Man or Butterfly?

March 11, 2007

I find that one of the hardest things to communicate in the classroom is the idea that a text is doing something. Students are generally comfortable with the idea that a text is saying something that can be discussed. They are also generally comfortable with the notion that a text might be pleasing aesthetically. But that a text is working to make them think in a certain way or pushing them to action is a much harder sell.

In wrapping up Freshman Studies we looked at a work I had not read: Chuang Tzu: Basic Writings (Burton Watson translation). A well known passage from this work is the one about the butterfly:

Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou. Between Chuang Chou and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. [45]

There is a level of teaching in that passage, no doubt. The change of states is something to be accepted and definitional clarity is to be avoided. Also there is a level of humor in the passage that is hard to miss. But the passage flits away from either an expository or aesthetic interpretation.

I would argue that the butterfly analogy is also meant to suggest a way of thinking about mental states. It is not the case that anyone will ever really be confused about whether he is Chuang Chou or a butterfly.. but it is the case that one should live as if this confusion were possible. By thinking a lot about this passage.. repeating it in your mind perhaps.. you can start to see the world in a better way. With this, though, we have arrived at an altogether different way of analyzing a text.

The parables of Jesus came up as we talked about Chuang Tzu. The term "parable" seems somewhat limiting, and it would be hard to classify a passage like the one above as a parable. But the mention of the parables was helpful since they are embedded in a narrative and therefore obviously doing something in a context. You can read the parables and think about reasons why the Jesus of the Gospels is telling such mysterious stories. They are stories with a purpose. Harder to get across is the idea that the Gospels themselves are motivated texts.. just like the parables but without the narrative frame to explain that.

You could imagine the passages from Chuang Tzu within a narrative framework. We would find ourselves in a setting and a learner would come to Chuang Tzu to ask a question.. to which Chuang Tzu would perhaps tell a story or cite some authority from the past. Then we would see how the learner responded and whether he was praised or not. Within that framework it would be easier to understand the way passages are meant to affect change and not to be subject for debate. But since the passages come bundled together with no framework, the reader must learn to mentally build in that framework.. by pondering: if I were the historic learner, how would this passage be aimed to make me act in the world? That question will get us closest to the intent of the passage.