Day: November 17, 2024

Introduction: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

“What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Norman Friedman, first appeared in The Antioch Review in its Autumn 1960 issue, published by Antioch Review Inc. The article, digitized by JSTOR, addresses the purpose and value of literary criticism amidst growing skepticism from various quarters, including poets, scholars, and lay readers. Friedman explores criticism’s necessity as a bridge between the reader and the deeper layers of literature, countering the notion that it over-intellectualizes or diminishes the pleasure of literary experience. He argues for a balanced approach, where reasoning and systematic inquiry coexist with emotional and imaginative engagement. Highlighting the utility of criticism in cultivating taste, extending understanding, and enhancing aesthetic appreciation, the article situates literary criticism as essential to both appreciating and challenging the complexities of creative works. It further underscores the importance of reasoning and theory in navigating the subjective and often ambiguous terrain of literary interpretation. Friedman’s work remains a cornerstone in discussions about the role of criticism in literary theory, advocating for an informed yet flexible approach to understanding literature.

Summary of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• The Age of Criticism and Growing Skepticism
  Friedman opens by identifying the contemporary era as an “age of criticism,” marked by the proliferation of analytical works and theoretical discussions in literature. However, this growth has been met with skepticism from poets, scholars, and lay readers, who view criticism as excessive, overly intellectual, and at times harmful to the creative process (“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)).
• Criticism vs. Creation: A Necessary Tension
  A recurring concern in the article is the perceived tension between literary creation and criticism. Critics such as John Crowe Ransom and T.S. Eliot lament that excessive criticism risks overshadowing creative impulses. Friedman acknowledges this tension but maintains that criticism, when properly applied, complements creativity rather than stifling it (“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (Friedman, 1960, p. 316)).
• Hostility Towards Intellectual Inquiry in Literature
  Friedman identifies a broader cultural hostility towards intellectualism, tracing its roots to historical, psychological, and philosophical objections. He critiques the belief that reasoning about literature diminishes its enjoyment, arguing instead that intellectual engagement enhances rather than detracts from aesthetic pleasure (“But do we really think that our pleasures are so frail as to disappear under analysis? Or that the powers of literature are so weak as to be so easily crushed?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 319)).
• The Role of Theory and Systematic Inquiry
  The article emphasizes the inevitability and utility of theoretical frameworks in literary analysis. Friedman argues that no interpretation occurs in a vacuum; even the most intuitive responses are shaped by implicit assumptions (“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading” (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)).
• Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in Criticism
  Friedman elaborates on the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in criticism, countering the notion that these methods are antithetical to the literary experience. He asserts that both are essential to forming meaningful interpretations (“Most questions of literary interpretation … are of this second type … making inferences, and it is that process of making inferences which is … dependent upon the principles of reasoning” (Friedman, 1960, p. 322)).
• Multiple Dimensions of Literary Criticism
  Friedman outlines the multifaceted nature of literary criticism, encompassing inquiries into the poet’s life, the poem’s structure, its effects on the reader, and its connection to the broader world. He emphasizes that no single approach can capture the entirety of a work’s significance (“No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do and not what any other approach can do” (Friedman, 1960, p. 325)).
• Criticism as a Path to Discovery
  The ultimate purpose of criticism, according to Friedman, is to enable deeper understanding and appreciation of literature. By examining our assumptions and engaging rigorously with texts, critics can transcend personal biases and uncover new dimensions of meaning (“In this way only can we do justice to the poet. How else can we get outside ourselves and enter the world he took such pains to make for us?” (Friedman, 1960, p. 330)).
• Criticism and Progress in Literary Knowledge
  Friedman asserts that criticism is not an idle exercise but a progressive endeavor. Through systematic inquiry and theoretical exploration, critics contribute to the collective understanding of literature (“Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations unless the issue is first joined, this doesn’t mean … that one interpretation is as good as the other” (Friedman, 1960, p. 328)).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation/Definition	References from the Text
Criticism vs. Creation	The tension between the act of literary creation and the critical analysis that follows, often seen as potentially stifling creativity.	“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316).
Inductive Reasoning	A form of reasoning that begins with specific observations and builds general conclusions or theories.	“Induction … provides us instead with a rational method for testing its results” (p. 323).
Deductive Reasoning	A logical process that starts with a general statement or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a specific conclusion.	“Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown” (p. 322).
Subordination of Criticism	The idea that criticism should serve creative literature, not dominate it.	“Critics must follow writers and not vice versa” (p. 316).
Multiplicity of Approaches	The acknowledgment that different works demand different theoretical and methodological approaches to interpretation.	“No one approach gives us the whole truth; that each approach does what it was designed to do” (p. 325).
Reason in Literary Criticism	Advocacy for rational inquiry and reasoning as necessary tools for deeper understanding of literature.	“There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one” (p. 326).
Hostility to Intellectual Inquiry	The resistance from some quarters to analyzing literature systematically, often tied to fears of over-intellectualization.	“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical” (p. 316).
Role of Theoretical Frameworks	The necessity of explicit or implicit frameworks in guiding interpretation and criticism.	“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience” (p. 326).
Progress in Literary Knowledge	The idea that criticism contributes to the accumulation of understanding and knowledge about literature.	“Although there is no way of choosing between competing interpretations … one interpretation is as good as another” (p. 328).
Educational Function of Criticism	The role of criticism in extending and cultivating a reader’s taste, understanding, and appreciation of literature.	“How does such an argument allow for us to develop and extend our natural responses and tastes?” (p. 327).

Contribution of “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Approach	Contribution	References from the Article
New Criticism	Advocates for close reading and systematic analysis of texts, emphasizing internal coherence, paradox, and tension as critical tools for interpretation.	“We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like, in an attempt to define the total meaning” (p. 324).
Reader-Response Theory	Highlights the interaction between the text and the reader, considering the subjective experience and interpretative engagement of the audience.	“How it affects him or what good or harm it will do to him” as a basis for critical inquiry (p. 325).
Formalism	Emphasizes the study of the artistic structure of literature, analyzing how the parts of a literary work relate to the whole.	“If we want to study the poem as an artistic product, then we must ask how the parts are related to the whole” (p. 324).
Historical-Biographical Criticism	Discusses how the poet’s life, historical context, and creative process influence the composition and interpretation of a literary work.	“How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document” (p. 324).
Psychological Criticism	Introduces psychological theories, including Freudian analysis, to understand the creative process and character motivations within literary texts.	“The various psychological theories which by now have gained currency” as tools for interpretation (p. 324).
Critical Pluralism	Advocates for a multiplicity of approaches to literary analysis, recognizing that no single method can provide a complete understanding of a text.	“No one approach gives us the whole truth; each evolves out of a reasonable process of inference” (p. 325).
Ontology of Literature	Explores the metaphysical nature of literary works, questioning their relationship to reality and their role in representing or shaping the human experience.	“The mode of being of poetry—whether it has any significant connection with reality or whether it is simply a fictive device” (p. 325).
Educational Philosophy in Criticism	Asserts the role of criticism in enhancing a reader’s aesthetic and intellectual engagement with literature, fostering growth in understanding and taste.	“Criticism contributes to a liberal and enlarged area of aesthetic awareness, bounded only by our capacity for new experience” (p. 330).
Ethical Criticism	Discusses the moral implications of literature and its influence on readers, engaging with the ethical dimensions of literary texts.	“What good or harm it will do to him” as part of the critical inquiry into the poem-reader relationship (p. 325).
Theory of Induction and Deduction	Integrates philosophical reasoning methods into literary criticism, demonstrating how systematic inquiry can enrich interpretation and understanding.	“Deduction refers to the manner in which the mind infers the nature of that which is unknown … Induction helps us to test the adequacy of our conclusions” (pp. 322–323).

Examples of Critiques Through “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• Critique of Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” (Explication Approach)
  Using Friedman’s defense of systematic analysis, critics might revisit John Ciardi’s controversial explication of Frost’s poem. A focus on paradox and tension, as Friedman suggests, could reveal the conflict between the speaker’s duty and the allure of nature’s stillness (**”We look in poems for conflicts, paradoxes, ironies, ambiguities, symbols, and the like”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 324)).
• Critique of T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (New Criticism)
  Applying Friedman’s emphasis on internal coherence, Eliot’s work could be analyzed for its paradoxes and ambiguities, examining how the fragmentation reflects the spiritual disarray of modernity (**”If poetry is, as they say, organized around a reconciliation of opposing views … then we look in poems for conflicts and tensions”* (p. 324)).
• Critique of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (Historical-Biographical Criticism)
  Following Friedman’s approach to considering an author’s life and historical context, Fitzgerald’s novel could be critiqued as a reflection of Jazz Age decadence and disillusionment (**”How a poem reflects the life and background of its author … the poem has the status of a document”* (p. 324)).
• Critique of Emily Dickinson’s Poetry (Psychological Criticism)
  Through psychological theories, Dickinson’s use of imagery and themes of death and isolation could be explored as expressions of her introspective and reclusive personality (**”The various psychological theories … allow us to infer the nature of that process from the characteristics of the results”* (p. 324)).

Criticism Against “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

• Overemphasis on Rationality
  Critics might argue that Friedman places excessive emphasis on logical reasoning and systematic inquiry, potentially marginalizing the emotional and intuitive responses that many believe are central to experiencing literature (**”There is no escape, then, from reason—even if we should want one”* (Friedman, 1960, p. 326)).
• Dismissal of Anti-Critical Perspectives
  While Friedman acknowledges skepticism toward criticism, he largely dismisses it as hostility to intellectual inquiry. Critics could challenge this as oversimplifying valid concerns about over-intellectualization of literature (**”The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself”* (p. 317)).
• Limited Consideration of Cultural and Social Factors
  The essay focuses heavily on individual works and theoretical frameworks but provides limited discussion of broader cultural or societal influences on literature and its interpretation, which are vital in contemporary literary studies.
• Neglect of Reader’s Agency in Interpretation
  Although Friedman addresses reader-response aspects, his approach could be critiqued for insufficiently emphasizing the role of individual readers’ diverse contexts, experiences, and subjective interpretations.
• Insufficient Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
  The essay operates predominantly within a Western literary tradition and critical frameworks, leaving non-Western literary theories and perspectives unexamined, thus limiting its inclusivity.
• Overgeneralization of Critical Pluralism
  While Friedman advocates for multiple approaches, critics might argue that his emphasis on critical pluralism lacks specificity, as it does not fully address how competing interpretations should be prioritized or reconciled (**”No one approach gives us the whole truth”* (p. 325)).
• Perceived Elitism in Literary Study
  Friedman’s argument for intellectual rigor and systematic approaches might be criticized as catering to an academic elite, alienating casual readers and undermining literature’s accessibility.

Representative Quotations from “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Criticism, in relation to creative literature, is subordinate and should remain so: critics must follow writers and not vice versa.” (p. 316)	Friedman highlights that criticism serves creative literature, ensuring that it complements rather than stifles the artistic process.
“Critics do sometimes go too far, and much criticism being published today is dull, repetitive, mechanical, pedantic, and unimaginative.” (p. 316)	This acknowledges valid critiques of literary criticism, stressing that poorly executed criticism can harm the appreciation of literature.
“The attack on the abuses of reason frequently turns into an attack on reason itself.” (p. 317)	Friedman defends intellectual inquiry against those who dismiss it outright, asserting the importance of reasoning in understanding literature.
“No one critical theory as to the nature and function of literature should dominate the field, for artists must be allowed to work out their own visions and revisions.” (p. 316)	He advocates for diversity in critical approaches, warning against rigid adherence to a single critical framework.
“We cannot interpret it or anything about it without—deliberately or intuitively—bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326)	This emphasizes the inescapable influence of personal and cultural contexts in interpreting literary works.
“Logic merely formulates what happens whenever we think effectively, just as grammar merely formulates what happens whenever we speak or write effectively.” (p. 323)	Friedman underscores that reasoning is a natural part of critical thought, comparable to how grammar structures language.
“If you can’t feel it, then I can’t explain it to you” … undercuts the entire teaching profession at its roots.” (p. 327)	He critiques the anti-intellectual stance that denies the role of teaching and systematic inquiry in fostering deeper literary appreciation.
“There are systems and there are systems—some are closed in that they limit our experience of a poem … some are open in that they widen our experience by suggesting ways of asking questions.” (p. 329)	Friedman distinguishes between restrictive and expansive critical methods, advocating for those that enhance exploration and understanding.
“The poem does not interpret itself for us, and we cannot interpret it … without bringing something of our past experience with life and with literature to bear upon our reading.” (p. 326)	He asserts that interpretation requires active engagement and is shaped by the reader’s experiences and knowledge.
“We are all critics, then, whether we know it or not.” (p. 329)	Friedman democratizes the concept of criticism, suggesting that forming opinions and judgments is an inherent human activity.

Suggested Readings: “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” by Normal Friedman

1. Friedman, Norman. “What Good Is Literary Criticism?” The Antioch Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 1960, pp. 315–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4610268. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Butler, Christopher. “What Is a Literary Work?” New Literary History, vol. 5, no. 1, 1973, pp. 17–29. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468405. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Fleming, Bruce E. “What Is the Value of Literary Studies?” New Literary History, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, pp. 459–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057615. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

“Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper first appeared in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (June 1999, No. 93), published by Berghahn Books in collaboration with the University of KwaZulu-Natal. This essay explores the complex relationship between humanism and science, contending with the perceived antagonism between the two. Cooper traces the philosophical evolution of humanism, distinguishing between various interpretations, such as Renaissance humanism, rational subjectivity, and existential humanism. He posits that modern humanism, particularly in its existential form, inherently challenges the scientific worldview by rejecting notions of an objective reality independent of human perspectives. This work is significant in literature and literary theory as it underscores the philosophical tensions between human agency, cultural heritage, and the epistemological frameworks underpinning scientific inquiry. It invites a rethinking of humanism’s role in shaping intellectual discourses and its implications for understanding human culture and values amidst modernity’s scientific advancements.

Summary of “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

1. Diverse Interpretations of Humanism and Science

• Cooper highlights contrasting views on humanism and its relation to science, citing some who see science as irrelevant to the humanities, while others equate modern humanism with scientific humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 1). These differences stem from varying definitions of humanism and its historical contexts.

2. Renaissance Humanism and its Legacy

• Renaissance humanism, focused on the humanities (litterae humaniores), is identified as the origin of the term. It emphasized cultural and intellectual pursuits, setting itself apart from modern interpretations tied to secular and scientific concerns (Cooper, 1999, p. 2).

3. Evolution into Philosophical Humanism

• Cooper traces how modern philosophical humanism diverges from its Renaissance roots, transitioning into a worldview that often conflicts with scientific perspectives. This conflict arises when humanism prioritizes subjective, human-centered values over scientific objectivity (Cooper, 1999, p. 3).

4. Characterizing Humanism

• Cooper identifies four dominant characterizations of humanism in intellectual history:
  1. Essentialism: Positing a universal “essence” of humanity (Cooper, 1999, p. 4).
  2. Naturalism: Viewing humans as a natural species, often aligned with scientific explanations (Cooper, 1999, p. 6).
  3. Rational Subjectivity: Celebrating the autonomy and rational capacities of individuals (Cooper, 1999, p. 8).
  4. Existential Humanism: Emphasizing human agency in constructing meaning and reality, rejecting universal truths (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).

5. The Critique of Humanism

• Modern critiques of humanism often focus on its anthropocentric tendencies and its reliance on human-centered metaphysics, which some environmental ethicists and philosophers like Heidegger argue has contributed to ecological and epistemic crises (Cooper, 1999, p. 5).

6. Existential Humanism as the Dominant Form

• Cooper identifies existential humanism as the most representative form of contemporary humanism. It denies a fixed, objective reality, emphasizing instead the constructive role of human agency in shaping the world (Cooper, 1999, p. 12).

7. Historical Continuity and Divergence

• Cooper connects existential humanism to its Renaissance precursors, who, in response to medieval skepticism about divine order, began privileging human agency and practical engagement over metaphysical speculation (Cooper, 1999, p. 13).

8. Implications for Science and Humanism

• Cooper argues that existential humanism inherently conflicts with the scientific worldview when the latter asserts an independent, intrinsic reality. This clash reflects deeper tensions between human-centered values and objective scientific inquiry (Cooper, 1999, p. 15).

9. Bridging Historical and Popular Understandings

• The dual heritage of humanism—as both a celebration of human culture and a naturalistic concern for human well-being—explains the divergent popular interpretations of the term today (Cooper, 1999, p. 16).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Humanism	A worldview emphasizing human values, culture, and agency. Varied interpretations exist, including philosophical, scientific, and cultural humanism.	Discussed throughout; historical roots in Renaissance humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 1-2).
Renaissance Humanism	Focus on humanities (litterae humaniores), cultural achievements, and skepticism toward universal scientific truths.	Origin of humanism, contrasting with modern forms (Cooper, 1999, p. 2).
Essentialism	The belief in a universal human essence that defines human nature. Often criticized for being overly simplistic.	Rejected by modern humanists like Sartre; “existence precedes essence” (Cooper, 1999, pp. 4-5).
Naturalism	A view that positions humans as part of nature, often rejecting supernatural explanations.	Explored in the context of scientific humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 6-7).
Rational Subjectivity	The notion that humans are autonomous, rational beings capable of independent judgment and creating meaning.	Rooted in Enlightenment ideas; critiqued for privileging individual rationality (Cooper, 1999, pp. 8-9).
Existential Humanism	Emphasizes human agency in shaping reality and meaning. Rejects objective truths independent of human perspective.	Argued to be the dominant modern form of humanism (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-13).
Scientific Worldview	A perspective that seeks to explain reality through objective, empirical, and naturalistic methods.	Often conflicts with existential humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 15).
Anthropocentrism	The belief that humans are the central or most significant entities in the universe.	Criticized by environmental ethics and linked to ecological issues (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
Metaphysical Hubris	The overconfidence in human ability to define or reshape reality based solely on human perspectives and interests.	Critiqued by thinkers like Heidegger and Nagel (Cooper, 1999, p. 12).
Self-Assertion	A response to the loss of divine order, emphasizing human agency and practical engagement with the world.	Highlighted as a response to medieval skepticism (Cooper, 1999, p. 13).
Agency-Driven Antirealism	The view that reality is shaped by human practices, desires, and interests rather than existing independently.	Central to existential humanism (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
Post-Enlightenment Skepticism	Doubts about the universal applicability and objectivity of reason and scientific inquiry.	Rooted in critiques of Enlightenment rationality (Cooper, 1999, p. 9).
Environmental Ethics	Critiques humanism’s anthropocentric tendencies and its perceived role in ecological degradation.	Views humanism as responsible for a “technological stance” towards nature (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).

Contribution of “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Anthropocentrism in Literature and Culture
  • Cooper critiques the anthropocentric focus of humanism, which literary ecocriticism also addresses. He aligns with environmental ethics that challenge human-centered narratives, suggesting a shift towards perspectives that decentralize human agency in interpreting texts and culture (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Existential Humanism and Poststructuralist Theory
  • By emphasizing existential humanism, Cooper contributes to theories like poststructuralism, which reject fixed meanings and universal truths. His discussion parallels Derrida’s notion of deconstruction, where meaning is shaped by human agency rather than inherent essences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-12).
• Reinterpretation of Enlightenment Values
  • Cooper interrogates rational subjectivity as rooted in Enlightenment ideals, critiquing its dominance in Western thought. This resonates with postcolonial and feminist literary theories that challenge universal rationality as a colonial or patriarchal construct (Cooper, 1999, p. 8).
• Skepticism Toward Universal Truths
  • Cooper’s alignment with Renaissance skepticism about “global truths” connects with New Historicism, which views meaning and interpretation as context-dependent, influenced by historical and cultural factors (Cooper, 1999, pp. 2-3).
• Human Agency in Shaping Reality
  • His focus on agency-driven antirealism informs reader-response theory. Cooper’s view that humans construct reality aligns with the idea that readers co-create meaning through their subjective engagement with texts (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
• Humanism’s Role in Technological Narratives
  • Cooper critiques humanism’s complicity in technological and ecological degradation, offering insights relevant to Marxist and materialist theories. These theories examine how human-centered ideologies influence cultural production and consumption (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Influence on Ecocritical Theory
  • By addressing humanism’s impact on ecological crises, Cooper aligns with ecocriticism, which critiques literature’s anthropocentric biases and promotes more inclusive representations of nature (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
• Reevaluation of Renaissance Humanism
  • His analysis of Renaissance humanism’s focus on cultural achievements enriches literary studies by highlighting how these traditions inform modern humanist and posthumanist perspectives (Cooper, 1999, pp. 13-15).
• Intersection with Modern Literary Theories
  • Cooper’s existential humanism, with its emphasis on human agency and constructed realities, contributes to phenomenological approaches in literary theory, where subjective experience is central to understanding texts (Cooper, 1999, pp. 11-12).

Examples of Critiques Through “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

Literary Work	Critique Based on Cooper’s Ideas	Key References from Cooper’s Article
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	Critique of anthropocentrism: Victor Frankenstein’s attempt to “master nature” reflects humanism’s technological hubris.	Cooper discusses the “technological stance” and its ecological consequences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 5-6).
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness	Post-Enlightenment skepticism: The novella critiques Enlightenment rationality and its link to colonial exploitation.	Cooper critiques rational subjectivity and universal truths rooted in Enlightenment ideals (Cooper, 1999, pp. 8-9).
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Nature	Critique of human agency in shaping reality: Emerson’s transcendentalism embodies existential humanism but risks anthropocentrism.	Cooper’s existential humanism focuses on human agency shaping the world, often critiqued for anthropocentrism (Cooper, 1999, p. 11).
William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience	Critique of human dualism: Blake’s works challenge humanism’s compartmentalization of innocence and experience, advocating a holistic view.	Cooper discusses skepticism toward rigid humanist categories and fixed essences (Cooper, 1999, pp. 4-5).

Criticism Against “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

• Lack of Practical Solutions
  • While Cooper critiques anthropocentrism and the scientific worldview’s conflicts with humanism, he provides limited practical alternatives to reconcile these tensions.
• Overgeneralization of Philosophical Traditions
  • The categorization of humanism into essentialism, naturalism, rational subjectivity, and existential humanism may oversimplify complex and diverse philosophical traditions.
• Insufficient Engagement with Counterarguments
  • Cooper critiques the scientific worldview and Enlightenment rationality but does not fully address the strengths or potential synergies between science and humanism.
• Limited Representation of Modern Humanism
  • The discussion heavily emphasizes existential humanism as the dominant form, potentially sidelining other significant contemporary interpretations of humanism, such as pragmatic humanism.
• Ambiguity in Defining Existential Humanism
  • While Cooper highlights existential humanism’s emphasis on agency and constructed realities, the boundaries of this concept remain vague and open to interpretation.
• Neglect of Posthumanist Perspectives
  • Cooper’s critique of traditional humanism does not sufficiently engage with posthumanist theories that challenge human exceptionalism and offer alternative frameworks.
• Inconsistent Historical Connections
  • The link between Renaissance humanism and existential humanism, while compelling, may oversimplify historical developments and downplay transitional philosophical movements.
• Limited Scope in Addressing Ecological Concerns
  • Although Cooper critiques anthropocentrism, his work lacks depth in proposing how humanism can adapt to address pressing ecological and environmental crises.

Representative Quotations from “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The appearance of a necessary opposition between humanism and science is illusory.”	Cooper highlights how the perceived conflict between humanism and science is rooted in misunderstandings of their roles and definitions, showing how they may complement rather than contradict each other.
“Modern humanism just is scientific humanism.”	This reflects Cooper’s observation of modern humanist movements aligning themselves with scientific rationality, advocating for a worldview grounded in empirical evidence.
“Humanism, in the dominant philosophical sense today, is antagonistic to the scientific worldview.”	Cooper argues that contemporary philosophical humanism often challenges the deterministic and objective claims of science, emphasizing subjective human values and agency.
“The scientific worldview implies that reality is independent of human perspectives and purposes.”	This contrasts with existential humanism, which Cooper identifies as centered on the idea that reality is shaped by human interaction and interpretation.
“The theory of the subject is at the heart of humanism.”	Cooper points to the focus on human subjectivity and autonomy as central to humanist philosophy, especially in its existential variant.
“Existential humanism denies that there is a way the world intrinsically is, independent of human perspectives.”	Here, Cooper encapsulates existential humanism’s anti-realist stance, emphasizing the role of human agency in constructing reality.
“Human dignity is secured not through success in contemplative appreciation of the cosmic order, but through successful coping with the world.”	This reflects the shift from metaphysical or religious humanism to a pragmatic approach, emphasizing human ability to adapt and thrive.
“For Heidegger, the technological stance to the world as equipment at human disposal is responsible for ‘the devastation of the earth.’”	Cooper integrates Heidegger’s critique of anthropocentrism, linking humanism’s focus on agency with environmental exploitation.
“Renaissance humanism engendered, in more than one way, the development of a natural science which left little space for the divine and supernatural.”	Cooper examines how Renaissance humanism’s focus on human capacity and reason laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry and secularism.
“There is no one position under attack and inviting a single characterization.”	Cooper acknowledges the multiplicity of critiques against humanism, arguing for a nuanced understanding of its diverse interpretations and implications.

Suggested Readings: “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview” by David E. Cooper

1. Cooper, David E. “Humanism and the Scientific Worldview.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 93, 1999, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802111. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. McNeill, William H. “History and the Scientific Worldview.” History and Theory, vol. 37, no. 1, 1998, pp. 1–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505637. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Paden, Roger. “Foucault’s Anti-Humanism.” Human Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1987, pp. 123–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008991. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. Griffioen, Sander. “ON WORLDVIEWS.” Philosophia Reformata, vol. 77, no. 1, 2012, pp. 19–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24710030. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

“Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by René Wellek first appeared in The Sewanee Review in Winter 1960, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. In this seminal article, Wellek distinguishes the interrelated but distinct fields of literary theory, criticism, and history. He advocates for their collaboration, emphasizing that literary theory involves the principles and criteria of literature, criticism deals with the interpretation and evaluation of individual works, and history examines literature in its temporal and cultural contexts. Wellek critiques efforts to subsume these disciplines into one or reduce them to purely historical or critical endeavors, defending the necessity of theoretical inquiry in understanding literature as a systematic art form. The work remains a cornerstone in literary studies, urging a balanced approach to evaluating literature’s aesthetic, historical, and theoretical dimensions. This piece underscores the importance of integrating these perspectives to enrich the study and appreciation of literary works, advancing the broader discourse in humanities.

Summary of “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Key Themes and Insights:

1. Distinction of Literary Disciplines
   Wellek emphasizes the differentiation among literary theory, literary criticism, and literary history, asserting their interdependence but distinct roles. Literary theory explores the principles and criteria of literature, criticism interprets and evaluates works, and history situates literature in its historical context (pp. 1-3).
2. Collaboration Between Disciplines
   Wellek argues that the three disciplines—literary theory, criticism, and history—“implicate each other so thoroughly as to make inconceivable literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history” (p. 2).
3. Critique of Terminological Confusion
   The article critiques the terminological inconsistencies across languages. For example, the German term “Literaturwissenschaft” retains a broad meaning, while English terms like “literary theory” and “poetics” have narrower or misleading connotations (pp. 3-4).
4. Theory’s Role in Literary Studies
   Literary theory is positioned as vital to understanding literature as a systematic and intellectual pursuit. Wellek defends theory against efforts to subordinate it to history or criticism (p. 5).
5. Response to Northrop Frye
   Wellek acknowledges Northrop Frye’s contributions to literary theory but critiques Frye’s attempt to isolate literary theory as the supreme discipline while diminishing the roles of criticism and history (pp. 6-7).
6. Rejection of Pure Historicism
   Wellek refutes extreme historicism, which he sees as overly relativistic and prone to antiquarian pedantry. He argues for integrating history into literary analysis without reducing literature to historical artifacts (pp. 8-10).
7. Defending Close Reading
   While acknowledging the flaws of close reading, Wellek asserts its indispensability for advancing literary understanding, calling it a fundamental tool for interpretation (p. 11).
8. Against Absolute Relativism
   Wellek criticizes complete relativism, arguing that it leads to skepticism and undermines meaningful evaluation. He advocates for a balanced approach that recognizes universal aesthetic values while accounting for historical and cultural contexts (pp. 14-15).
9. Vision for Unified Literary Study
   Wellek concludes by advocating a unified literary approach where theory, criticism, and history coexist and inform each other. He likens literature to an “imaginary museum” that transcends time and space, asserting humanity’s defiance of impermanence (pp. 18-19).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key Reference/Explanation in Text
Literary Theory	The study of principles, categories, and criteria of literature; the systematic framework for understanding literature.	“Literary theory” is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like (p. 2).
Literary Criticism	Analysis and evaluation of specific literary works; focuses on interpretation and judgment of individual texts.	“Literary criticism” (primarily static in approach) is distinct yet related to literary theory and history (p. 2).
Literary History	Situates literature within historical and cultural contexts, analyzing its evolution and chronological order.	“History” examines literature as a series of works arranged in a chronological order and as integral parts of the historical process (p. 2).
Historicism	The approach that emphasizes understanding literature within its historical and cultural context, often critiqued for relativism.	Critiqued for leading to “antiquarian pedantry” and devaluing the universal aspects of art (pp. 8-10).
Close Reading	A detailed, focused analysis of a text’s structure and meaning, emphasizing the text itself over external context.	“Close reading… is surely here to stay, as any branch of knowledge can advance and has advanced only by careful inspection” (p. 11).
Systematic Knowledge	Literature studied as a coherent system, with its principles and values interconnected.	“A theory of literature… must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature” (p. 5).
Relativism	The belief that judgments and values are context-dependent and subjective; critiqued for undermining universal evaluation.	Extreme relativism “leads to paralyzing skepticism, to an anarchy of values” (p. 14).
Collaboration of Disciplines	The interdependence of theory, criticism, and history to provide a comprehensive understanding of literature.	“These distinctions are fairly obvious… yet the disciplines implicate each other thoroughly” (pp. 1-3).
Aesthetic Standards	Universal principles for evaluating the quality of literary works, countering pure relativism.	“Critical judgment requires aesthetic standards just as ethical or logical standards are indispensable” (p. 15).
Imaginary Museum	A metaphor for the cumulative and transcendent nature of literature across time and cultures.	“Literature… is a chorus of voices… articulating defiance of impermanence, relativity, and history” (p. 19).

Contribution of “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Theoretical Framework	Contribution	Reference/Key Argument in Article
Structuralism	Emphasizes the systematic nature of literature, arguing for the analysis of its intrinsic structure and coherence.	“Literary theory… must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature” (p. 5).
Formalism/New Criticism	Defends close reading as essential for understanding literature, focusing on the text itself over historical or biographical details.	“Close reading… is surely here to stay, as any branch of knowledge can advance… only by careful, minute inspection” (p. 11).
Historicist Criticism	Challenges reductive historicism while advocating for integrating historical context without subsuming literature entirely into history.	“History cannot absorb or replace theory, while theory should not even dream of absorbing history” (p. 19).
Comparative Literature	Advocates for breaking down linguistic and cultural barriers to create a universal understanding of literature.	“We can more directly and easily assemble our museum in a library… still faced with the walls and barriers of languages” (p. 19).
Reader-Response Theory	Implicitly supports the interaction between the critic and the text, emphasizing judgment and interpretation by the reader.	“The critic must analyze, interpret, and evaluate it; he must, in short, be a critic in order to be a historian” (p. 14).
Aesthetic Theory	Critiques relativism and reasserts the need for universal aesthetic standards for evaluating literature.	“There is a hierarchy of viewpoints… evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding” (p. 17).
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies	Proposes collaboration between literary theory, criticism, and history to enrich literary analysis and interpretation.	“The three disciplines… implicate each other thoroughly, making inconceivable one without the others” (p. 2).
Philosophical Hermeneutics	Addresses the role of the critic’s subjectivity and argues for objective standards to counteract extreme relativism.	“Men can correct their biases… rise above temporal and local limitations, aim at objectivity, arrive at some knowledge and truth” (p. 14).
Canon Formation	Engages with the debates around the literary canon, arguing for the acknowledgment of universally recognized classics.	“There is… a very wide agreement on the great classics: the main canon of literature” (p. 16).
Universal Humanism	Advocates for the universality of literature, asserting that works from diverse cultures resonate with shared human experiences.	“There is a common humanity which makes every art remote in time and place… accessible and enjoyable to us” (p. 18).

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

Literary Work	Type of Critique	Application of Wellek’s Concepts	Reference from Article
Milton’s Poetry	Evaluation and ranking of works based on their intellectual and aesthetic richness.	Wellek critiques the rejection of value judgments in Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism, emphasizing that Milton offers deeper intellectual engagement than lesser poets like Blackmore.	“Milton is a more rewarding and suggestive poet to work with than Blackmore” (p. 6).
Shakespeare’s Plays	Balancing historical context with intrinsic textual analysis for interpretation.	Wellek critiques pure historical readings that ignore a work’s intrinsic values, emphasizing the interplay between history and criticism in understanding Shakespeare.	“We cannot simply interpret Hamlet in terms of the hypothetical views of Shakespeare or his audience” (p. 15).
Marvell’s “Horatian Ode”	Historical context as a supplementary tool for understanding, not as definitive.	Discussing Cleanth Brooks’s interpretation, Wellek shows how historical information aids textual understanding while maintaining the poem’s autonomy as a work of art.	“The poem has to be read as a poem… historical evidence cannot finally determine what the poem says” (p. 7).
Herbert’s “Sacrifice”	Critique of misinterpretations stemming from arbitrary or speculative readings.	Wellek highlights the need for a balance between historical context and textual fidelity, critiquing Empson’s overly speculative analysis of Herbert’s poem.	“Miss Tuve seems right in insisting that ‘I must climb the tree’ means only ‘I must ascend the cross'” (p. 9).

Criticism Against “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

1. Ambiguity in Defining Disciplinary Boundaries
   While Wellek emphasizes the distinctions among literary theory, criticism, and history, critics argue that his definitions are sometimes vague and that these disciplines are more fluid in practice than he acknowledges.
2. Overemphasis on Systematic Knowledge
   Critics of structuralist or formalist approaches might argue that Wellek’s focus on “systematic knowledge” risks reducing literature to abstract principles, neglecting its emotional, cultural, and individual significance.
3. Limited Engagement with Postmodern and Non-Western Perspectives
   Wellek’s framework heavily relies on Western aesthetic and philosophical traditions, potentially marginalizing postmodern theories or non-Western literary approaches.
4. Resistance to Radical Historicism
   While Wellek critiques extreme historicism, some scholars argue that his stance underestimates the importance of socio-political and cultural contexts in shaping literature.
5. Dismissal of Relativism
   Wellek’s critique of relativism is seen by some as overly rigid, dismissing the valuable insights that historical and cultural relativism can provide in understanding diverse literary traditions.
6. Neglect of Reader-Response and Subjectivity
   His focus on systematic and objective analysis has been criticized for neglecting the subjective experience of readers and the variability of interpretations across audiences.
7. Potential Hierarchization of Literary Disciplines
   Critics suggest that Wellek implicitly prioritizes theory over criticism and history, despite his stated intention to treat all three disciplines as equally significant.
8. Resistance to New Theoretical Trends
   Wellek’s arguments appear rooted in mid-20th-century literary debates, potentially limiting their relevance to later theoretical developments such as post-structuralism and feminist theory.
9. Insufficient Attention to Popular or Marginalized Literatures
   His focus on canonical works and “great classics” has been criticized for excluding popular, marginalized, or experimental literary forms from scholarly consideration.

Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary theory is the study of the principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like.”	This defines literary theory as the systematic exploration of the structures and norms that govern literature, laying a foundation for analytical and evaluative approaches in literary studies.
“Literary theory without criticism or history, or criticism without theory or history, or history without theory and criticism, is inconceivable.”	Wellek emphasizes the interdependence of the three disciplines, arguing that they are essential and inseparable for a holistic understanding of literature.
“The term ‘literary theory’ is preferable to ‘science of literature’ because ‘science’ in English has become limited to natural science.”	Wellek critiques the term “science of literature” for its misleading implications, preferring “literary theory” as it better encapsulates the humanistic and evaluative aspects of studying literature.
“Criticism is conceptual knowledge, or aims at such knowledge. It must ultimately aim at systematic knowledge about literature, at literary theory.”	Criticism, for Wellek, is not mere opinion but a structured, systematic pursuit of knowledge that contributes to the development of literary theory.
“A literary work of art is a verbal structure of a certain coherence and wholeness.”	This quotation reflects Wellek’s formalist leanings, asserting that literature must be studied as a coherent verbal artifact, independent of external biographical or historical contexts.
“The assumption of one eternal, narrowly defined standard had to be abandoned…but complete relativism is equally untenable.”	Wellek rejects both absolutism and extreme relativism, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes enduring aesthetic standards while allowing for historical and cultural variability.
“Close reading has led to pedantries and aberrations…but it is surely here to stay.”	While acknowledging the limitations and excesses of close reading, Wellek defends its necessity as a methodological cornerstone of literary analysis.
“History cannot absorb or replace theory, while theory should not even dream of absorbing history.”	Wellek underlines the distinct but complementary roles of history and theory, advocating for their collaborative yet independent contributions to literary studies.
“Evaluation grows out of understanding: correct evaluation out of correct understanding.”	This highlights Wellek’s belief in the foundational role of interpretive accuracy in making sound evaluative judgments about literature.
“Literature…is a chorus of voices—articulate throughout the ages—which asserts man’s defiance of time and destiny.”	Wellek celebrates the timeless and universal nature of literature, portraying it as a collective human achievement that transcends historical and cultural boundaries.

Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History” by Rene Wellek

1. Wellek, René, and Rene Wellek. “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 68, no. 1, 1960, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540551. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Rowlett, John L., editor. “Reviewing Criticism: Literary Theory.” Genre Theory and Historical Change: Theoretical Essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, 2017, pp. 122–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.12. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. Galinsky, Hans. “Literary Criticism in Literary History: A Comparative View of the ‘Uses of the Past’ in Recent American and European Histories of American Literature.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1964, pp. 31–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40245625. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. TOBER, KARL. “THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF LITERARY CRITICISM.” Colloquia Germanica, vol. 1, 1967, pp. 121–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23980066. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

“From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski first appeared in Profession in 2008, published by the Modern Language Association. This seminal work challenges the traditional structure and focus of literary theory courses, advocating for a greater emphasis on critical methods that shape literary analysis. Felski critiques the conventional “theory course” model for its tendency to prioritize philosophical and political alignments over methodological clarity, arguing that this often obscures the mechanics of interpretation essential for advanced academic work, particularly for graduate students. By highlighting the interplay between theoretical frameworks and interpretative practices, Felski underscores the importance of making implicit analytical choices explicit, ultimately equipping scholars with the tools to refine their research methodologies. This piece has been pivotal in shifting literary studies from rigid theoretical orthodoxy to a more nuanced understanding of how disciplines evolve through practical and methodological adaptation. Its insights remain significant for both literary theory and pedagogy, emphasizing the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of textual interpretation.

Summary of “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

1. Significance of Literary Theory in Academia
   • Felski emphasizes that literary theory, once criticized for detracting from the appreciation of primary texts, has become an essential component of academic curricula. It introduces students to intellectual trends spanning decades (“Theory can no longer be dismissed as an arcane subspecialty”, p. 108).
   • However, traditional courses focus excessively on theoretical frameworks, neglecting the methodological tools essential for practical analysis (“the conventional theory course…tends to obscure rather than illuminate issues of method”, p. 108).
2. Critique of Conventional Course Structures
   • The typical structure of theory courses categorizes content by political or philosophical alignments, such as Marxism, deconstruction, feminism, and postcolonial theory (“grouping course materials according to criteria of philosophical orientation or political affiliation”, p. 108).
   • Felski argues that such organization reflects how theories present themselves, often overlooking the practical application of methods (“literary theory is something of a misnomer, given that the dominant figures in the theory canon are typically concerned not just with literature”, p. 109).
3. Interplay of Theory and Method
   • A critical gap exists between theoretical principles and their application in literary studies. While theories often reshape reading practices, interpretation remains grounded in established techniques (“practices of reading…covertly mold how theories are interpreted”, p. 111).
   • Close reading, a hallmark of New Criticism, persists across ideological divides, whether in traditional analysis or queer theory (“Critics…can share a common commitment to specific styles of interpretation”, p. 110).
4. Call for Critical Method Courses
   • Felski advocates for courses emphasizing critical methods to complement theory courses. These courses would highlight interpretative techniques and methodological decisions (“a course in critical method thus offers a valuable complement to the standard theory class”, p. 108).
   • Such an approach helps students refine their research projects by focusing on how expansive theoretical claims translate into specific analytical strategies (“Thinking seriously about critical method cannot help but alter our view of literary studies”, p. 108).
5. Challenges to Theoretical Orthodoxy
   • Felski critiques the rigidity of certain theoretical approaches, noting that methodological preferences often transcend political or philosophical commitments (“the relations between political or philosophical worldviews and methods of reading are complex”, p. 111).
   • She highlights the persistence of traditional practices even among scholars committed to radical theories (“the impact of new theoretical pictures on actual reading practices is more attenuated, mediated, and unpredictable”, p. 112).
6. Interdisciplinary Implications
   • Disciplinary conventions heavily shape how theories are employed. For instance, literary scholars analyzing non-literary texts often adapt methods from their training (“Victorianists may pride themselves on stretching the boundaries…yet to outsiders their arguments…unequivocally proclaim their English department training”, p. 113).
   • Felski underscores the necessity of acknowledging these conventions rather than aspiring to a supposed disciplinary transcendence (“the transcendence of disciplinarity…turns out to be more apparent than real”, p. 113).
7. Teaching Methodological Awareness
   • A critical methods course emphasizes the procedural choices underpinning literary arguments, enabling students to articulate and justify their analytical approaches (“students…gain the ability to justify their evidentiary claims against skeptical or hostile criticism”, p. 115).
   • It also bridges divides between disparate theoretical perspectives by focusing on shared interpretative practices (“such intellectual cross-fertilization…guards against reinventing the methodological wheel”, p. 115).
8. Conclusion: Rethinking Literary Studies
   • Felski concludes by advocating for a shift from abstract theoretical debates to the practical application of critical methods. This shift enriches the discipline by integrating the habitual, procedural knowledge that defines literary scholarship (“we need to think more carefully and more amply about how disciplinary training…shapes what we know and how we know it”, p. 116).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

Theoretical Term/Concept	Description	Reference/Context in the Article
Literary Theory	A broad field examining literature through various philosophical, political, and cultural lenses.	Described as encompassing New Criticism, structuralism, feminism, Marxism, postcolonial theory, and more, often organized around political or philosophical affiliations (p. 108-109).
Critical Method	Analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks used in literary studies.	Advocated as a complement to theory courses, emphasizing “how expansive claims… are translated into forms of interpretation” (p. 111).
Close Reading	Detailed, text-focused analysis that uncovers meaning through linguistic and structural features.	Identified as a shared technique across theoretical divides, including New Criticism and queer theory (p. 110).
Symptomatic Reading	A method uncovering hidden contradictions or repressed meanings in texts.	Explored in the context of feminist and Marxist critique, highlighting its assumptions about implicit or repressed textual meanings (p. 114-115).
Reflection Theory	The idea that literature reflects societal structures, ideologies, and realities.	Critiqued as an intellectually shaky premise regardless of the political or theoretical stance of its advocates (p. 115).
Ideology Critique	Examination of how texts perpetuate or challenge dominant ideologies.	Discussed in the context of alternatives to ideology critique and the “hermeneutics of suspicion” (p. 114).
Hermeneutics of Suspicion	A skeptical interpretative approach that assumes hidden meanings or power structures in texts.	Referenced as part of recent critiques in literary studies, contrasting with emerging interest in affect and enchantment (p. 114).
Disciplinarity	The influence of academic disciplines on methodologies and arguments.	Highlighted as shaping literary interpretation through ingrained practices rather than theoretical claims (p. 113).
Interdisciplinary Studies	Integration of methods from multiple academic disciplines.	Explored in relation to cultural studies, Victorian studies, and broader academic interactions that reveal disciplinary habits (p. 113-114).
New Criticism	A literary approach focusing on the intrinsic features of texts, such as form and structure.	Recognized for its lasting influence on interpretative techniques like close reading, even in poststructuralist contexts (p. 111).
Queer Theory	A framework analyzing texts through the lens of sexuality and gender, often challenging norms.	Cited alongside traditional approaches for shared interpretative methods, despite ideological differences (p. 110).
Feminist Critique	Analyzing texts with a focus on gender, power relations, and representation.	Examples include divergent approaches like Foucauldian historicism versus psychoanalytic frameworks (p. 110).
Cultural Studies	An interdisciplinary field examining cultural texts and practices in their sociopolitical contexts.	Referenced in debates about methodological overlap and tensions with literary studies (p. 113).
Poststructuralism	A theory questioning stable meanings, emphasizing the instability of language and interpretation.	Discussed as part of the broader theoretical spectrum shaping contemporary literary studies (p. 109).
Phenomenology	A philosophical approach focusing on subjective experience and perception.	Contrasted with materialist-historicist perspectives, especially in discussions on reader engagement (p. 114).
Formalism	An approach emphasizing form and structure over historical or ideological content.	Explored in various contexts, including the resurgence of formalist techniques in Marxist and other theoretical frameworks (p. 115).
Anti-antimimesis	A response to antimimetic approaches, reasserting the significance of representation in texts.	Included in course discussions of alternatives to historicist and ideological critiques (p. 114).

Contribution of “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Theoretical Rigidity
  • Felski challenges the dominance of rigid theoretical frameworks, advocating for a more fluid integration of theory and method.
  • She highlights how theoretical affiliations often overshadow methodological choices, which are crucial for nuanced literary analysis (“predictable groupings give way to less familiar constellations and affinities”, p. 111).
• Emphasis on Methodology in Literary Studies
  • The article underscores the importance of critical methods in complementing traditional theory courses.
  • It argues that methodologies offer a transformative lens, refining both analysis and interpretation in scholarly work (“Thinking seriously about critical method cannot help but alter our view of literary studies”, p. 108).
• Revisiting Close Reading
  • Felski repositions close reading as a versatile technique that transcends ideological boundaries, bridging traditional critics and postmodern theorists.
  • This observation revitalizes its relevance in contemporary literary studies (“The technique of close reading defines the work…but it also characterizes the writings of queer theorists”, p. 110).
• Expanding Symptomatic Reading
  • She revisits symptomatic reading, a method often associated with Marxist and psychoanalytic critiques, questioning its assumptions and applications.
  • By exploring its nuances, Felski offers a fresh perspective on how implicit or “repressed” meanings are identified in texts (“Why is a text imagined as containing ruptures, contradictions, or fissures?”, p. 115).
• Critique of Ideology Critique and Hermeneutics of Suspicion
  • The article examines the limitations of ideology critique and the hermeneutics of suspicion, advocating for alternative interpretative frameworks.
  • This critique fosters new ways of thinking about literature beyond political or ideological constraints (“efforts to imagine alternatives to ideology critique and the hermeneutics of suspicion”, p. 114).
• Integration of Formalism in Diverse Theories
  • Felski highlights how formalist methodologies persist within Marxist, feminist, and queer critiques, promoting intellectual cross-fertilization.
  • This contribution encourages scholars to acknowledge methodological overlaps across theoretical divides (“Marxist criticism, in many of its variants, is highly formalist in orientation”, p. 115).
• Reassessment of Interdisciplinary Practices
  • By addressing the disciplinary influences on literary studies, Felski prompts a re-evaluation of how fields like cultural studies intersect with traditional literary scholarship.
  • This perspective broadens the scope of interdisciplinarity, emphasizing its methodological, not just thematic, implications (“Disciplinary preferences shape readings not only of literary works but also of theoretical texts”, p. 113).
• Contribution to Poststructuralism
  • Felski critiques poststructuralism’s tendency to overemphasize language and instability, urging a balanced approach that considers interpretative practices.
  • This fosters a practical application of poststructuralist ideas without neglecting textual and methodological consistency (“practices of reading…covertly mold how theories are interpreted, taken up, and used”, p. 111).
• Reflection on the Role of Theory in Practice
  • The work bridges the gap between theoretical abstractions and their practical implementation in literary studies.
  • Felski’s emphasis on integrating theory with methodological practices reshapes how scholars approach research and pedagogy (“The goal…is to infuse students with an awareness of the variety and complexity of methodological choices”, p. 114).
• Advancing Literary Pedagogy
  • By proposing courses on critical methods, Felski contributes to the evolution of literary pedagogy, ensuring that students develop both theoretical knowledge and analytical skills.
  • This pedagogical shift encourages students to articulate and refine their interpretative strategies (“make explicit what is often left implicit…to make students more aware of interpretative choices”, p. 116).

Examples of Critiques Through “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

Literary Work	Critique Through Felski’s Lens	Key Reference/Concept from Felski
Sherlock Holmes Stories by Arthur Conan Doyle	Catherine Belsey’s critique of Sherlock Holmes using symptomatic reading highlights contradictions and implicit meanings.	Felski uses this as an example to explore the assumptions behind symptomatic reading, such as textual ruptures or repressed meanings (p. 115).
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	Scholars often claim theoretical affiliations (e.g., Deleuze or Stuart Hall) but default to traditional interpretation methods.	Felski critiques the tendency of theoretical preambles to mask unchanged interpretative practices (p. 112).
Victorian Novels (e.g., works by Charles Dickens)	Victorianists extend their field by addressing themes like social reforms but still rely on English department training methods.	Felski critiques disciplinary habits influencing interpretations, even in interdisciplinary contexts (p. 113).
Texts from Queer Theory Canon (e.g., Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s works)	Close reading, a traditional New Critical method, is applied to queer theory to reveal nuanced textual and contextual insights.	Felski highlights the methodological overlap between traditional and radical critical approaches, like queer theory (p. 110).

Criticism Against “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

• Overemphasis on Methodology Over Theory
  Critics argue that Felski’s emphasis on critical methods may downplay the transformative power of theoretical frameworks, which often challenge entrenched ideologies and practices.
• Undermining the Autonomy of Literary Theory
  By suggesting that critical methods often shape theoretical interpretations, Felski is seen by some as diminishing the philosophical depth and autonomy of literary theory.
• Risk of Fragmenting Literary Studies
  The focus on diverse methodologies and the rejection of rigid theoretical categories could exacerbate the already noted fragmentation of literary studies, making it harder to find common ground among scholars.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Theories
  Felski’s work has been critiqued for predominantly addressing Western literary theories and methodologies, with limited reference to global or non-Western perspectives.
• Ambiguity in Defining Critical Method
  While advocating for critical method courses, Felski provides a broad and somewhat vague definition of “method,” leaving room for debate about its practical application and scope in literary studies.
• Potential Undervaluation of Political Critique
  By critiquing the hermeneutics of suspicion and ideology critique, Felski risks sidelining the importance of political engagement in literary analysis, which many scholars view as vital to the discipline.
• Reliance on Established Academic Traditions
  Felski’s recognition of ingrained disciplinary practices may be perceived as conservative, inadvertently reinforcing existing academic norms rather than challenging them.
• Generalization of Methodological Practices
  Critics argue that her discussions on shared methodologies, such as close reading, risk oversimplifying the distinct epistemological aims of different theoretical schools.

Representative Quotations from “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Theory can no longer be dismissed as an arcane subspecialty.”	Felski asserts the significance of theory in contemporary intellectual life, illustrating its pervasive influence beyond academia, such as in media and popular culture. This challenges the earlier perception of theory as niche or irrelevant.
“Thinking seriously about critical method cannot help but alter our view of literary studies.”	This highlights Felski’s core argument that focusing on methodologies transforms how literary studies are practiced and perceived, bridging theoretical abstractions and interpretive practices.
“The technique of close reading defines the work of apolitical or traditionally minded critics… but it also characterizes the writings of queer theorists.”	Felski demonstrates that critical methods like close reading transcend ideological divides, uniting diverse theoretical camps through shared analytical tools.
“A course in critical method thus offers a valuable complement to the standard theory class, yet its function is not just additive but also transformative.”	Felski emphasizes the transformative potential of critical method courses, which encourage students to engage deeply with interpretative strategies rather than merely adding to theoretical knowledge.
“Practices of reading…covertly mold how theories are interpreted, taken up, and used.”	This highlights the reciprocal relationship between theory and practice, showing how methodologies shape the application and evolution of theoretical frameworks.
“Critics at opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum… can share a common commitment to specific styles of interpretation.”	Felski challenges the idea that theoretical divides result in completely divergent practices, instead pointing to methodological overlaps that unite critics across ideological boundaries.
“Modes of reading, like other habitual activities, are often deeply ingrained in the form of practical rather than theoretical knowledge.”	This underscores the importance of practice in literary studies, where interpretative habits are often transmitted implicitly through teaching and mentorship rather than formal instruction.
“Disciplinary training… shapes what we know and how we know it.”	Felski critiques the unconscious influence of disciplinary conventions, which shape scholarly arguments and interpretations regardless of theoretical allegiances.
“Literary theory thus expands students’ intellectual horizons beyond the category of literature.”	Felski highlights the interdisciplinary nature of literary theory, which connects literature with broader themes like history, politics, and identity, enriching students’ academic experience.
“The goal…is to make explicit what is often left implicit and to make students more aware of interpretative choices.”	This encapsulates Felski’s pedagogical focus, advocating for courses that illuminate the often-hidden assumptions and decisions underpinning literary analysis.

Suggested Readings: “From Literary Theory to Critical Method” by Rita Felski

1. Felski, Rita. “From Literary Theory to Critical Method.” Profession, 2008, pp. 108–16. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595888. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
2. Fessenbecker, Patrick. “Content and Form.” Reading Ideas in Victorian Literature: Literary Content as Artistic Experience, Edinburgh University Press, 2020, pp. 39–75. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c554.7. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
3. CULLER, JONATHAN. “Introduction: Critical Paradigms.” PMLA, vol. 125, no. 4, 2010, pp. 905–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41058288. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.
4. Margolis, Joseph. “The Threads of Literary Theory.” Poetics Today, vol. 7, no. 1, 1986, pp. 95–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772090. Accessed 16 Nov. 2024.