How do you interpret this article from the London Pioneer? How is it defining phrenology? To what type of audience might these descriptions appeal? Is this meant to be humorous or not? If so, in what way might they be funny? Alternatively, is this article meant to be useful, parsing and explaining a "scientific" method of character analysis in a way that would be useful for the average person?
It seems to me that this article is entirely satirical. It is hard to believe that it would be used for scientific purposes or as a means of identifying one's phrenological traits. The speaker makes a point of choosing inaccessible examples: a gratuitously violent schoolmaster, a cowardly soldier, an impractical poet, a miserly grandfather, a somewhat idiotic soldier, two unethical businessmen, three criminals, a drunkard, a predatory cat, and, curiously, construction gear. These subjects are not relatable as they actively transgress or are caricatures of Victorian sensibilities. But, in their absurdity, they are rather humorous. Decent/desirable traits (conscientiousness, veneration, and self-esteem, for instance) are satirized and attributed to immoral persons, whereas unfortunate traits (secretiveness and calculation) are given to men who are, presumably, upstanding citizens. These reversals seems to make light of phrenology. They suggest that it is a poor indicator of human nature and, possibly, that it was known, even within the 19th century, as a pseudo-science.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, the article might be focusing on criminals and wrongdoers because they, as the obvious embodiment of moral turpitude, would have had atypical psychologies and, perhaps, particularly pronounced (or depressed) ridges on their skulls—at least, so far as the Victorians were concerned.
It is satirical. It comes from the London Pioneer, an offshoot of a publication called the Penny Satirist, whose aim was, in the words of its publisher, "assist in the destruction of the last stronghold of religious intolerance, sectarian jealousies, class and caste exclusivism, social ignorance and prejudice, and political and commercial monopolies...." As with the Penny Satirist, the aim of the London Pioneer is to dismantle social conventions by showing how absurd they are.
ReplyDeleteThe specific form the satire takes is to illustrate supposedly positive traits that might be inferred from a person's physiognomy, with examples that put those traits in a negative light. In each example, someone exhibits gross stupidity or greed under the pretense of some virtue, such as the thief who demonstrates great self-esteem in defending his thievery.
The impact is to throw the whole pseudoscience of phrenology under scrutiny by demonstrating how its conclusions about a person's character are so interpretable as to be meaningless.
As my classmates have said, this is obviously satirical in every way.
ReplyDeleteI particularly thought the reversal that Corinne noted above was extremely clever, but rather than agree with everything that has been said above, I will answer the question regarding the humor of this piece. To me personally, this specific type of sarcasm seen here is not the laugh-out-loud type of funny sarcasm- I can't say that I laughed- but it is a sarcasm that truly makes one think or question what is being mocked. In its sarcasm, this is intending for these social conventions to be questioned and looked at in a different light.
It's interesting how this article uses irony to reveal paradoxes and hypocrisies in its characters: the unstoppable hammer is stopped by the immovable nail; the soldier flees when he should fight; the crooks mutter what are usually well-meaning mantras. The images suggest phrenology is implausible, even harmful or immoral. The article is humorous, to be sure, but the underlying tone throughout its ideas is definitely intended to highlight a serious topic. The article's use lies in denouncing the absurdity and potential dangers of phrenology. Unfortunately, there is no explicit tie between phrenology and the characters, so the article fails. One has to assume that even the nail has a few telling dents on it. The article may as well be called "Definitions in Absurdity". But maybe that's the point (?)
ReplyDeleteThis actually reminded me very much of Ambrose Pierce’s “The Devil’s Dictionary,” in which everyday words are redefined in absurdist and satirical ways. Both seem to aim at mocking the kind of doublespeak in which the exact definition of a word can be used to connote a meaning unrelated to what was originally intended. In phrenology, this could create a kind of safety blanket: the theory can never be proven wrong, because even when someone who is supposed to have the positive trait of “veneration” turns out to be a thief, for example, one needs only to reinterpret the word to prove its veracity.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe this satirical piece is specifically accusing people of rearranging the meanings of these particular words, but it is poking fun at the meaninglessness of a “science” that is based so heavily on subjective interpretation, especially in the meaning of and value of different personality traits. In that way, it seems similar to modern satires on psychology, in which, with the “right” interpretation, almost anyone could be diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Like my fellow students, this piece is obviously poking fun at the "science" of phrenology. I think it defines phrenology as common sense reinforcing common sense, aka there is no science behind any of it. I agree with Lana in the sense that that subjective interpretation is not science, especially that bumps on your head can change who you will be. However, I would not go so far as to say that this would undermine modern psychology.
ReplyDeleteI'm also really interested in the point that Andres brought up about the piece not directly dealing with phrenology, but absurdities. I agree that the connections are not nearly as obvious as the title would suggest because there's no indication that the characteristics are related to a physical aspect of the characters who suffer from them. Maybe that absence shows that the physical defects/bumps are so ridiculous that they're not even worth adding?
As the previous posts have already stated, this article is definitely meant to be satirical, since there is no way it can really be perceived as scientific and instructive. I thought it was really interesting that the examples riven were all so extreme and dramatic. People did not really act that way; the characteristics were emphasized and colorfully illustrated because they were so unrealistic and exaggerated, which primarily made this article amusing.
ReplyDeleteAs Elena said, because this article is appealing to common sense, it seems to contradict the validity of phrenology. The terms in this article also seem generalized and do not actually appear relevant to the reader, indenting the intention of trying to disprove the validity and usefulness of phrenology. The article is trying to highlight phrenology's downfalls, and is trying to appeal to a large part of society, by giving examples of people on a broad spectrum, from schoolmasters to hungry poets to thieves.