Theoretical Approaches To Literature 3y2o34

12 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE

S.Schaffer

What follows are some theoretical approaches to literature; students should examine each of these theoretical models closely in relation to the text(s) studied to investigate the different perspectives afforded by each of these literary theories. FORMALISM / RUSSIAN FORMALISM Formalism was the dominant mode of academic literary study in the US from the end of the Second World War through the 1970s. Formalism refers to critical approaches that analyze, interpret, or evaluate the inherent features of a text, such as grammar, syntax, as well as various literary devices Formalism focuses on and classifies aspects of genre, examining how different formal characteristics act in the text to create meaning. The formalist approach reduces the importance of a text’s historical, biographical, and cultural context. Formalism rose to prominence in the early twentieth century as a reaction against Romanticist theories of literature, which centered on the artist and individual’s “natural” creative genius, rather concentrating on how the text was indebted to forms and other works that preceded it. A prominent school of formalist literary criticism which developed was Russian Formalism; this was an influential school of literary criticism in Russia from the 1910s to the 1930s. It includes the work of a number of highly influential Russian and Soviet scholars, such as Viktor Shklovsky. Russian Formalism emphasizes "defamiliarization," a concept which underlines the ways in which literary language distinguishes itself from ordinary, communicative language, and is also a feature of how art in general works: by presenting familiar images and ideas in a strange, new way that allows us to see things differently. For Russian Formalists, form is what makes something art to begin with, so in order to understand a work of art as a work of art, one must necessarily focus on its form; it is a more "scientific" method for studying literary and poetic language, to the exclusion of psychological and cultural-historical approaches. Questions that Russian Formalists ask: • In what ways does literature have its own history, a history of innovation in formal structures, one not determined by external history? • Since what a work of literature says cannot be separated from how the literary work says it, how are the form and structure of a text an integral part of its content?

•

How is literature autonomous from external conditions in the sense that literary language is distinct from other ordinary uses of language, since it is entirely communicative?

FEMINIST CRITICISM Feminist Theory argues that society and its institutions are patriarchal —that is, ruled by men—and that because women have traditionally been marginalized (disregarded or cast aside) by men, they have been denied a voice in history. Sometimes the ways in which women have been marginalized in Western culture are rather obvious; for instance, we know that only relatively recently have women begun to enjoy the same privileges as men with respect to such things as the right to vote, the right to her own property, the right to formal education, and the right to earn equal pay for equal work. Sometimes, however, women have been, and are, discriminated against in far more subtle ways; for instance, in hiring policies and practices of various businesses, in men’s/society’s assumptions about a woman’s place being in the home, and in how the female image has been depicted/objectified in everything from Renaissance art to contemporary advertising. Feminist critics look closely, then, at how patriarchal institutions operate in order to understand their mechanisms and how these can be challenged and undermined. Questions that feminist literary critics ask: • • • • •

How are female characters portrayed in a particular work of literature? What assumptions does the author make about his or her female characters? Does the author accept or challenge stereotypes that are traditionally associated with women? Does the narrator accept or challenge stereotypes that are traditionally associated with women? How is the work in question a product of the time and culture in which it was written, and how is it either radical or subversive?

POSTCOLONIAL CRITICISM Postcolonial theory looks at the effects of colonization on a country’s people, social and political institutions, and literature. Postcolonial literary criticism explores attitudes towards colonization that are expressed both in the literature of the colonizing country and in the literature of the colonized. It also looks closely at what happens when

countries are no longer colonized—when they are “postcolonial”—in an effort to explore the lingering effects of exploitation, racism, and the confused identity of a previously colonized and marginalized people in a postcolonial context. Just as feminist theory looks at the attitudes and assumptions that men and women have of one another, postcolonial theory looks at attitudes and assumptions that colonizers and those colonized have of one another. Questions that postcolonial literary critics ask: • • • • •

How are colonizers and “the colonized” portrayed in a particular work of literature? What assumptions does the author make about these two groups? What associations does the author make with the colonizers? Are they seen as “wise,” “beneficent,” and “civilized,” or as “deceitful,” “heartless” and “exploitive?” What associations does the author make with those colonized? Are they seen as “ignorant,” “malevolent,” and “savage,” or as “victimized” and “exploited?” Is the text expressing a colonial or anti-colonial perspective?

GAME THEORY Game theory is a branch of contemporary criticism that explores how games pervade various social and cultural institutions, including literary texts and their production. A game-theoretical approach to literature explores the complex roles games play in works of fiction, and looks at either actual games which take place in a particular text, the various psychological “games” that are played between two or more characters, or the textual games that are played between the author and the reader. Questions that game-theoretical literary critics ask: • • • •

Who controls the game in a work of literature? Who are the players and who is being “played?” Does comparing things in a work of literature to games help us to understand these things better? How do women, minorities, and other marginalized groups fair as players in works of literature? How do writers understand the distinctions among the concepts of “play,” “game,” and “sport?”

READER RESPONSE CRITICISM In Reader-Response Criticism, a work of literature is not considered to have an inherent meaning in itself. Instead, the meaning is seen as a product of each individual’s reading and interpretation of the work, so that no one reading negates or invalidates another. Reader Response critics argue that the work is not fully created until the reader enters into a dynamic transaction with the text, processes what he or she reads, and comes to understand it in light of his or her own experiences. Because this kind of criticism is more open and subjective, it allows readers to respond very personally to works of literature, but also to change and modify their responses as they develop their skills as readers. Questions that reader-response literary critics ask: • • • •

What does a particular work of literature mean to the reader, in his or her present condition? What aspects of the reader’s life help him or her to understand the work of literature in question? How can the work of literature widen the reader’s understanding and insights? What are the various possible meanings and interpretations of a text, considering what a reader brings to its reading?

DECONSTRUCTION Deconstruction was developed by French critic Jacques Derrida (b. 1930--) in the 1960s. When it is used to interpret a text, it produces readings that emphasize the ambiguities and contradictions found in the work. Derrida argues that the history of Western thought is based on the idea that there are central truths which are knowable and complete, and this, he says, is incorrect. Because words mean different things in different contexts, they do not remain constant and produce a definite or absolute meaning. Thus, literary texts are “always already” ambiguous because their meaning, which derives from language, is constantly deferred. Thus, a deconstructionist attacks or “deconstructs” either the assumptions of a work of literature or what another critic has claimed is the “correct” reading of that work. (This theory often focuses on binary oppositions as part of the method of deconstruction.) Questions that deconstructionist literary critics ask:

• • • •

What assumptions does a work of literature and/or its author make? Are these assumptions based on the fact that the text and/or the author has made a clear distinction between two things (i.e. men and women, good and evil, black and white, etc)? Can it be shown that to make such a distinction is inherently unstable because the two things necessarily depend on one another for their meaning? Can it be shown that some part of a work of literature can be interpreted in so many contradictory ways that the whole idea of saying it means something becomes problematic?

MARXIST/ECONOMIC DETERMINIST CRITICISM Founded by Karl Marx (1818-1883) in the nineteenth century, Marxism argues that the primary influence on our lives is money, and that society is essentially a struggle between those who have quite a bit of money (the bourgeoisie or middle class) and those who have very little (the proletariat or working class). Marxist literature, then, emphasizes the plight of the working classes and their struggle to overcome the capitalist forces that are working to control and subjugate them. Despite the fact that Marxism has been weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, economic determinism is still an important idea, and so the Marxist / economic determinist critic seeks to examine how works of literature can be judged both from an economic perspective and from the perspective of class struggle. Questions that Marxist / economic determinist literary critics ask: • • • •

What is the economic status of a particular literary character and what is his or her social class? How does the character’s economic status and / or social class affect what happens to him or her? What sorts of obstacles do characters face as a result of their position and how are they defeated by, or manage to overcome, these obstacles? Does the work of literature in question ignore the social class or economic position of its characters, and what effect does this have on how the text is presented?

ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM

Archetypal criticism derives from the work of psychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875-1961), and argues that our existence (our psychic existence, including thought patterns, dreams and the arts) is built out of patterns or archetypes. These recurring patterns—such as the fall of the hero, the search for justice, or the lover who goes mad when he is rejected— can be found in many works of literature across different time periods and cultures. Thus, the archetypal critic looks at works of literature that are variations on the same theme—that have the same patterns— in an effort to see both what similarities and differences can be found and what constitutes their various significances. Questions that archetypal literary critics ask: • • • •

What archetypal patterns can be found in a particular work of literature? What truths can be found by comparing a pattern in a text with other works sharing this pattern? What variations on a common archetype are found in a text? Is there an inversion of the pattern? Do similar patterns appear in multiple works by the same author?

NEW HISTORICISM New Historicism developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s, primarily through the work of critic Stephen Greenblatt. New Historicists aim to understand texts through their historical contexts and to understand cultural and intellectual history through literature. New Historicism considers how our actions are ultimately articulated in of power, so the New Historicist seeks to find examples of power, how they are dispersed within the text (and throughout the world), and how power is the means by which the marginalized are controlled, and what the marginalized (or, other) seek to gain. This relates back to the idea that because literature (historically) was written by those with the most power, New Historicists look for "sites of struggle" to identify various groups or entities with the most power. New Historicism is claimed to be a more neutral approach to historical events, and is sensitive towards different cultures in its examination of the complex sociopolitical climates of the time; in this sense, then, literary texts are seen as being inseparable from the context(s) in which they are written. Questions that new historicist critics ask:

• •

• • •

How is every expressive act (literature, language, art, etc.) embedded in a network of social, political, economic, cultural and historical practices? Does every act of unmasking and critiquing inevitably employ the very tools it condemns and therefore (in part) perpetuates the practice it exposes? (For example, does any critical method and language adequate to describe culture under capitalism not inevitably participate in the economy they describe?) What is the continual, on-going exchange between literary and non-literary texts? Are there unchanging “truths” or inalterable aspects about human nature? How is any artistic text an expression / product of the historical forces of its time?

STRUCTURALISM Structuralism is seen to have its start with the French linguist, Ferdinand de Saussere (1857-1913). Like archetypal criticism, structuralism looks at common structures in literary works and tries to understand the relationships between them. Many works that seem to have little or no connection to one another are often found to contain deep structural similarities. Their protagonists may have similar approaches to the problems they face; they may be defeated by, or succeed in overcoming, similar obstacles; and ultimately, they may or fail the challenges that confront them in similar ways. Structuralism deals not only with narrative structures, but structures of any type, including those found in language. Questions that structuralist critics ask: • • •

How do characters in works of literature confront given situations? Are they active or ive? What challenges confront these characters, how do they deal with them, and what are the consequences of their decisions? What structures are formed as a result of all of this? How are these structures similar to, or different than, structures found in other works of literature?

PSYCHOANALYTIC CRITICISM Psychoanalytic literary criticism is influenced by the tradition of psychoanalysis begun by Sigmund Freud. Psychoanalytic reading has

been practiced since the early development of psychoanalysis itself, and has developed into a rich and varied interpretive tradition. In this literary approach, psychoanalytic critics view texts as a sort of “dream,” meaning that the text represses its real (latent) content behind obvious (manifest) content. The process, then, of changing from latent to manifest content is known as “dream work,” involving operations of concentration and displacement. Psychoanalytic critics analyze the language and symbolism of a text to reveal the process of the dream work and to arrive at the underlying latent thoughts. (There are also other varied approaches to using psychoanalysis to analyze texts; for example, one can psychoanalyze a text as the work of the author, with the latent content of the author’s mind and biographical elements present in the text, or one can take Harold Bloom’s approach of seeing the text as a product of the “anxiety of influence,” wherein influences the author wishes to emulate are like the mother, and influences the author wishes to reject and rebel against are like the father in the Oedipus Complex.) Questions that psychoanalytic critics ask: • • •

How do the symbols, actions, and settings in a literary work illuminate the psyche of the characters and the author? How does the analytic interpretation of the text reveal the therapeutic process of psychoanalysis itself? In what ways does the narrative or poetic structure of the text itself reveal how “the unconscious is structured like a language?”

QUEER THEORY Queer theory emerged in the early 1990s out of gay and lesbian studies and feminist studies. A kind of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation, particularly in relation to human behaviour and social institutions) that is devoted to “queer” readings of texts, this theory is heavily influenced by the work of Michel Foucault. Queer theory builds upon feminist challenges to the idea that gender is part of the “essential” self and upon gay/lesbian studies' close examination of the socially-constructed nature of sexual acts and identities. Whereas gay/lesbian studies focuses on "natural" and "unnatural" behavior with respect to homosexual behavior, queer theory expands its focus to encom any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into the realm of the “perverted.” Queer theory is not merely about homosexual representations in literature; it explores the inherent complexities and ambiguities in categories of gender and sexual

orientation. The main focus of queer theory is to subvert and challenge heterosexuality as inherently “natural.” Questions that queer theorists ask: • •

How does the categorization of gender and sexuality limit and fix identities? Is the basis of sexuality and gender “natural,” “essential” or socially constructed?

•

How do our identities change or resist change amid the power relations of “heteronormativity?”

•

How is our knowledge of sexuality constructed through language and through particular social contexts throughout history?