Negative Capability Defined: Walking in Mystery—And the Shoes of Others

source

from Prometheus Unbound

by Santi Tafarella

In a letter dated 22 December, 1817, the poet John Keats coined the term “negative capability” and defined it this way:

I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously – I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason.

Keats thought, in other words, that one of the things that made Shakespeare so powerful was his ability to sublimate his own individual assumptions and persona—that is, make himself a negative—and thereby sympathetically enter into “uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts”—presumably both metaphysical ones AND those of his psychologically bottomless and complex characters (like Hamlet)—without running to any premature and oversimplifying “rational” closures upon any of them.

In other words, Shakespeare was the ultimate good listener; a man with an exquisitely receptive ear for the fathomless and paradoxical depths of BEING—metaphysical and material, as well as human.

In the Virginia Quarterly Review (April 1, 2005), the poet Galway Kinnell offers a similar expansive spin on Keats’s notion of negative capability, suggesting that negative capability includes not just a metaphysical suspension of judgment—allowing mysteries to be mysteries—but the Shakespearean power to “obliterate” oneself and walk, as it were, in the shoes of other beings (human and non-human!):

Walt Whitman had Keatsian “negative capability”—a certain shapelessness of personality, a peculiar power to obliterate himself and flow into some other being and speak it from within—and speak himself in the process. “I am the man—,” he wrote, “I suffered—I was there.” A transaction seems to occur: Whitman gives whatever he flows into a presence in human consciousness, and in return, this other thing or creature gives Whitman a situation and vocabulary which enable him to see and articulate his own being in a new way.

With this expansive definition, we might thus say that some—even a considerable portion—of President Barack Obama’s success can be attributed to his gift for Shakespearean, Keatsian, and Whitmanian negative capability. It’s what makes him a good writer, a soaring orator, an attentive listener, and an empathetic politician.

And in this sense, it seems fair to say that literature not only supports the moral and rational faculties, but has the capacity to actually train them to greater attentiveness, sympathy, and intellectual openness.

It may not be a coincidence that Barack Obama has been a lifelong and intense reader of literary fiction—including the plays of Shakespeare.

continue reading at santitafarella.wordpress.com

note from planologie—tomorrow’s post is about the relevance of negative capability to planologie

Advertisements
This entry was posted in art, Culture, Fiction, History, What if? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Negative Capability Defined: Walking in Mystery—And the Shoes of Others

  1. Pingback: Post, post, re-post « the blog poetic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s