience. Spiritual autobiography asks the author to perceive beyond the limitations of their physical bodies and to describe their experiences using words that were made describe things that exist in our realities.
Do I consider Spiritual Autobiography to be a contradiction? No. I consider it to be a challenge to transcend.
This is useful metaphor, Jack.
DeleteI think that verbally expressing ineffability is undoubtedly very difficult, but as we have experienced in the writings of Paul, Ezekiel, and Augustine it is somewhat doable. In Ezekiel’s recollection of his prophetic experience, he sees a mystical creature with both human and animal like features and is commanded to eat a Torah scroll. This to me feels like Ezekiel’s way of expressing how incredible and inexpressible his theophany truly was. While to modern day readers this description may seem a bit ridiculous, to his contemporaries I am sure it incited a great deal of awe and made him seem more credible.
ReplyDeleteBecause seeing God is so difficult to describe, it is difficult to say whether or not we should believe those who try and describe their prophetic experiences. Even if mysticism truly exists, how can we be sure that the prophet really did see what he claims he saw? If God did come to him, he was most likely in a state of pure astonishment and trying to retell such an occurrence can be impossible. But as we mentioned in class, most prophecies end in a message for a group of people that the prophet must relay. In order to be taken seriously and for God’s message to be received, the prophet must tell of his theophany in a way that is well received and trusted by the public.
I think describing the ineffable can be done, but we shouldn't immediately believe the words of those who try because there is no way to prove that what they are saying is true. Ezekiel tries to show his readers that what he is saying is true by describing in immense detail the things he's seen and where exactly he saw them. The details do help to validate his experience, but that leads us to another question: how reliable is memory, especially when it comes to something so ineffable to begin with.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think we should rule out the possibility that the ineffable can be conveyed and that it could also be true. Mystical experiences happen and people will always try to make sense of them to themselves and to others. I believe it's human nature to want to share a spiritual experience, especially if it involves seeing or hearing a higher being like God. This leads us to prophets, the ones who experience something spiritual and have a message to deliver to the rest of us.
Prophets may have agendas of their own, but when someone like Paul says he is a changed man with an important message, it gets more difficult to be suspicious and question if what he is saying is true.
Hannah, what a perspicacious and nuanced point that mystical experiences do happen even if there is no way of proving them with language. So why is it that some prophets are believed while others are rejected? Is there something about a particular message that gives it more credibility than others?
DeleteThe genre of “Spiritual Autobiography” (and yes it is certainly a genre), comes in a myriad of styles, depending on the motivation of the author. All of these variations of the genre share a common goal of communicating one’s own spiritual journey, often through a tale of transformation or conversion, with the hope of either encouraging others to follow in your footsteps, or to further your own understanding. Personally I believe that the latter of the two is the more pure approach: One individual attempting to fathom existence for their own sake, rather than writing with religious motivation in the hopes of preserving their soul. I believe this also clears up the issue of coaxing, as an individual truly writing for their own wellbeing will not be biased/corrupted in an attempt to sway an audience (ie: I would much rather read an excerpt from a diary than a passage from the bible). Turning to the issue of the “enunciated I” vs the “I-of-enunciation”, I believe that the details of an event that are lost overtime are often details that are not essential. Seeing as these authors are writing about the defining moments that molded them into the individuals they are today, the “forgettable” details of these events cannot be that crucial. While these lost details as well as the overall ineffability of many of these spiritual events make it a difficult topic to write about, I believe the benefit gained from sharing a truly life changing moment far surpasses these obstacles.
ReplyDeleteCan we be coaxed by internal factors as well as external ones? In this case I am thinking about how ego, or position, or ambition shape the way one describes his or her experience.
DeleteI think the concept of the "enunciated I" vs the "I-of-enunciation" are what make this genre of reading so interesting. The flow of the two helps make the story more interesting. I feel like it would be almost impossible to write a whole story completely using the "I-of-enunciation". The added details of the "enunciated I" not only add character to the writing but also give it substance. The "enunciated I" provides emotion and what would pull a reader into a book more. I think its easy as a writer expressing ones spiritual journey to add in details and emotions that might not have been there when the events actually occur. But I think that also has to do with how our brains record our memories. In this type of writing the author really has to reflect into the events that have occurred in their life. I think that even though the "enunciated I" is created by the author and fictionary, its necessary to the work. I look forward to looking more into the two narratives in the texts we are going to study in class.
ReplyDeleteJessica, might you say more specifically what draws you to the interplay of the "I-of-enunciation" and "the enunciated I"?
DeleteTrying to express a mystical experience through language is a task that seems unquestionably impossible being that the encounter with a higher power such as god would be so remarkable that words would not be able to grasp the lengths of this experience. By accepting this concept it would be hard to fully believe the stories told written in these autobiographies. By not being in the exact situations ourselves I believe it's quite inconceivable to truly understand the complete phenomenon these writers are trying to portray.
ReplyDeleteAs for the truth in the mystical encounters that these writers are contributing to in their spiritual autobiographies, there is no logical reason for not believing what they are trying to put across to the reader. Anything is possible and what these authors are portraying as their spiritual biographies may very well be true, as the reader we will just never have the pleasure of knowing the full extent of their stories.
Erin, you do an excellent job of underscoring the paradox that a) a reader might not understand a mystical experience but b) that doesn't make said experience any less true.
DeleteSome of these spiritual autobiographies, I believe, are an attempt to put these mystical experiences into words. If these experiences actually did happen, and I believe at least some of them did, they are very likely ineffable. To this day we do not have a proven understanding of what the afterlife may present to us, and a lot of people do not even believe in any type of life besides the one we have on Earth. If people sometimes have experiences where they encounter supernatural entities or see some spiritual vision that give them a glimpse into this unknown realm, it makes sense that it probably is not possible to put such an experience into words. It is also tough to read and analyze pieces such as Ezekiel or Paul, from the bible, because these stories date so far back that we may never know the actual contents of the originals, or if there even were originals. We rely chiefly on trusting the people that tell us that these people lived and had these experiences when, in reality, we have absolutely no clue. Aside from this, it is intriguing to read these pieces and see what the “prophets” had to say about what they may have seen and how they interpreted it. We’ll see where the future texts take us as the course progresses.
ReplyDeleteWhy would it make sense that an experience of theophany defies words (N.B. I agree with you, but I am not sure why ineffability is indeed a given in said context)?
Delete