Approach
|
Meaning
|
Question
|
# Interps
|
Strategy
|
Benefits
|
Problems
|
Humanist
Historical
|
Author
|
Who
|
One
|
Research
|
Certainty
|
Intentional Fallacy
Subjective |
Formalist
|
Text
|
What
|
One
|
Unify
|
Objectivity
|
Hidden assumptions
|
Reader Response
|
Reader
|
Who
|
Many
|
Ethnographic
|
Engagement
|
Anything goes
|
Rhetorical
|
Pathos/Ethos/
Logos
|
How
|
Many
|
Manipulate
|
Reader Awareness
|
Reductionist
|
Structuralist
|
Language
|
How
|
Unlimited
|
Linguistics
|
Intertextual Awareness
|
Literature secondary
|
Deconstructionist
|
Text
|
What not
|
Infinite
|
Invert
|
Freedom
|
Uncertainty
|
Gender
|
Gender
|
Who
|
Reduced
|
Invert
|
Empowerment
|
Limited
|
Psychological
|
Unconscious
|
How
|
Many
|
Invert
|
Insight
|
Reductionist
|
Political
|
Culture
|
All
|
Many
|
Invert
|
Empowerment
|
Prejudice
|
Marxist
|
Economic
|
How much
|
Reduced
|
Quantify and Rank
|
Political awareness
|
Reductionist
|
Religious
|
Holy texts
|
Who
|
Many
|
Structuralist
|
Focus
|
Fascism
|
New Historical
|
Documents
Artifacts
|
All
|
Many
|
Research
|
Objectivity
|
Isms
|
Queer Theory
|
Community
|
Who
|
Many
|
Invert
|
Diversity
|
Isolation
|
Ecological
|
Environment
|
Where
|
Many
|
Invert
|
Global
|
Political
|
© Susanna Rich, 2020
“The theme of the play…what Shakespeare is saying…this play
is about…” All these ways of introducing an interpretation are fundamentally
problematic. “The” presumes that there
is one best way to encounter a piece of literature. Attributing intention to an author co-opts
speakers’ rights. Asserting what a play
is about is to cut off other points of view.
All these ways of speaking are vestigial patriarchal forms of discourse
to exert control over language and literature.
Individual voices and experiences are silenced. Much is at stake.
In the 20th
century, there was a great, scientific surge of challenging this often-called Humanist/Historical
critical approach to literature.
Theories now abound, revolutions are fought, diversity is fostered, and
literature is regaining fans after centuries of elite control.
The chart
above encapsulates some major critical approaches, the focus creating meaning,
the main question being asked—how generative the approach is in promoting
multiple interpretations, and the predominant strategy for engaging with
literature. Benefits and problems are
cited for each approach.
To
completely digest this chart is the work of many posts and wide
discussions. We’ll start here with a survey
of the locus of meaning and the major modes of questioning for each: (1)
Humanist/Historical; (2) Formalist; and (3) Reader/Response.
(1) The
Humanist/Historical approach focuses on The Author, and asks the question Who wrote this? This
perspective assumes that there is one interpretation, the one that the author purportedly
consciously in mind when she wrote. The
post Intentional Fallacy: The Literary Séance https://becauseicanteach.blogspot.com/2019/02/intentional-fallacies-literary-seance.html
considers this limited view of how meaning is made—and its severe
limitations. A corollary question is to
consider the cultural milieu in which the author wrote as a source of
meaning. This can be an exciting
exploration if it is done in the spirit of the New Historicists, where
documents and artifacts are used to substantiate interpretations. Unfortunately, the old Humanist/Historical
approach may rely on projecting biased theories of what makes history. With a process of selective attention and
broad claims, old encrusted ways of thinking imbue and skew
interpretation. In short, it’s too
subjective and promotes prejudices.
(2) The
Formalist approach, in the attempt to bring scientific objectivity into the
interpretation of literature, focuses on The Text. To do so,
the Formalist avoids projecting intentions onto authors, and suspects general claims
about history. Instead, the focus is on
the text, itself: that solid, present
thing in front of the eyes or at the fingertips: What are the words? The dictionary and
etymological entries on them? Their sonics? Their rhythms? The line endings for
poetry? The punctuation? A whole new set of interpretive strategies emerged
that enlivened and deepened literary interpretation—what came to be known as
“close reading.” But many Formalists veered back to history by importing
literary allusions into their operations—historical data.
(3) A third
locus of meaning making is the The Reader, and this is where mid-Twentieth Century
next turned. Reader-Response theory is not
an anything-goes invitation to veer off into a lengthy discussion about your
grandmother’s scones, because the word “muffin” appeared in a poem. Reader-Response theory studies how readers
read. For example, a Reader-Response
researcher would present a group of ten-year old girls a particular poem, and
also present the same poem to a group of ten-year old boys. She would then compare the readers
interpretations to discern whether there were gender biases at play. Reader-Response theory often pairs with other
critical approaches, as in the example above, which incorporates Gender
Studies. In a class in which
Reader-Response is favored, your discussions will focus on differences in
interpretation and what those differences say about readers’ diverse interests
and concerns.
In your
literature classes, notice what source of meaning is favored: The Author, The
Text, or The Reader. Is there a blend of
the three? Which locus of meaning is
most interesting and generative for you?
© Susanna Rich, 2020
Because I Can Teach: https://becauseicanteach.blogspot.com/2019/02/intentional-fallacies-literary-seance.html
No comments:
Post a Comment