Etymology of Affective Fallacy
The term “Affective Fallacy” originated in literary criticism during the mid-20th century. It was coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley in their essay “The Affective Fallacy” published in 1949. This concept critiques the practice of interpreting a work of art, specifically, literature, based solely on the emotional responses it elicits among the audiences, thereby emphasizing the importance of considering objective elements and authorial intent in critical analysis.
Meaning of Affective Fallacy
The term “affective fallacy” has several meanings, including literal, theoretical, and rhetorical.
- Literal Meaning of Affective Fallacy
- Refers to interpreting a work of art solely based on emotional responses.
- Criticized for neglecting inherent qualities and intended meaning.
- Assumes subjective experience as the sole determinant of a work’s value.
- Theoretical Meaning of Affective Fallacy
- Involves the philosophical debate on emotions in aesthetic judgment.
- Some argue emotions are vital in the aesthetic experience.
- Others contend emotions are subjective and unreliable, advocating for their exclusion.
- Rhetorical Meaning of Affective Fallacy
- Utilized as a rhetorical device to discredit emotional-based arguments.
- Used to critique interpretations reliant on emotional appeals.
- Emphasizes the importance of sound reasoning and evidence in arguments.
Definition of Affective Fallacy as a Theoretical Term
As a theoretical term, the affective fallacy refers to the debate about the role of emotions in aesthetic judgment. It argues that interpreting a work of art based solely on the emotional response it elicits in the viewer or reader is a flawed approach. Some scholars argue that emotions are an essential part of the aesthetic experience and should be considered in interpretation, while others argue that emotions are subjective and unreliable and should be excluded from aesthetic judgment.
Theorists on Affective Fallacy
Here are a few theorists who have written about the affective fallacy and their usage and explanations of the term in different contexts:
| Theorist | View on Affective Fallacy | Key Ideas |
| W. K. Wimsatt and M. C. Beardsley | They argued that interpreting a work based solely on emotional response is flawed. Meaning should come from the text itself, not external factors like the author’s biography or reader’s emotions. | They emphasized text-centered analysis and rejected reliance on emotions or authorial intent. |
| Cleanth Brooks | He stressed the importance of interpreting a text on its own terms through close reading. Believed that the text’s inherent meaning could only be uncovered by examining its formal elements. | He advocated for a formalist approach to literary interpretation, focusing on the text’s structure and language. |
| Stanley Fish | He challenged the New Critical approach, asserting that meaning is constructed by the reader. Reader’s emotional response is crucial to interpretation. | He proposed that readers actively create meaning through their interaction with the text, making emotions a vital part of interpretation. |
| Jacques Derrida | He criticized the idea of fixed meaning and argued that it’s constantly shifting. Emphasized the importance of reader’s emotional response within their cultural and historical context. | He introduced the idea of deconstruction, which challenges traditional notions of stable meaning and encourages exploration of multiple interpretations of the text. |
| Elaine Showalter | He emphasized the significance of interpreting art within historical and cultural contexts, including gender roles and power dynamics. Considered emotional responses as part of larger societal forces. | He highlighted the role of gender and power in literary interpretation, seeing emotional reactions as intertwined with social and cultural factors. |
These theorists offered different perspectives on the affective fallacy, ranging from text-centered analysis to reader-response theories and considerations of cultural and historical contexts. Their views on the role of emotions and external factors in interpretation vary, reflecting the diversity of approaches within literary theory.
Affective Fallacy in Literary Theories
| Literary Theory | View on Affective Fallacy | Key Ideas |
| New Criticism | New Criticism introduced the concept, arguing that a reader’s emotional response should not influence interpretation. It emphasizes analyzing a text solely based on its inherent qualities. | New Criticism promotes formal analysis and excludes external factors like author’s biography and reader’s emotions from the interpretation process. |
| Reader-Response Theory | Proponents of Reader-Response Theory acknowledge the Affective Fallacy but suggest that emotions can play a legitimate role in interpretation. They recognize the subjectivity of emotional responses and advocate for self-awareness in interpreting texts. | Reader-Response Theory recognizes the diversity of emotional responses and the importance of considering historical context and authorial intention alongside emotions. |
| Psychoanalytic Theory | Psychoanalytic Theory incorporates it by examining deep-seated emotional conflicts and desires in interpretation. It acknowledges subjectivity and encourages awareness of emotional biases. | Psychoanalytic Theory focuses on the psychological aspects of the text and how it reflects the reader’s unconscious emotions and desires while interpreting the text. |
| Feminist Theory | Feminist Theory integrates the Affective Fallacy into interpretation within the context of gender roles and power dynamics. It views emotions as part of broader societal forces shaping interpretation. | Feminist Theory highlights the role of gender and power in interpretation and considers emotional responses as influenced by cultural and social factors within the Affective Fallacy framework. |
| Postmodern Theory | Postmodern Theory challenges the notion of objective meaning and emphasizes the reader’s role in constructing meaning while considering the Affective Fallacy within the cultural context. | Postmodern Theory views emotions as part of the larger cultural and social context, encouraging self-reflexivity and critical awareness in the interpretation process while acknowledging the Affective Fallacy. |
Examples of Affective Fallacy in Literary Criticism
| Works | Application of Affective Fallacy in Criticism |
| Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy” | Applying the Affective Fallacy in criticism involves interpreting Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy” solely based on the reader’s emotional response. This response istoward the themes of parental abuse and anger towards the father, without delving into the analysis of the poem’s formal elements and literary techniques. |
| Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights | An example of the Affective Fallacy in literary criticism would be arguing that Emily Bronte’s “Wuthering Heights” is primarily a romantic love story because readers emotionally respond to the passionate relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine, without adequately analyzing the complex themes of social class, revenge, and the destructive nature of obsessive love explored in the novel. |
| William Shakespeare’s Macbeth | An instance of the Affective Fallacy can be seen when critics assume that William Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth” is primarily about the corrupting influence of power due to the reader’s emotional response to the protagonist’s descent into madness and tyranny, without giving due attention to the play’s core themes of fate, free will, and the nature of evil. |
| F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby | Applying the Affective Fallacy in criticism involves arguing that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel “The Great Gatsby” celebrates the American Dream based on the reader’s emotional response to the glamorous setting and romanticized portrayal of wealthy characters, without engaging in a thorough analysis of the novel’s underlying critique of the decadence and moral decay of the Jazz Age. |
| Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise” | An example of the Affective Fallacy in literary analysis is interpreting Maya Angelou’s poem “Still I Rise” solely based on the reader’s emotional response to themes of perseverance and resilience in the face of racism and oppression, without thoroughly analyzing the poem’s formal elements and literary techniques, such as its use of metaphor and repetition. |
Suggested Readings
- Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. Oxford University Press, 1953.
- Barthes, Roland. Image-Music-Text. Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath. Hill and Wang, 1977.
- Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford University Press, 1973.
- Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
- Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
- Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
- Leavis, F. R. The Great Tradition: George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad. Chatto & Windus, 1948.
- Ransom, John Crowe. The World’s Body. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938.
