Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism, Exams of Literary Theory

Download Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism and more Exams Literary Theory in PDF only on Docsity! Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism Introduction A very basic way of thinking about literary theory is that these ideas act as different lenses critics use to view and talk about art, literature, and even culture. These different lenses allow critics to consider works of art based on certain assumptions within that school of theory. The different lenses also allow critics to focus on particular aspects of a work they consider important. For example, if a critic is working with certain Marxist theories, he might focus on how the characters in a story interact based on their economic situation. If a critic is working with post-colonial theories, she might consider the same story but look at how characters from colonial powers (Britain, France, and even America) treat characters from, say, Africa or the Caribbean. Hopefully, after reading through and working with the different literary theories, you will gain new ammunition in your battles of literary analysis. Timeline  Moral Criticism, Dramatic Construction (c. 360 BC-present)  Formalism, Neo-Aristotelian Criticism (1930s-present)  Psychoanalytic Criticism (1930s-present)  Marxist Criticism (1930s-present)  Reader-Response Criticism (1960s-present)  Structuralism/Semiotics (1920s-present)  Post-Structuralism/Deconstruction (1966-present)  New Historicism/Cultural Studies (1980s-present)  Post-Colonial Criticism (1990s-present)  Feminist Criticism (1960s-present)  Gender/Queer Studies (1970s-present) Moral Criticism and Dramatic Construction (c. 360 BC-present) Plato In Book X of his Republic, Plato may have given us the first volley of detailed and lengthy literary criticism. The dialog between Socrates and two of his associates shows the participants of this discussion concluding that art must play a limited and very strict role in the perfect Greek Republic. Richter provides a nice summary of this point: "Poets may stay as servants of the state if they teach piety and virtue, but the pleasures of art are condemned as inherently corrupting to citizens" (Richter 19). One reason Plato included these ideas in his Socratic dialog is because he believed that art was a mediocre reproduction of nature: "What artists do … is hold the mirror up to nature: They copy the appearances of men, animals, and objects in the physical world … and the intelligence that went into its creation need involve nothing more than conjecture" (19). So in short, if art does not teach morality and ethics, then it is damaging to its audience, and for Plato this damaged his Republic. Given this controversial approach to art, it's easy to see why Plato's position has an impact on literature and literary criticism even today (though scholars who critique work based on whether or not the story teaches a moral are few - virtue may have an impact on children's literature, however). Aristotle In Poetics, Aristotle breaks with his teacher (Plato) in the consideration of art. Aristotle considers poetry (and rhetoric), a productive science, whereas he thought logic and physics to be theoretical sciences, and ethics and politics practical sciences (38). Because Aristotle saw poetry and drama as means to an end (for example, an audience's enjoyment) he established some basic guidelines for authors to follow to achieve certain objectives. To help authors achieve their objectives, Aristotle developed elements of organization and methods for writing effective poetry and drama known as the principles of dramatic construction (39). Aristotle believed that elements like "language, rhythm, and harmony" as well as "plot, character, thought, diction, song, and spectacle" influence the audience's catharsis (pity and fear) or emotional satisfaction with the work (39). And so here we see one of the earliest attempts to explain what makes an effective or ineffective work of literature. Like Plato, Aristotle's views on art heavily influence Western thought. The debate between Platonists and Aristotelians continued "in the Neoplatonists of the second century AD, the Cambridge Platonists of the latter seventeenth century, and the idealists of the romantic movement" (17). Even today, the debate continues …  Are there any Oedipal dynamics - or any other family dynamics - are work here?  How can characters' behavior, narrative events, and/or images be explained in terms of psychoanalytic concepts of any kind (e.g. fear or fascination with death, sexuality - which includes love and romance as well as sexual behavior - as a primary indicator of psychological identity or the operations of ego, id, superego)?  What does the work suggest about the psychological being of its author?  What might a given interpretation of a literary work suggest about the psychological motives of the reader?  Are there prominent words in the piece that could have different or hidden meanings? Could there be a subconscious reason for the author using these "problem words"? Jungian Criticism (1930s-present) Jungian criticism attempts to explore the connection between literature and what Carl Jung (a student of Freud) called the “collective unconscious” of the human race: "racial memory, through which the spirit of the whole human species manifests itself" (Richter 504). Jungian criticism, closely related to Freudian theory because of its connection to psychoanalysis, assumes that all stories and symbols are based on mythic models from mankind’s past. Based on these commonalities, Jung developed archetypal myths, the Syzygy: "a quaternion composing a whole, the unified self of which people are in search" (505). These archetypes are the Shadow, the Anima, the Animus, and the Spirit: "beneath [the Shadow] is the Anima, the feminine side of the male Self, and the Animus, the corresponding masculine side of the female Self" (505). The Self is the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation - the representative of "that wholeness which the introspective philosophy of all times and climes has characterized with an inexhaustible variety of symbols, names and concepts". It represents all that is unique within a human being. Although a person is a collection of all the archetypes and what they learn from the collective unconscious, the self is what makes that person an I. The self cannot exist without the other archetypes and the other archetypes cannot exist without the self; Jung makes this very clear. The self is also the part which grows and changes as a person goes throughout life. The self can be summed up as the ideal form a person wishes to be. The Shadow represents the traits which lie deep within ourselves. The traits that are hidden from day to day life and are in some cases the opposite of the self is a simple way to state these traits. The shadow is a very important trait because for one to truly know themselves, one must know all their traits, including those which lie beneath the common, i.e., the shadow. If one chooses to know the shadow there is a chance they give in to its motivation. The Anima is sometimes seen as the feminine side within a man, but Jung did not fully intend this to be viewed in this way. The Anima is beyond generalization of society's views and stereotypes. Anima represents what femininity truly represents it in all its mysteries. It is what allows a man to be in touch with a woman. The anima is commonly represented within dreams as a method to communicate with a person. It contains all female encounters with men to help the relationship between the two improve better. The Animus is similar to the anima except for the fact that the animus allows a female to understand and communicate with a man. Just like the anima, it is commonly represented in dreams of a woman to help them understand themselves and relationships with men It can be known as part of the collective unconscious' connection with all of the encounters of males with females, like the anima, to improve relationship with males and females. The Persona is to Jung a mere "functional complex ... by no means identical to the individuality", the way we present to the world - a mask which protects the Ego from negative images, and which by post-Jungians is sometimes considered an "archetype ... as a dynamic/structural component of the psyche". Some view this as the opposite of the shadow which is not entirely true, this is just the face that is put on for the world, not our deepest internal secrets and desires; that is the self. In literary analysis, a Jungian critic would look for archetypes in creative works: "Jungian criticism is generally involved with a search for the embodiment of these symbols within particular works of art." (Richter 505). When dealing with this sort of criticism, it is often useful to keep a handbook of mythology and a dictionary of symbols on hand.  What connections can we make between elements of the text and the archetypes? (Mask, Shadow, Anima, Animus)  How do the characters in the text mirror the archetypal figures? (Great Mother or nurturing Mother, Whore, destroying Crone, Lover, Destroying Angel)  How does the text mirror the archetypal narrative patterns? (Quest, Night-Sea-Journey)  How symbolic is the imagery in the work?  How does the protagonist reflect the hero of myth?  Does the “hero” embark on a journey in either a physical or spiritual sense?  Is there a journey to an underworld or land of the dead?  What trials or ordeals does the protagonist face? What is the reward for overcoming them? Marxist Criticism (1930s-present) Whom Does it Benefit? Based on the theories of Karl Marx (and so influenced by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel), this school concerns itself with class differences, economic and otherwise, as well as the implications and complications of the capitalist system: "Marxism attempts to reveal the ways in which our socioeconomic system is the ultimate source of our experience" (Tyson 277). Theorists working in the Marxist tradition, therefore, are interested in answering the overarching question: Whom does it [the work, the effort, the policy, the road, etc.] benefit? The elite? The middle class? And Marxists critics are also interested in how the lower or working classes are oppressed: in everyday life and in literature. The Material Dialectic The Marxist school follows a process of thinking called the material dialectic. This belief system maintains that "what drives historical change are the material realities of the economic base of society, rather than the ideological superstructure of politics, law, philosophy, religion, and art that is built upon that economic base" (Richter 1088). Marx asserts that "stable societies develop sites of resistance: contradictions build into the social system that ultimately lead to social revolution and the development of a new society upon the old" (1088). This cycle of contradiction, tension, and revolution must continue: there will always be conflict between the upper, middle, and lower (working) classes and this conflict will be reflected in literature and other forms of expression - art, music, movies, etc. The Revolution The continuing conflict between the classes will lead to upheaval and revolution by oppressed peoples and form the groundwork for a new order of society and economics where capitalism is abolished. According to Marx, the revolution will be led by the working class (others think peasants will lead the uprising) under the guidance of intellectuals. Once the elite and middle class are overthrown, the intellectuals will compose an equal society where everyone owns everything (socialism - not to be confused with Soviet or Maoist Communism). Though a staggering number of different nuances exist within this school of literary theory, Marxist critics generally work in areas covered by the following questions:  Whom does it benefit if the work or effort is accepted/successful/believed, etc.?  What is the social class of the author?  Which class does the work claim to represent?  What values does it reinforce?  What values does it subvert?  What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it portrays?  What social classes do the characters represent?  How do characters from different classes interact or conflict? Sign Systems The discipline of semiotics plays an important role in structuralist literary theory and cultural studies. Semioticians apply "appl[y] structuralist insights to the study of … sign systems ... a non-linguistic object or behavior … that can be analyzed as if it were a language" (Tyson 205). Specifically, "... semiotics examines the ways non-linguistic objects and behaviors ‘tell’ us something. For example, the [advertisement featuring] the reclining blonde beauty in the skin-tight, black velvet dress on the billboard … 'tells' us that those who drink this whiskey - presumably male - will be attractive to … beautiful women like the one displayed here" (205). Lastly, Richter states, "semiotics takes off from Peirce - for whom language is one of numerous sign systems - and structuralism takes off from Saussure, for whom language was the sign system par excellence" (810).  Using a specific structuralist framework (like Frye's mythoi), how should the text be classified in terms of its genre? In other words, what patterns exist within the text that make it a part of other works like it?  Using a specific structuralist framework, analyze the text's narrative operations. Can you speculate about the relationship between the text and the culture from which the text emerged? In other words, what patterns exist within the text that make it a product of a larger culture?  What patterns exist within the text that connect it to the larger "human" experience? In other words, can we connect patterns and elements within the text to other texts from other cultures to map similarities that tell us more about the common human experience? This is a liberal-humanist move that assumes that since we are all human, we all share basic human commonalities.  What rules or codes of interpretation must be internalized in order to make sense of the text?  What are the semiotics of a given category of cultural phenomena, or text, such as high-school football games, television and/or magazine ads for a particular brand of perfume or even media coverage of a historical event? Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Postmodernism (1966-present) Note: Structuralism, semiotics, and post-structuralism are some of the most complex literary theories to understand. Please be patient. The Center Cannot Hold This approach concerns itself with the ways and places where systems, frameworks, definitions, and certainties break down. Post-structuralism maintains that frameworks and systems, for example the structuralist systems explained in the Structuralist area, are merely fictitious constructs and that they cannot be trusted to develop meaning or to give order. In fact, the very act of seeking order or a singular Truth (with a capital T) is absurd because there exists no unified truth. Post-structuralism holds that there are many truths, that frameworks must bleed, and that structures must become unstable or decentered. Moreover, post-structuralism is also concerned with the power structures or hegemonies and power and how these elements contribute to and/or maintain structures to enforce hierarchy. Therefore, post-structural theory carries implications far beyond literary criticism. What Does Your Meaning Mean? By questioning the process of developing meaning, post-structural theory strikes at the very heart of philosophy and reality and throws knowledge making into what Jacques Derrida called "freeplay": "The concept of centered structure...is contradictorily coherent...the concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a freeplay which is constituted upon a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which is itself beyond the reach of the freeplay" (qtd. in Richter, 878-879). Derrida first posited these ideas in 1966 at Johns Hopkins University, when he delivered “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”: "Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an 'event,' if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural-or structuralist- thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term “event” anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling” (qtd. in Richter, 878). In his presentation, Derrida challenged structuralism's most basic ideas. Can Language Do That? Post-structural theory can be tied to a move against Modernist/Enlightenment ideas (philosophers: Immanuel Kant, Réne Descartes, John Locke, etc.) and Western religious beliefs (neo-Platonism, Catholicism, etc.). An early pioneer of this resistance was philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his essay, “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral Sense” (1873), Nietzsche rejects even the very basis of our knowledge making, language, as a reliable system of communication: “The various languages, juxtaposed, show that words are never concerned with truth, never with adequate expression...” (248). Below is an example, adapted from the Tyson text, of some language freeplay and a simple form of deconstruction:  Time (noun) flies (verb) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Time passes quickly.  Time (verb) flies (object) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Get out your stopwatch and time the speed of flies as you would time an arrow's flight.  Time flies (noun) like (verb) an arrow (object) = Time flies are fond of arrows (or at least of one particular arrow). So, post-structuralists assert that if we cannot trust language systems to convey truth, the very bases of truth are unreliable and the universe - or at least the universe we have constructed - becomes unraveled or de-centered. Nietzsche uses language slip as a base to move into the slip and shift of truth as a whole: “What is truth? …truths are an illusion about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions...” (On Truth and Lies 250). This returns us to the discussion in the Structuralist area regarding signs, signifiers, and signified. Essentially, post- structuralism holds that we cannot trust the sign = signifier + signified formula, that there is a breakdown of certainty between sign/signifier, which leaves language systems hopelessly inadequate for relaying meaning so that we are (returning to Derrida) in eternal freeplay or instability. What's Left? Important to note, however, is that deconstruction is not just about tearing down - this is a common misconception. Derrida, in "Signature Event Context," addressed this limited view of post-structural theory: "Deconstruction cannot limit or proceed immediately to a neutralization: it must…practice an overturning of the classical opposition and a general displacement of the system. It is only on this condition that deconstruction will provide itself the means with which to intervene in the field of oppositions that it criticizes, which is also a field of nondiscursive forces" (328). Derrida reminds us that through deconstruction we can identify the in-betweens and the marginalized to begin interstitial knowledge building. Modernism vs. Postmodernism With the resistance to traditional forms of knowledge making (science, religion, language), inquiry, communication, and building meaning take on different forms to the post-structuralist. We can look at this difference as a split between Modernism and Postmodernism. The table below, excerpted from theorist Ihab Hassan's The Dismemberment of Orpheus (1998), offers us a way to make sense of some differences between modernism, dominated by Enlightenment ideas, and postmodernism, a space of freeplay and discourse. Keep in mind that even the author, Hassan, "is quick to point out how the dichotomies are themselves insecure, equivocal" (Harvey 42). Though post-structuralism is uncomfortable with binaries, Hassan provides us with some interesting contrasts to consider: Modernism Postmodernism romanticism/symbolism paraphysics/Dadaism form (conjunctive, closed) antiform (disjunctive, open) purpose play design chance hierarchy anarchy mastery/logos exhaustion/silence art object/finished work/logos process/performance/antithesis centering absence genre/boundary text/intertext semantics rhetoric metaphor metonymy root/depth rhizome/surface signified signifier narrative/grande histoire anti-narrative/petite histoire genital/phallic polymorphous/androgynous paranoia schizophrenia origin/cause difference-difference/trace God the Father The Holy Ghost determinacy interdeterminacy transcendence immanence Post-Structuralism and Literature If we are questioning/resisting the methods we use to build knowledge (science, religion, language), then traditional literary notions are also thrown into freeplay. These include the narrative and the author: Post-Colonial Criticism (1990s-present) History is Written by the Victors Post-colonial criticism is similar to cultural studies, but it assumes a unique perspective on literature and politics that warrants a separate discussion. Specifically, post-colonial critics are concerned with literature produced by colonial powers and works produced by those who were/are colonized. Post-colonial theory looks at issues of power, economics, politics, religion, and culture and how these elements work in relation to colonial hegemony (western colonizers controlling the colonized). Therefore, a post-colonial critic might be interested in works such as Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe where colonial "ideology [is] manifest in Crusoe's colonialist attitude toward the land upon which he's shipwrecked and toward the black man he 'colonizes' and names Friday" (Tyson 377). In addition, post-colonial theory might point out that "despite Heart of Darkness's (Joseph Conrad) obvious anti-colonist agenda, the novel points to the colonized population as the standard of savagery to which Europeans are contrasted" (375). Post-colonial criticism also takes the form of literature composed by authors that critique Euro-centric hegemony. A Unique Perspective on Empire Seminal post-colonial writers such as Nigerian author Chinua Achebe and Kenyan author Ngugi wa Thiong'o have written a number of stories recounting the suffering of colonized people. For example, in Things Fall Apart, Achebe details the strife and devastation that occurred when British colonists began moving inland from the Nigerian coast. Rather than glorifying the exploratory nature of European colonists as they expanded their sphere of influence, Achebe narrates the destructive events that led to the death and enslavement of thousands of Nigerians when the British imposed their Imperial government. In turn, Achebe points out the negative effects (and shifting ideas of identity and culture) caused by the imposition of western religion and economics on Nigerians during colonial rule. Power, Hegemony, and Literature Post-colonial criticism also questions the role of the western literary canon and western history as dominant forms of knowledge making. The terms "first-world," "second world," "third world" and "fourth world" nations are critiqued by post- colonial critics because they reinforce the dominant positions of western cultures populating first world status. This critique includes the literary canon and histories written from the perspective of first-world cultures. So, for example, a post-colonial critic might question the works included in "the canon" because the canon does not contain works by authors outside western culture. Moreover, the authors included in the canon often reinforce colonial hegemonic ideology, such as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Western critics might consider Heart of Darkness an effective critique of colonial behavior. But post-colonial theorists and authors might disagree with this perspective: "As Chinua Achebe observes, the novel's condemnation of European is based on a definition of Africans as savages: beneath their veneer of civilization, the Europeans are, the novel tells us, as barbaric as the Africans. And indeed, Achebe notes, the novel portrays Africans as a pre-historic mass of frenzied, howling, incomprehensible barbarians" (Tyson 374-375).  How does the literary text, explicitly or allegorically, represent various aspects of colonial oppression?  What does the text reveal about the problematics of post-colonial identity, including the relationship between personal and cultural identity and such issues as double consciousness and hybridity?  What person(s) or groups does the work identify as "other" or stranger? How are such persons/groups described and treated?  What does the text reveal about the politics and/or psychology of anti-colonialist resistance?  What does the text reveal about the operations of cultural difference - the ways in which race, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, cultural beliefs, and customs combine to form individual identity - in shaping our perceptions of ourselves, others, and the world in which we live?  How does the text respond to or comment upon the characters, themes, or assumptions of a canonized (colonialist) work?  Are there meaningful similarities among the literatures of different post-colonial populations?  How does a literary text in the Western canon reinforce or undermine colonialist ideology through its representation of colonialization and/or its inappropriate silence about colonized peoples? Feminist Criticism (1960s-present) S/he Feminist criticism is concerned with "...the ways in which literature (and other cultural productions) reinforce or undermine the economic, political, social, and psychological oppression of women" (Tyson 83). This school of theory looks at how aspects of our culture are inherently patriarchal (male dominated) and "...this critique strives to expose the explicit and implicit misogyny in male writing about women" (Richter 1346). This misogyny, Tyson reminds us, can extend into diverse areas of our culture: "Perhaps the most chilling example...is found in the world of modern medicine, where drugs prescribed for both sexes often have been tested on male subjects only" (Tyson 83). Feminist criticism is also concerned with less obvious forms of marginalization such as the exclusion of women writers from the traditional literary canon: "...unless the critical or historical point of view is feminist, there is a tendency to under- represent the contribution of women writers" (82-83). Common Space in Feminist Theories Though a number of different approaches exist in feminist criticism, there exist some areas of commonality. This list is excerpted from Tyson: 1. Women are oppressed by patriarchy economically, politically, socially, and psychologically; patriarchal ideology is the primary means by which they are kept so 2. In every domain where patriarchy reigns, woman is other: she is marginalized, defined only by her difference from male norms and values 3. All of western (Anglo-European) civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal ideology, for example, in the biblical portrayal of Eve as the origin of sin and death in the world 4. While biology determines our sex (male or female), culture determines our gender (masculine or feminine) 5. All feminist activity, including feminist theory and literary criticism, has as its ultimate goal to change the world by prompting gender equality 6. Gender issues play a part in every aspect of human production and experience, including the production and experience of literature, whether we are consciously aware of these issues or not. Feminist criticism has, in many ways, followed what some theorists call the three waves of feminism: 1. First Wave Feminism - late 1700s-early 1900's: writers like Mary Wollstonecraft (A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792) highlight the inequalities between the sexes. Activists like Susan B. Anthony and Victoria Woodhull contribute to the women's suffrage movement, which leads to National Universal Suffrage in 1920 with the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment 2. Second Wave Feminism - early 1960s-late 1970s: building on more equal working conditions necessary in America during World War II, movements such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), formed in 1966, cohere feminist political activism. Writers like Simone de Beauvoir (Le deuxième sexe, 1972) and Elaine Showalter established the groundwork for the dissemination of feminist theories dove-tailed with the American Civil Rights movement 3. Third Wave Feminism - early 1990s-present: resisting the perceived essentialist (over generalized, over simplified) ideologies and a white, heterosexual, middle class focus of second wave feminism, third wave feminism borrows from post-structural and contemporary gender and race theories (see below) to expand on marginalized populations' experiences. Writers like Alice Walker work to "...reconcile it [feminism] with the concerns of the black community...[and] the survival and wholeness of her people, men and women both, and for the promotion of dialog and community as well as for the valorization of women and of all the varieties of work women perform" (Tyson 97).  How is the relationship between men and women portrayed?  What are the power relationships between men and women (or characters assuming male/female roles)?  How are male and female roles defined?  What constitutes masculinity and femininity?  How do characters embody these traits?  Do characters take on traits from opposite genders? How so? How does this change others’ reactions to them?  What does the work reveal about the operations (economically, politically, socially, or psychologically) of patriarchy?  What does the work imply about the possibilities of sisterhood as a mode of resisting patriarchy?  What does the work say about women's creativity?  What does the history of the work's reception by the public and by the critics tell us about the operation of patriarchy?  What role the work play in terms of women's literary history and literary tradition? (Tyson)