Category: Theory Article Summaries

Introduction: “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

“Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and translated by Elizabeth Benzinger first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 2, No. 1, as part of a symposium on literary history in Autumn 1970. This influential essay presents a framework that reconsiders literary history’s role in relation to literary theory, urging a shift away from solely formalist or Marxist interpretations. Jauss critiques these schools for treating literature as a closed system, ignoring its interactive and socially impactful dimension, especially its reception by audiences. By proposing an “aesthetics of reception,” Jauss argues that literature’s value and historicity derive not only from its creation but also from its engagement with readers over time. This “dialogue” between text and reader forms a living history that changes as each generation interprets literature anew, bridging historical and aesthetic analysis.

The essay’s importance lies in its challenge to prevailing views that literature’s meaning and value are inherent and static, as well as in its proposal of a dynamic model where the audience plays a pivotal role in literary continuity and historical impact. This approach reshapes literary theory by grounding it in human experience, making it integral to cultural and historical understanding. Jauss’s ideas significantly influenced the field of reader-response criticism and expanded the methodological toolkit of literary historians, marking a progressive turn towards contextual, socially engaged literary analysis.

Summary of “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

• Literary History’s Role in Bridging Theory and Reception: Jauss critiques both Marxist and formalist approaches to literary theory for ignoring the audience’s role in the literary experience. He advocates a literary history that integrates the audience’s reception and interaction with texts, acknowledging their active role in shaping a work’s historical impact (Jauss, p. 7).
• Audience as Historical Agent: Rather than treating the reader as a passive recipient, Jauss argues that the audience is a “history-making energy” that transforms a work through reception. Literature achieves continuity through this evolving relationship with readers over time (Jauss, p. 8).
• The Aesthetics of Reception: Jauss introduces the aesthetics of reception as a new framework, suggesting that literary history should be viewed as a dialogue between past works and the evolving public perception. This perspective allows literature to maintain relevance across generations by adapting and responding to new interpretive contexts (Jauss, p. 10).
• Horizon of Expectations and Aesthetic Distance: The concept of a “horizon of expectations” is central, as it defines the frame within which readers interpret new works based on previous experiences and genres. The aesthetic value of a text, according to Jauss, can be measured by the extent to which it challenges or expands this horizon, creating “aesthetic distance” (Jauss, p. 12).
• Evolutionary Process in Literary Development: Jauss asserts that literary history is not linear but evolves through a dynamic process of reception and reinterpretation. This ongoing “literary evolution” reshapes old forms as new works provide fresh perspectives, influencing both current literary norms and historical canons (Jauss, p. 17).
• Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Literature: Jauss proposes integrating both synchronic (cross-sectional) and diachronic (historical) analyses to understand literature within its broader social and historical contexts. This combined approach can reveal how works are situated within and respond to their immediate literary environment while influencing future interpretations (Jauss, p. 30).
• Impact of Literature on Social and Ethical Norms: Literature’s social function goes beyond mere representation, as Jauss argues it plays a role in shaping moral and social values by challenging prevailing standards. Through this lens, literature actively participates in defining societal ethics rather than merely reflecting them (Jauss, p. 35).
• Beyond Mimesis to a Societal Function of Literature: Moving beyond traditional aesthetics, Jauss asserts that literature’s role in society is to provoke reflection and offer alternative viewpoints, thus fostering critical thought and potentially inspiring societal change (Jauss, p. 37).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation/Context in the Text
Aesthetics of Reception	A framework that centers on the reader’s experience, emphasizing the role of reception in the historical and aesthetic life of a text.	Jauss suggests that the value and meaning of literature are actively shaped by its audience, not only by the author or text itself. This approach positions the reader’s interaction as essential to understanding literature as a historical process (Jauss, p. 8).
Horizon of Expectations	The collective set of cultural, social, and aesthetic norms and expectations that shape how readers interpret and respond to a work.	A work’s impact is measured by how it aligns with, challenges, or redefines these expectations, creating “aesthetic distance” based on the level of novelty and deviation from prior norms (Jauss, p. 12).
Aesthetic Distance	The gap between a reader’s existing expectations and the experience offered by a new work, reflecting the degree of novelty or challenge posed by the text.	Jauss argues that works with high aesthetic distance stimulate reader engagement by provoking new perspectives. The “greater” the distance, the more the work challenges norms and encourages reflective reception (Jauss, p. 12).
Literary Evolution	The dynamic process by which literature develops over time through the ongoing interaction of reception, interpretation, and creation.	This evolutionary approach contrasts with linear or teleological models, as it sees literature developing through complex dialogues between old and new works, shaped by reader response and historical context (Jauss, p. 17).
Synchronic Analysis	A method of studying literature at a single historical moment, analyzing how works interact within a common cultural or literary horizon.	Jauss advocates synchronic cross-sections to examine how contemporary works resonate with or differ from each other, revealing a system of relationships within a specific time period (Jauss, p. 30).
Diachronic Analysis	Analyzing literature as it develops over time, focusing on historical progression and transformations in literary forms and reader responses.	Jauss suggests combining diachronic and synchronic analysis to trace both the evolution of genres and the shifting patterns of reader reception, offering a fuller picture of literary history (Jauss, p. 30).
Impact History	The history of a work’s influence, tracking how it has been received, interpreted, and integrated into cultural and literary norms over time.	This concept supports the idea that literary history includes the progression of responses to a text, showing its evolving role in shaping cultural and aesthetic values (Jauss, p. 31).
Classical	Refers to works that transcend historical distance and maintain relevance across time, often seen as possessing inherent “timeless” value.	Jauss challenges this static view by suggesting that a work becomes classical only through continued reinterpretation by successive generations, underscoring the role of historical mediation in constructing “classics” (Jauss, p. 23).
Social Function of Literature	Literature’s ability to influence and shape societal values, norms, and ethics, extending beyond its role as mere representation of social realities.	According to Jauss, literature can redefine morals by challenging prevailing norms, as shown by works that evoke moral or ethical reconsideration within the reader, often inspiring societal shifts (Jauss, p. 35).
Question and Answer Structure	A hermeneutic method where literature is understood as posing questions that invite reader response, aligning with Gadamer’s idea of historical dialogue.	For Jauss, each work embodies questions pertinent to its time, which may only be fully realized in new contexts. Readers must interpret literature by engaging with its implied questions, thereby linking past and present meanings (Jauss, p. 22).
Genre Horizon	The set of formal and thematic conventions associated with a particular genre that shapes how readers approach a text.	Jauss argues that new works often engage with the “genre horizon,” either conforming to or challenging these conventions, which shifts the reader’s expectations and redefines genre boundaries (Jauss, p. 14).
Impersonal Narrative Form	A narrative technique that presents characters’ thoughts and feelings without explicit narrative commentary, leaving moral interpretation to the reader.	Jauss discusses Flaubert’s use of this style in Madame Bovary, highlighting how it subverted moral norms and invited readers to question accepted values, thus serving as an example of literature’s social function (Jauss, p. 35).

Contribution of “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reception Theory

• Contribution: Jauss is considered a pioneer in reception theory, where he challenges the conventional focus on the author and text alone by placing the reader’s response at the center of literary analysis. He argues that literary meaning is not fixed but changes with each generation’s reception.
• Key Concept: Horizon of Expectations – This is defined as the framework of cultural and historical norms through which audiences interpret literature. Jauss proposes that the meaning of a text emerges through the reader’s response, shaped by historical context and prior literary experience.
• Reference: Jauss states, “The historical life of a literary work is unthinkable without the active participation of its audience” (Jauss, p. 8), underscoring the reader’s role in shaping the work’s impact over time.

2. Historicism and Diachronic Analysis in Literary Studies

• Contribution: Jauss revitalizes literary historicism by introducing a dynamic, evolutionary model for understanding literary development, which contrasts with traditional, linear historicism. He suggests that literature should be understood as part of an ongoing dialogue with both past and future works.
• Key Concept: Literary Evolution – Jauss’s notion of literary evolution involves tracking the transformation of genres and themes across time through the lens of reader response and societal change.
• Reference: He explains that literary history should account for the “mutual mediation” of old and new forms, emphasizing literature’s continuous transformation rather than a static historical narrative (Jauss, p. 17).

3. Hermeneutics and Dialogism

• Contribution: Jauss integrates hermeneutic principles, particularly from Gadamer, into literary theory by framing literary history as a “dialogue” between past and present. This dialogic relationship forms the foundation of understanding literature in a historical and interpretative context.
• Key Concept: Question and Answer Structure – Inspired by Gadamer’s hermeneutics, Jauss advocates for a method where each text is seen as a response to specific historical and literary questions, requiring the reader to engage with its historical and ethical implications.
• Reference: Jauss argues that understanding is achieved through “the process of fusion of such horizons which seem to exist independently,” suggesting that readers must actively interpret the questions each text implicitly answers (Jauss, p. 22).

4. Aesthetics and Value of the Classical Canon

• Contribution: Jauss critiques the concept of the “classical” as a fixed standard, proposing instead that the status of classical works results from their ongoing reinterpretation by successive generations. His challenge to classical aesthetics supports a more fluid, reception-based understanding of literary value.
• Key Concept: Classical as a Construct – According to Jauss, works become classical not through inherent “timelessness” but through sustained relevance and reinterpretation by later audiences.
• Reference: Jauss contends, “the concept of the classical which interprets itself” obscures the role of historical reception in determining a work’s status, stressing that classics are products of continual engagement (Jauss, p. 23).

5. Sociology of Literature and the Social Function of Art

• Contribution: Jauss explores literature’s role in society by examining how it challenges or reinforces social norms. He moves beyond representation theories, suggesting that literature actively shapes societal values and ideas, rather than merely reflecting them.
• Key Concept: Social Function of Literature – Jauss argues that literature contributes to society by expanding the reader’s moral and ethical imagination, often challenging prevailing norms and fostering new social perspectives.
• Reference: He illustrates this with Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, which forces readers to re-evaluate their moral judgments, highlighting literature’s power to provoke ethical reflection (Jauss, p. 35).

6. Structuralism and Genre Theory

• Contribution: Jauss addresses the limitations of structuralist genre theory, particularly in its tendency to treat genres as static categories. He instead views genres as evolving systems that respond to shifting reader expectations and cultural norms.
• Key Concept: Genre Horizon – Jauss’s concept of genre horizon introduces a dynamic view of genres, where texts not only conform to genre expectations but also reshape and expand them, thereby evolving the genre itself.
• Reference: Jauss notes, “The new text evokes for the reader (listener) the horizon of expectations and rules familiar from earlier texts, which are then varied, corrected, changed or just reproduced,” pointing to genre as an evolving framework (Jauss, p. 14).

7. Impact History and Historical Consciousness in Literary Theory

• Contribution: Jauss introduces the idea of “impact history,” proposing that a work’s influence is best understood through the sequence of its reception and reinterpretation over time. This continuous interaction aligns literary history with the evolving consciousness of readers.
• Key Concept: Impact History – By tracing a work’s impact on successive generations, Jauss’s theory accounts for shifts in cultural significance and literary value over time, focusing on the progression of literary influence.
• Reference: He states, “The history of literature can be rewritten on this premise,” suggesting that impact history can be a foundation for a revised, reader-centered literary history (Jauss, p. 31).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

Literary Work	Critique Through Jauss’s Framework	Key Theoretical Lens	Explanation & Reference
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert	Jauss critiques Madame Bovary by focusing on the reception and moral dilemma it presents to readers, emphasizing how Flaubert’s use of impersonal narration forces readers to confront their own judgments.	Reception Theory, Social Function	Jauss uses Madame Bovary as an example of how new literary forms like “impersonal telling” create moral ambiguity, making readers question societal norms rather than imposing a moral stance. This narrative style disorients readers, challenging them to interpret the story’s ethical implications (p. 35).
Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes	Jauss analyzes Don Quixote as a work that uses parodic genre conventions to reshape audience expectations, evolving the genre of chivalric romance into a critical commentary.	Genre Horizon, Evolution of Genres	Jauss highlights how Don Quixote creates new horizons by parodying familiar conventions, like the chivalric romance, which leads readers to recognize the absurdity of traditional heroic ideals. This challenges and reconstructs genre boundaries for readers of the time (p. 14).
Perceval, the Story of the Grail by Chrétien de Troyes	Jauss interprets Perceval as a “literary event” rather than a static historical artifact, viewing it as a text that establishes new narrative expectations for the medieval audience.	Literary Evolution, Impact History	Jauss asserts that Perceval introduced complex narrative forms and thematic depth that broke from previous epics. By doing so, it becomes “eventful” only through readers who understand it as an innovative step beyond prior heroic narratives, expanding the genre’s possibilities (p. 10).
Chimères by Gérard de Nerval	Jauss examines Chimères as a work that confronts and subverts Romantic conventions, challenging readers to re-evaluate Romantic ideals and mythic motifs.	Horizon of Expectations, Reception Theory	Jauss notes that Chimères mixes familiar Romantic symbols with an unsettling sense of existential despair, creating a distance from reader expectations. This horizon shift forces readers to reconsider their Romantic ideals, reflecting Nerval’s own critique of Romanticism’s limitations (p. 16).

Criticism Against “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

• Lack of Emphasis on Authorial Intent
  Critics argue that Jauss’s emphasis on reader reception overlooks the importance of authorial intent. By focusing predominantly on the audience’s interpretation, Jauss may diminish the significance of the author’s original purpose and context.
• Over-Reliance on Subjective Reception
  Reception theory can be seen as overly subjective, as it depends heavily on the audience’s changing perceptions and experiences. Critics suggest this may lead to a relativistic view of literature, where meaning fluctuates excessively with each generation’s reception, undermining the stability of a text’s meaning.
• Inadequate Engagement with Power Dynamics in Interpretation
  Jauss has been critiqued for not addressing how power structures and social hierarchies impact reader interpretation and reception. This oversight limits the theory’s ability to account for how dominant ideologies might shape and control literary interpretation over time.
• Insufficient Methodology for Determining Canon
  Jauss’s theory has been critiqued for offering little guidance on evaluating why certain works become canonical while others do not. Critics argue that simply tracking the “horizon of expectations” is inadequate for explaining why certain texts maintain prominence in literary history.
• Neglect of Cultural and Social Contexts
  By focusing on the aesthetic experience of the reader, Jauss may inadequately account for broader cultural, economic, and social forces that influence both the production and reception of literature. This narrow focus could limit the applicability of his theory across diverse socio-cultural contexts.
• Limited Applicability to Non-Western Literature
  Reception theory, as formulated by Jauss, has been criticized for its Eurocentric approach, which may not apply as effectively to non-Western literary traditions with different structures of literary history, genre, and audience engagement.
• Tendency Toward Retrospective Bias
  Jauss’s method of reconstructing past “horizons of expectations” has been criticized for being speculative and prone to retrospective bias. Reconstructing past receptions risks imposing present-day understandings onto historical interpretations.

Representative Quotations from “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The historical life of a literary work is unthinkable without the active participation of its audience.”	Jauss emphasizes the role of the reader in bringing a text to life and creating its historical relevance, challenging previous theories that focus only on authorial intent and formal structure. He asserts that literature’s impact evolves over time as it interacts with different generations of readers.
“Literary history can be rewritten… by an aesthetics of reception and impact.”	This statement highlights Jauss’s belief that literary history should consider the evolving responses and interpretations of audiences rather than adhering strictly to a chronological or stylistic analysis. The reception theory thus calls for a “rewriting” of literary history to include how works affect readers across different times and contexts.
“A literary work is not an object that stands by itself and offers the same face to each reader in each period.”	Jauss critiques objectivist approaches to literary analysis, arguing that texts do not have a fixed meaning. Instead, each reader and period brings a unique interpretation, reinforcing the dynamic relationship between the work and its audience.
“The new text evokes for the reader the horizon of expectations and rules familiar from earlier texts.”	Jauss introduces the concept of the “horizon of expectations,” where a reader’s prior experiences with literature shape their response to a new work. This “horizon” becomes the basis for evaluating the innovation or predictability of the text, as readers compare it with their past literary experiences.
“Aesthetic distance… is the distance between the given horizon of expectations and the appearance of a new work.”	Jauss explains that the “aesthetic distance” between what a reader expects and what a text delivers determines the text’s novelty and artistic value. If a work challenges or negates readers’ expectations, it often requires a shift in their understanding, marking it as innovative.
“The history of literature is a process in which the passive reception of the reader changes into active reception.”	This reflects Jauss’s belief that readers do not merely absorb literature passively but engage with it actively over time, responding critically and reshaping their interpretations. This process involves transforming initial responses into deeper critical understandings and even new creative works.
“The specific achievement of literature in society can be found only when the function of literature is not imitation.”	Jauss challenges the notion of literature as merely reflecting society, suggesting that it actively influences social beliefs and norms. Literature should be seen as an active force that offers new perspectives and possibilities, going beyond mere representation of existing reality.
“Literary history based on the history of reception and impact reveals itself as a process.”	By framing literary history as an ongoing process of reception, Jauss argues that literature evolves not just through the addition of new works but also through continuous reinterpretation by readers and critics. This view treats literary history as dynamic and open-ended rather than static and fixed.
“The perspective of the aesthetics of reception mediates between passive reception and active understanding.”	Here, Jauss describes his theory as bridging the gap between simply consuming a text and actively engaging with it. This shift to active understanding occurs when readers interpret, question, and even produce new meanings in response to the text, advancing literary tradition.
“The judgment of the centuries… is the successive development of the potential meaning present in a work.”	Jauss refers to the enduring impact and evolution of a work’s meaning over time. Instead of one definitive interpretation, the “judgment of the centuries” reveals how literature accrues significance as different generations uncover new facets and applications, showcasing its lasting value and relevance.

Suggested Readings: “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory” by Hans Robert Jauss and Elizabeth Benzinger

1. Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
2. Foley, John Miles. “Genre(s) in the Making: Diction, Audience and Text in the Old English Seafarer.” Poetics Today, vol. 4, no. 4, 1983, pp. 683–706. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772320. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
3. Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
4. Mailloux, Steven. “Literary History and Reception Study.” Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction, Cornell University Press, 1982, pp. 159–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt207g64r.11. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

“The New Humanism” by George Sarton, first published in 1924 in Isis, Vol. 6, No. 1, and issued by The University of Chicago Press for The History of Science Society, is a foundational text that explores the interconnectivity of scientific progress, unity of knowledge, and the advancement of human culture. Sarton argues that human progress hinges on the expansion of positive knowledge, including scientific, social, and religious domains, underscoring that understanding across disciplines and cultures is essential. He emphasizes the “unity of knowledge” and “unity of mankind” as essential for fostering a cohesive intellectual society, where the advancement of each scientific branch supports others, fostering an intertwined intellectual ecosystem. Sarton’s text is significant in literary theory and philosophy because it advocates for a humanistic approach to science, integrating science with human values and ethics. This philosophy laid a conceptual framework for later interdisciplinary studies, bridging humanities and sciences, and has been pivotal in influencing modern discussions on the roles of science, philosophy, and human culture.

Summary of “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

• Human Progress as Function of Knowledge: Sarton posits that all meaningful progress in society stems from the advancement of positive knowledge, covering fields like science, religion, politics, and sociology (Sarton, p. 9-10). He emphasizes that deeper knowledge in these areas has led to societal benefits, like increased religious tolerance and humane treatment of others.
• Unity of Knowledge Across Disciplines: Science, in Sarton’s view, is a unified field that, despite its diverse branches, forms an interconnected “tree of knowledge.” He likens scientific progress to the growth of a tree, where advancements in one branch support others, creating a holistic structure of knowledge (Sarton, p. 11).
• Unity of Mankind in Scientific Progress: Sarton advocates that scientific advancements are inherently international, built upon contributions from diverse cultures. He asserts that the “tree of knowledge” draws sustenance globally, reflecting mankind’s shared intellectual heritage (Sarton, p. 12).
• Invisible History as the True Progress of Humanity: According to Sarton, the “essential history of mankind” is the progressive, often unseen development of knowledge and intellectual achievements, not the visible political or social events. These intellectual pursuits are what truly drive humanity forward (Sarton, p. 14).
• The Role of Encyclopedic Knowledge: Sarton champions a comprehensive, encyclopedic approach to knowledge. He warns against excessive specialization, advocating for a broad understanding that unifies knowledge across disciplines (Sarton, p. 17-18).
• The Importance of Historical Context: To understand the progress of science, Sarton stresses the need to study its history. He likens this to observing the growth of a tree, suggesting that scientific knowledge is most meaningful when viewed as a cumulative, evolving process (Sarton, p. 27).
• Towards an Inclusive Humanism: Sarton’s “New Humanism” emphasizes a balanced integration of scientific and humanistic values, akin to the Renaissance’s revival of classical knowledge. This humanism aims to bridge the scientific and cultural worlds, fostering unity and progress for the benefit of all mankind (Sarton, p. 33-34).
• Appeal for Support of ‘Isis’: Sarton concludes with a call for support for his journal, Isis, which aims to document and promote the history of science in service of these humanistic ideals. He positions Isis as essential for scholars invested in the interconnected advancement of knowledge (Sarton, p. 35-36).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

Term/Concept	Definition	Application in “The New Humanism”
Humanism	A philosophy that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively.	Sarton’s entire work advocates a New Humanism that integrates scientific and humanistic values, aiming to unify humanity’s purpose.
Metaphor	A figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true.	Sarton uses the metaphor of a “tree of knowledge” to illustrate the interdependence of scientific disciplines (p. 11).
Unity of Knowledge	The idea that all branches of knowledge are interconnected and support one another.	Sarton argues that science should not be seen in isolation, but rather as a unified body where each discipline strengthens others (p. 11).
Progress	A central theme, relating to the advancement of society through knowledge and science.	Sarton emphasizes that human progress is fueled by intellectual growth and scientific discoveries (p. 9-10).
Analogy	A comparison between two things, typically for clarification.	Sarton compares humanity’s intellectual growth to that of a single “immortal man” whose knowledge expands over time (p. 12).
Internationalism	The principle of cooperation and understanding among nations for shared progress.	Sarton asserts that scientific progress is an international endeavor, with contributions from all cultures supporting unity (p. 12).
Philosophical Positivism	A philosophy that emphasizes empirical evidence as the basis for knowledge.	Sarton aligns with a “tempered positivism” that respects empirical truths while acknowledging the need for humility in science (p. 22).
Historical Contextualism	The idea that understanding history is essential for comprehending present knowledge.	Sarton argues for a historical approach to science, insisting that modern advancements are rooted in earlier knowledge (p. 27).
Encylopedism	The pursuit of broad, organized, and comprehensive knowledge across disciplines.	Sarton advocates for encyclopedic knowledge to avoid excessive specialization and to unify scientific understanding (p. 17).
Philosophical Idealism	A philosophy that holds that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritually oriented.	Sarton promotes a balance between idealism and scientific knowledge, believing ideals guide meaningful progress (p. 33).
Renaissance Allusion	A reference to the historical period known for the revival of art, culture, and science.	Sarton draws a parallel between the New Humanism and the Renaissance, viewing both as revivals of knowledge and human ideals (p. 33).
Scholasticism	A medieval method that emphasized dogmatic adherence to authorities.	Sarton critiques scholasticism for stifling intellectual growth and advocates for a spirit of inquiry and openness (p. 32).
Optimism vs. Pessimism	A theme contrasting hopeful vs. negative perspectives on humanity’s future.	Sarton argues that humanity’s purpose is progressive, with intellectual and scientific advancements as pathways to a better future (p. 24).
Interdisciplinary Approach	An approach that integrates insights from multiple fields to gain a fuller understanding.	Sarton’s New Humanism merges science with philosophy, history, and sociology, aiming for a comprehensive intellectual culture (p. 33).

Contribution of “The New Humanism” by George Sarton to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Theory	Sarton’s Contribution	References from “The New Humanism”
Humanism	Sarton revitalizes humanistic ideals, emphasizing the intrinsic value of human intellectual and spiritual progress.	Sarton’s advocacy for a “New Humanism” seeks to balance scientific inquiry with humanistic values (p. 9).
Historicism	Sarton promotes understanding knowledge as historically situated, stressing the need to contextualize scientific advancements.	He views the study of history as essential to science, arguing that knowledge of the past clarifies the present (p. 27).
Interdisciplinary Theory	Sarton emphasizes the interdependence of disciplines, which contributes to modern interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies.	Sarton uses the “tree of knowledge” metaphor to demonstrate how science and humanities are interconnected (p. 11).
Philosophical Positivism	His tempered positivism insists on empirical knowledge tempered by ethical and philosophical insights, broadening positivist views.	He advocates for a synthesis of truth-seeking across sciences and humanities, adding a humanistic layer to positivism (p. 22).
Internationalism	Sarton promotes scientific knowledge as a global effort, aligning with theories of cosmopolitanism and internationalism in literature.	He argues that scientific and intellectual progress results from global contributions, transcending national borders (p. 12).
Humanist Historicism	By linking humanism with historical evolution, Sarton provides a framework for understanding cultural achievements as cumulative.	Sarton’s emphasis on humanity’s progressive knowledge aligns with historicist perspectives on cultural achievements (p. 24).
Neo-Renaissance Thought	By paralleling his New Humanism to the Renaissance, Sarton contributes to understanding modern intellectual movements in a Renaissance light.	Sarton describes New Humanism as a revival akin to the Renaissance, merging science with humanistic inquiry (p. 33).
Epistemology	Sarton’s work suggests that scientific and humanistic knowledge must be unified, influencing epistemological approaches in literary theory.	He contends that knowledge must be comprehensive and connected to human values for true understanding (p. 17).
Anti-Scholasticism	Sarton critiques rigid scholastic traditions, advocating for flexible and evolving understanding, contributing to theories on open-minded inquiry.	He positions scholasticism as opposed to genuine intellectual progress, calling for intellectual freedom (p. 32).

---

Detailed Contributions to Theories

1. Humanism and Neo-Humanism
   Sarton’s New Humanism contributes to humanistic literary theories by advocating that intellectual pursuits are integral to humanity’s purpose. His perspective that humanity’s core mission is to create and preserve knowledge adds depth to modern humanism theories, where intellectual and moral growth are central to human value (p. 9).
2. Historicism
   Sarton’s emphasis on history’s role in contextualizing knowledge aligns with historicism in literary theory, advocating that scientific developments can only be fully understood within their historical frameworks (p. 27). He parallels literary theorists who argue that literary works and ideas must be seen within historical and cultural contexts.
3. Interdisciplinary Theory
   Sarton’s metaphor of the “tree of knowledge” stresses that knowledge is interconnected, reinforcing interdisciplinary approaches in literary studies, where multiple perspectives are essential to a holistic understanding of texts and ideas (p. 11). His ideas contribute to the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary scholarship.
4. Philosophical Positivism
   Sarton’s “tempered positivism” moves beyond empirical data, suggesting a synergy between scientific inquiry and philosophical thought. This approach contributes to theories that value empirical evidence but insist on the need for philosophical and ethical context in understanding the human condition (p. 22).
5. Internationalism
   Sarton’s assertion that scientific and intellectual progress depends on contributions from all nations supports internationalism and cosmopolitanism in literary theory. His emphasis on global collaboration parallels theories that view literature and ideas as products of cross-cultural influences (p. 12).
6. Epistemology
   Sarton’s call for a unified epistemology that integrates scientific and humanistic knowledge offers a new approach in literary epistemology, emphasizing that all understanding requires a convergence of diverse intellectual pursuits (p. 17).
7. Anti-Scholasticism and Open Inquiry
   His critique of scholastic rigidity contributes to theories that challenge dogmatism, promoting open-minded inquiry and intellectual flexibility. Sarton’s disdain for scholasticism aligns with theories that value questioning established norms and supporting intellectual innovation (p. 32).
8. Neo-Renaissance Thought
   Sarton’s New Humanism parallels Renaissance ideals by seeking to synthesize knowledge across disciplines, resonating with theories that view modern humanistic inquiry as a revival of Renaissance intellectualism (p. 33).

Examples of Critiques Through “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

---

Literary Work	Sartonian Critique (Through “The New Humanism”)	Relevant Ideas from “The New Humanism”
Dante’s Divine Comedy	Dante’s synthesis of theology, philosophy, and literature aligns with Sarton’s call for knowledge unity, where science, art, and spirituality coalesce to reflect human growth.	Sarton emphasizes a “tree of knowledge” connecting branches of knowledge into a cohesive whole (p. 11).
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	Shelley’s exploration of scientific ambition and ethical consequences reflects Sarton’s tempered positivism, illustrating the need for ethical responsibility in scientific pursuits.	Sarton argues for science’s role in enhancing humanity but warns against unchecked ambition divorced from ethics (p. 22).
Tolstoy’s War and Peace	Tolstoy’s holistic portrayal of Russian society reflects Sarton’s vision of interconnected human progress, showing how science, politics, and culture shape collective development.	Sarton promotes an interdisciplinary approach, asserting that progress in one area influences all humanity (p. 12).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Achebe’s depiction of Igbo society underscores Sarton’s call for global intellectual contributions and respect for non-Western perspectives, reinforcing a multicultural understanding of human progress.	Sarton’s belief in internationalism and mutual cultural contributions aligns with Achebe’s depiction of indigenous society (p. 24).

---

Detailed Explanations

1. Dante’s Divine Comedy
   • Critique: Through Sarton’s New Humanism, Dante’s Divine Comedy can be seen as an exemplary work that merges religious, philosophical, and poetic knowledge. Sarton’s emphasis on unifying diverse knowledge systems highlights Dante’s achievement in integrating theology with philosophy and art, suggesting that Dante’s work epitomizes the pursuit of truth across fields.
   • Sartonian Relevance: This aligns with Sarton’s metaphor of the “tree of knowledge,” which emphasizes interconnected knowledge, where each field strengthens and complements the others (p. 11).
2. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
   • Critique: Shelley’s novel warns of the perils of scientific ambition without ethical consideration, echoing Sarton’s “tempered positivism.” Sarton’s perspective would critique Victor Frankenstein’s lack of responsibility, highlighting how scientific progress must align with moral growth to benefit humanity.
   • Sartonian Relevance: Sarton’s tempered positivism calls for science informed by ethics, resonating with Shelley’s cautionary tale of scientific overreach (p. 22).
3. Tolstoy’s War and Peace
   • Critique: Sarton’s New Humanism supports Tolstoy’s comprehensive portrayal of Russian life as a microcosm of interconnected human knowledge. By reflecting the intertwined nature of social, political, and scientific spheres, Tolstoy’s work aligns with Sarton’s idea that progress in one field advances all fields, showing society as a cumulative and collaborative force.
   • Sartonian Relevance: Sarton’s idea of interdisciplinary progress highlights how Tolstoy’s integration of social, political, and cultural aspects reveals the holistic nature of human development (p. 12).
4. Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart
   • Critique: Achebe’s portrayal of Igbo culture presents a counter-narrative to Western-centered intellectual traditions, aligning with Sarton’s belief in the importance of global contributions to knowledge. Sarton’s emphasis on respecting diverse cultural perspectives supports Achebe’s work as a vital addition to the understanding of human progress beyond a Eurocentric lens.
   • Sartonian Relevance: Sarton’s principle of internationalism and intellectual unity across cultures finds resonance in Achebe’s portrayal of the Igbo society, illustrating how diverse societies contribute to a richer, global humanistic vision (p. 24).

Criticism Against “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

• Idealistic View of Science and Knowledge: Critics argue that Sarton’s portrayal of science as inherently progressive and altruistic overlooks the complexities and potential harms of scientific advancements, such as ethical issues in technology and environmental degradation. The idealism of “New Humanism” may oversimplify the impact of scientific pursuits.
• Eurocentrism and Western Bias: Although Sarton advocates for the unity of knowledge and global intellectual contributions, critics note that his framework sometimes reflects a Eurocentric perspective, focusing heavily on Western scientific and philosophical traditions while underemphasizing non-Western epistemologies and historical contributions.
• Neglect of Economic and Political Realities: Sarton’s approach is seen by some as too focused on intellectual development without adequately addressing the economic and political structures that influence human progress. Critics argue that knowledge production cannot be separated from these power dynamics, which affect access to resources and scientific funding.
• Limited Practical Applicability: “The New Humanism” has been critiqued for its broad and theoretical approach, which can be challenging to implement in concrete, real-world scenarios. Skeptics argue that Sarton’s ideas are inspirational but lack specific strategies for applying humanistic principles in diverse educational and scientific institutions.
• Overemphasis on Unity at the Expense of Diversity: Sarton’s vision of unified knowledge might risk homogenizing diverse fields of study and disciplines, potentially stifling the unique contributions of specialized research. This focus on unity could overlook the value of divergent perspectives and methodologies essential for scientific and cultural advancement.
• Underestimation of Social and Cultural Divisions: Critics contend that Sarton’s emphasis on the unity of mankind through science and knowledge does not fully address the profound social, cultural, and political divisions that exist globally. His optimism regarding the power of science and knowledge to unify humanity might underestimate these persistent divisions.
• Romanticizing the Role of Scientists and Intellectuals: Some argue that Sarton idealizes the role of scientists and intellectuals, positioning them as inherently virtuous and selfless. This romanticized view does not account for individual and institutional biases, financial interests, and personal ambitions that often influence scientific and intellectual pursuits.
• Ambiguous Definition of Humanism: Critics note that Sarton’s concept of “New Humanism” can be vague and overly inclusive, leaving it open to interpretation. This lack of clear definition may lead to inconsistencies in understanding and applying his ideas within the broader discourse of humanism.

Representative Quotations from “The New Humanism” by George Sarton with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Human progress is essentially a function of the advance of positive knowledge.”	Sarton posits that societal advancement is deeply intertwined with the growth of objective, empirical knowledge. This view reflects his belief in scientific inquiry as a central driver of human development and enlightenment, emphasizing the transformative power of scientific progress in improving human conditions.
“The unity of knowledge and the unity of mankind are but two aspects of one great truth.”	Sarton suggests that the interconnectedness of different fields of knowledge mirrors the inherent unity of humanity. This principle underscores his vision that scientific understanding transcends cultural and national boundaries, fostering a shared intellectual heritage that unites people across the globe.
“The essential history of mankind is largely secret… Visible history is nothing but the local scenery.”	Here, Sarton differentiates between “visible” history (often focused on politics, wars, and surface events) and a deeper, largely invisible history driven by intellectual progress and scientific discovery. For Sarton, the “real” history of humanity lies in the quiet, often unseen advancement of knowledge that shapes the course of civilization more profoundly than transient political or military events.
“The New Humanism is a revival of the knowledge patiently elaborated… by men of science.”	Sarton describes The New Humanism as a renaissance in scientific knowledge, advocating for a renewed focus on science as a means to understand and shape the world. This philosophy draws inspiration from Renaissance humanism, yet focuses more on modern scientific achievements than on classical texts.
“Unity is hidden but deep-seated; disunity, widespread but superficial.”	According to Sarton, humanity’s differences are largely superficial, while a deeper, more profound unity exists beneath these divisions. He argues that intellectual and scientific endeavors reveal this underlying unity, promoting a sense of shared purpose and interconnectedness that surpasses cultural and political divides.
“The main purpose of a scientific education would be to explain the methods of reaching the truth.”	Sarton advocates for a scientific education centered on truth-seeking rather than mere accumulation of facts. He emphasizes the importance of cultivating critical thinking skills and a genuine understanding of scientific methods to foster intellectual independence and a commitment to objective truth.
“Science is not simply an aggregation of isolated facts… it is an organized concatenation of them.”	Sarton sees science as more than a collection of facts; it is an interconnected system where each discovery relates to others. This view challenges the compartmentalization of knowledge, urging a holistic approach that recognizes the interdependence of scientific discoveries and encourages a cohesive understanding of the natural world.
“Whatever material and intellectual progress there is can be traced… to some new secret of nature.”	Sarton suggests that human progress, both in material and intellectual terms, derives from uncovering new scientific truths. This perspective reflects his belief in science as a powerful force for innovation and advancement, continually revealing nature’s secrets to improve human lives.
“Artists and scientists are the true creators, the guardians of human ideals.”	For Sarton, artists and scientists hold a unique role as the creators and protectors of human civilization’s core values. This statement underscores his belief that the pursuit of truth, beauty, and knowledge—values embodied by both artists and scientists—constitutes humanity’s highest purpose and is crucial for cultural and intellectual enrichment.
“The progress of science is not due to the isolated efforts of a single people but to the combined efforts of all peoples.”	Sarton champions an international perspective on scientific progress, recognizing that knowledge is built collaboratively across cultures and nations. This quote highlights his rejection of nationalist claims to scientific achievements, instead promoting a vision of science as a universal enterprise that belongs to all of humanity.

Suggested Readings: “The New Humanism” by George Sarton

1. Hellman, C. Doris. “George Sarton, Historian of Science and New Humanist.” Science, vol. 128, no. 3325, 1958, pp. 641–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1755311. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
2. HAY, WILLIAM H. “GEORGE SARTON: HISTORIAN OF SCIENCE AND HUMANIST.” American Scientist, vol. 41, no. 2, 1953, pp. 282–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27826490. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
3. Sarton, George. “War and Civilization.” Isis, vol. 2, no. 2, 1919, pp. 315–21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/223881. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
4. Sarton, George. “The New Humanism.” Isis, vol. 6, no. 1, 1924, pp. 9–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/223969. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

“Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse” by Abdul R. JanMohamed was first published in 1984 in boundary 2, a journal facilitated by Duke University Press. In this work, JanMohamed critically examines how minority literature, especially from African and Third World writers, engages in a dialectical opposition to the hegemonic forces of Western humanism. He builds on Chinua Achebe’s insights about African writers’ response to colonialism to discuss the ways minority authors resist cultural erasure and articulate their communities’ struggles within Western-dominated discourses. JanMohamed’s work is foundational in literary theory, particularly in postcolonial and minority studies, as it introduces the concept of “counter-hegemonic discourse”—a means through which minority authors assert cultural independence and critique Western intellectual frameworks. This paper highlights the ambivalence faced by minority writers, who must navigate Western academic institutions that, while often supportive, subtly co-opt and neutralize oppositional voices. JanMohamed’s ideas are significant in literature because they provide a framework for understanding how literature can be a site of resistance against cultural domination, illuminating the power dynamics that shape both the production and reception of minority texts within a globalized and often homogenizing cultural landscape.

Summary of “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

• Counter-Hegemonic Discourse and Cultural Resistance
  JanMohamed posits that minority literature inherently functions as a “counter-hegemonic discourse” that resists Western cultural dominance, allowing marginalized voices to critique and redefine cultural narratives (JanMohamed, p. 281).
• Dialectical Polemic with Western Culture
  He argues that minority writers, including African and Third World authors, are engaged in a “dialectical polemic” with Western ideologies. This interaction reflects the struggle between cultural independence and Western influence (JanMohamed, p. 281).
• Western Humanism as a Tool of Hegemony
  JanMohamed critiques Western humanism as a mechanism through which “hegemonic control” is imposed, particularly through academic institutions that subtly co-opt minority voices by presenting humanist ideals as universal truths superior to traditional worldviews (JanMohamed, p. 282).
• Ambivalent Desire for Inclusion and Cultural Independence
  Minority writers experience a tension between the desire to retain cultural uniqueness and the pull to conform to “liberal humanistic culture” to gain inclusion within dominant cultural institutions (JanMohamed, p. 289).
• Critique of New Humanism and its Role in Exclusion
  JanMohamed discusses the New Humanist movement’s attempt to enforce an “exclusive” tradition that suppresses minority voices, reflecting its project to preserve Western cultural superiority and “moral” centrality (JanMohamed, p. 283).
• Minority Literature as Politicized and Collective Expression
  He describes minority literature as inherently “politicized” and deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of the oppressed, often reflecting themes of community, resistance, and marginality (JanMohamed, p. 295).
• Deterritorialization of Dominant Language
  Minority writers often “deterritorialize” the dominant language, using it in innovative ways to challenge and subvert the cultural assumptions embedded within it (JanMohamed, p. 295).
• Importance of Marginality as a Universal Theme in Minority Literature
  JanMohamed concludes that marginality is a defining characteristic of minority literature. This is most evident in works like Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, which embodies the struggles of marginalized individuals seeking identity within a dominant culture (JanMohamed, p. 297).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in JanMohamed’s Context
Counter-Hegemonic Discourse	A discourse that actively resists and challenges dominant cultural narratives and power structures.	JanMohamed argues that minority literature serves as a counter-hegemonic discourse, pushing back against Western cultural domination (p. 281).
Dialectical Polemic	An oppositional debate or argument that arises from the interaction of contrasting ideas, leading to new understandings.	He describes the “dialectical polemic” between minority writers and Western ideologies, creating a dynamic tension between cultural independence and influence (p. 281).
Hegemony	A form of cultural or ideological dominance exercised by a powerful group over others, often masked as universal or natural.	JanMohamed critiques Western humanism as a hegemonic tool that incorporates minority voices only to maintain cultural control (p. 282).
New Humanism	A conservative movement promoting traditional Western humanistic ideals, often dismissive of other cultural values.	He critiques New Humanism’s exclusivity and emphasis on preserving Western cultural superiority, which marginalizes minority voices (p. 283).
Cultural Marginality	The state of existing on the fringes of dominant culture, often leading to unique perspectives and expressions.	Marginality is a recurring theme in minority literature, with works like Invisible Man symbolizing the struggle to exist within a dominant culture (p. 297).
Deterritorialization	The process of subverting and repurposing a dominant language or cultural form to express minority perspectives.	JanMohamed emphasizes how minority writers “deterritorialize” the dominant language, using it to challenge hegemonic narratives (p. 295).
Collective Consciousness	A shared sense of identity, purpose, or understanding among members of a particular social or cultural group.	He sees minority literature as deeply rooted in the collective consciousness, often expressing shared experiences of oppression and resistance (p. 295).
Ideological Incorporation	The process by which dominant ideologies subtly absorb oppositional voices, neutralizing their critique.	Western humanism incorporates minority voices in ways that reinforce its superiority, co-opting their perspectives without addressing underlying issues (p. 282).
Subaltern	Refers to groups in society marginalized by dominant power structures, often voiceless in mainstream discourse.	Minority writers, as subaltern voices, speak against hegemonic structures, representing the struggles of their communities (p. 289).
Manichean Aesthetic	A polarized worldview that separates cultures, ideologies, or values into absolute opposites (good vs. evil, us vs. them).	JanMohamed draws on this concept to highlight how minority discourse positions itself in opposition to dominant cultural ideologies (p. 297).
Humanism	A philosophical stance emphasizing the value and agency of human beings, often idealized in Western traditions as universal.	JanMohamed critiques how Western humanism claims universality while subtly marginalizing non-Western perspectives, framing them as inferior (p. 282).
Hegemonic Neutralization	The process by which dominant ideologies render oppositional or resistant discourses harmless by assimilating their themes.	He warns that if minority literature becomes neutralized, its critical power is diminished as it is co-opted by hegemonic culture (p. 297).
Commodification of Culture	The treatment of cultural values, symbols, or expressions as products for consumption, often losing their original meaning.	JanMohamed argues that minority literature risks being commodified within a Western framework that ignores its political and collective significance (p. 288).

Contribution of “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postcolonial Theory
  • JanMohamed’s work expands the concept of counter-hegemonic discourse by illustrating how minority literature actively resists the imperialistic and hegemonic structures of Western humanism, reinforcing the idea of literature as a tool for cultural resistance (JanMohamed, p. 281).
  • His discussion of dialectical polemic shows how minority writers confront and challenge Western ideological frameworks, embodying a postcolonial struggle between cultural self-definition and imposed Western values (JanMohamed, p. 281).
  • He critiques Western humanism as an ideological mechanism that assimilates and neutralizes minority perspectives, highlighting how hegemony functions in postcolonial settings to control cultural narratives (JanMohamed, p. 282).
• Cultural Studies
  • JanMohamed’s analysis of hegemonic incorporation underscores how dominant Western ideologies subtly assimilate and neutralize minority voices, aligning with Cultural Studies’ focus on the power dynamics in cultural production (JanMohamed, p. 282).
  • His emphasis on cultural marginality as a source of unique expression and perspective underscores the Cultural Studies approach of valuing the narratives and experiences of marginalized groups (JanMohamed, p. 297).
  • The critique of commodification of minority cultures draws attention to how cultural expressions are consumed and stripped of political meaning in mainstream contexts, a core concern in Cultural Studies (JanMohamed, p. 288).
• Marxist Theory
  • JanMohamed’s discussion of class and ideological control through Western humanism aligns with Marxist views on cultural hegemony, showing how dominant ideologies control and mediate the perspectives of oppressed groups (JanMohamed, p. 283).
  • His argument that New Humanism excludes minority voices reflects a Marxist analysis of power structures that perpetuate socio-economic and cultural dominance through selective cultural traditions (JanMohamed, p. 283).
  • By examining the economic dimension of cultural production (e.g., limited access to resources for producing culturally authentic content), JanMohamed reveals how material conditions impact the production and distribution of minority literature (JanMohamed, p. 295).
• Critical Race Theory
  • JanMohamed’s insights into how Western humanism perpetuates racialized exclusion offer a critical race perspective on the cultural and ideological marginalization of minority voices (JanMohamed, p. 289).
  • His concept of cultural resistance within minority literature highlights the role of literature in challenging racist ideologies, aligning with Critical Race Theory’s goal of exposing and dismantling racial oppression in cultural narratives (JanMohamed, p. 297).
  • He discusses how the collective consciousness of marginalized groups is expressed through literature, reinforcing CRT’s emphasis on the value of shared racial and cultural identity as a form of resilience and resistance (JanMohamed, p. 295).
• Reader-Response Theory
  • JanMohamed’s work suggests that minority literature invites readers to engage with narratives that challenge their preconceptions, aligning with Reader-Response Theory’s view of reading as an active, interpretive process (JanMohamed, p. 289).
  • His emphasis on the oppositional stance in minority texts encourages readers to critically engage with issues of race, identity, and power, thus fostering a more active and questioning readership (JanMohamed, p. 297).
• New Historicism
  • By situating minority literature within the socio-political context of Western imperialism and racism, JanMohamed’s approach mirrors New Historicism’s emphasis on understanding texts through their historical and cultural circumstances (JanMohamed, p. 295).
  • His exploration of political and social contexts that shape both the creation and reception of minority literature highlights the New Historicist view that literature both reflects and influences the power structures of its time (JanMohamed, p. 282).
• Postmodernism
  • JanMohamed’s analysis of deterritorialization in minority literature reflects a postmodern interest in subverting traditional forms and meanings, showing how minority writers transform dominant languages to express new ideas (JanMohamed, p. 295).
  • His focus on fragmented and hybrid identities within minority discourse aligns with postmodernism’s critique of fixed, essentialist identities, highlighting how cultural marginalization shapes unique, fluid forms of identity (JanMohamed, p. 297).

Examples of Critiques Through “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

Literary Work and Author	Critique Through JanMohamed’s Framework
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Achebe’s novel embodies a counter-hegemonic discourse by portraying the complexities of Igbo society before and during European colonialism, challenging Western stereotypes about African cultures (p. 281).
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s portrayal of Sethe’s trauma and resilience highlights the marginalization and dehumanization African Americans faced. Her story defies hegemonic narratives by centering Black experience (p. 297).
A Grain of Wheat by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o	The novel critiques colonial oppression in Kenya and envisions alternative social formations beyond colonial structures, embodying a postcolonial, counter-hegemonic vision that challenges Western norms (p. 295).
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison	Ellison’s protagonist grapples with invisibility within a white-dominated society, symbolizing the politics of marginalization. The narrative resists assimilation, affirming identity through visibility (p. 297).

Criticism Against “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

• Overemphasis on the Binary of Dominance and Resistance
  Critics argue that JanMohamed’s framework may oversimplify the complexity of minority literature by framing it primarily as oppositional or resistant, potentially limiting the scope of other nuanced interpretations that focus on aesthetic, personal, or psychological dimensions.
• Limited Flexibility in Defining Minority Literature
  Some scholars suggest that JanMohamed’s approach overly categorizes minority literature as inherently political and counter-hegemonic, which may ignore works that are more introspective or that do not explicitly address cultural or political resistance.
• Underestimation of Liberal Humanism’s Positive Influence
  JanMohamed’s critique of Western humanism as a hegemonic tool may, according to some critics, overlook the role of liberal humanism in advancing civil rights and supporting minority voices through advocacy and inclusion, albeit imperfectly.
• Neglect of Intersectionality
  His framework is sometimes viewed as overly focused on race and postcolonialism, potentially sidelining other aspects of identity, such as gender, sexuality, and class, that interact with and complicate the experience of marginalization.
• Risk of Essentializing Minority Literature
  By defining minority literature through specific characteristics like marginality, collective consciousness, and deterritorialization, JanMohamed’s theory might unintentionally reinforce fixed expectations of how minority literature should engage with dominant culture, limiting diversity within the category.
• Reliance on Western Philosophical Terms
  JanMohamed’s analysis, while critical of Western hegemony, heavily relies on Western theoretical concepts, such as hegemony and Manichean aesthetics, which may be seen as paradoxical or as perpetuating a dependency on Western intellectual traditions even when critiquing them.

Representative Quotations from “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We need to identify and analyze the modes of cultural hegemony as well as the institutions…used in this subjugating process.” (p. 281)	JanMohamed highlights the necessity of examining how cultural dominance is enforced through various institutions, emphasizing the importance of recognizing both overt and subtle methods of control in minority literature.
“Minority critics face the enormous task of defining that ambivalent dialectic.” (p. 281)	He discusses the complex challenge for minority writers in defining their identity while grappling with a simultaneous attraction to and resistance against dominant Western culture, showing the inner conflict that shapes minority discourse.
“The dominant culture’s ability to recognize itself in its own image and refusal to recognize any alterity.” (p. 289)	JanMohamed critiques Western humanism’s tendency to impose its values universally, which marginalizes other cultural expressions and perpetuates a cycle where minority cultures feel compelled to mirror dominant values for validation.
“Humanism, as both theory and institution, mediates hegemonic control.” (p. 281)	He argues that humanism operates as a vehicle for hegemonic control by framing Western values as universally superior, subtly conditioning minority writers and scholars to conform to dominant ideologies under the guise of universal humanism.
“The essays…collectively constitute what Raymond Williams calls a ‘formation.'” (p. 295)	By invoking Raymond Williams’ concept of “formation,” JanMohamed positions minority literature criticism as a structured, almost uniform response to humanism, critiquing how minority scholars often align with hegemonic structures.
“The urgency of this desire for centrality and control can be measured by a fundamental contradiction.” (p. 285)	JanMohamed points out the paradox within humanism: the claim to promote universal values while striving to maintain power, thereby excluding alternative perspectives, a contradiction particularly impactful in minority literature.
“A viable counter-hegemonic discourse must consist of minority literary texts and a criticism that can articulate the challenge of the texts.” (p. 297)	He calls for a critical approach that respects minority texts’ oppositional qualities, advocating for criticism that reinforces the texts’ political resistance rather than neutralizing it through assimilation into hegemonic values.
“The three fundamental characteristics of a ‘minor’ literature are…deterritorialization…politicization…and articulation of collective consciousness.” (p. 295)	Drawing from Deleuze and Guattari, JanMohamed defines minority literature’s core aspects, which make it counter-hegemonic, emphasizing its subversion of dominant norms and its expression of collective identity and political struggle.
“For Copeland…liberation can be achieved by working through, rather than avoiding, racial antagonism.” (p. 293)	JanMohamed interprets The Third Life of Grange Copeland as a narrative that confronts racial issues directly rather than seeking inclusivity in dominant culture, underscoring his argument for minority literature’s focus on marginality.
“The collective experience in minority literature is one of dehumanization and abject marginality.” (p. 296)	He asserts that marginalization defines the universal experience within minority literature, noting that such works document struggles that mainstream literature often overlooks, thus challenging hegemonic narratives of humanism and inclusion.

Suggested Readings: “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse by Abdul R. JanMohamed

1. JanMohamed, Abdul R. “Humanism and Minority Literature: Toward a Definition of Counter-Hegemonic Discourse.” Boundary 2, vol. 12/13, 1984, pp. 281–99. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/302818. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
2. KRISTELLER, PAUL OSKAR. “HUMANISM.” Minerva, vol. 16, no. 4, 1978, pp. 586–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41820353. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
3. Namboodiripad, E. M. S. “Humanism and Class Struggle in Literature.” Social Scientist, vol. 1, no. 5, 1972, pp. 3–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3516406. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.
4. Weitzenfeld, Adam, and Melanie Joy. “An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory.” Counterpoints, vol. 448, 2014, pp. 3–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42982375. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

“What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall and Don Kuiken first appeared in the 1999 issue of Discourse Processes, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and later made available online by Routledge in November 2009. This foundational article challenges prevailing views in literary theory by arguing that literariness—qualities making a text distinctly “literary”—cannot simply be reduced to general discourse processing or postmodern interpretations that dissolve literary distinctiveness. Instead, Miall and Kuiken propose a three-part model of literary reading, which includes stylistic or narrative foregrounding, the defamiliarizing effect on readers, and a subsequent transformation of personal meanings. This framework underscores that literary texts elicit unique cognitive and affective responses, distinguishing them from non-literary texts. By emphasizing the psychological shifts prompted by literature, this model not only contributes to theoretical discussions of what makes a text “literary” but also asserts the transformative power of literature on readers’ perspectives. The work has significant implications in literary studies and empirical psychology, highlighting the intricate interactions between text and reader that shape literary experiences beyond conventional interpretative paradigms.

Summary of “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

• Challenge to Conventional Literary Theory
  • The article questions traditional views, particularly those of postmodern theory and cognitive psychology, that do not recognize unique processes in literary reading. Miall and Kuiken argue that literature contains distinct features not found in other texts, countering perspectives that view all texts as processed similarly (Miall & Kuiken, 1999). They propose that “literariness” is rooted in unique responses provoked by reading literature, rather than being reducible to general discourse functions (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Three Components of Literariness
  • Miall and Kuiken propose three critical components in literary reading: foregrounding of stylistic elements, defamiliarization in readers’ experience, and personal transformation in response to the text. Foregrounding involves stylistic and narrative elements that deviate from regular language use and capture attention. These features create a sense of “defamiliarization,” where familiar perceptions are altered, prompting readers to reflect and reshape their understanding. Finally, this process can lead to transformative personal insights (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Empirical Basis for the Model
  • Through empirical studies, Miall and Kuiken demonstrate the effect of foregrounding on reading time and emotional response. For example, passages high in stylistic distinctiveness, such as metaphors and archaic language, are read more slowly and provoke stronger emotional responses, supporting the presence of literariness as a measurable phenomenon (Miall & Kuiken, 1994b).
• Foregrounding and Defamiliarization
  • The first component, foregrounding, involves linguistic and narrative structures that disrupt ordinary expectations, leading to defamiliarization, a state where conventional meanings are questioned. This effect allows literature to reveal new perspectives or feelings in readers. For instance, a metaphor or unique descriptive language can make readers re-evaluate ordinary scenes, fostering a deeper engagement with the text (Miall & Kuiken, 1999).
• Personal Transformation Through Literary Reading
  • The third component emphasizes how literary reading can lead to profound personal insights. As readers encounter and process defamiliarizing elements, they often experience a transformation in their worldview or emotions, distinguishing literary reading from other forms. This process of insight is influenced by individual psychological factors and is central to the experience of literariness (Miall & Kuiken, 1994a).
• Impact on Literary Theory and Critique
  • This model has implications for literary criticism by suggesting that readers’ personal and affective responses play a crucial role in understanding literature. The authors challenge views that see literary value as entirely subjective, instead showing that certain text features reliably provoke responses across different readers (Smith, 1988).
• Contrasts with Other Theories of Reading
  • The authors contrast their approach with cognitive and discourse processing theories, which typically overlook the unique cognitive and emotional engagement prompted by literature. They argue that literariness involves more than the construction of situation models, as typically studied in narrative comprehension, positing instead that literature evokes deeper psychological transformations (Zwaan, Magliano, & Graesser, 1995).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in Context
Literariness	The quality or distinctive characteristic that makes a text literary.	Miall and Kuiken define literariness as a unique mode of reading characterized by foregrounding, defamiliarization, and transformation.
Foregrounding	Use of stylistic and narrative features that deviate from ordinary language or norms, drawing readers’ attention.	Foregrounding in literary texts includes distinctive metaphors, archaic words, and unusual syntax that make readers pause and reflect on meaning.
Defamiliarization	The effect of making familiar concepts appear strange or new, encouraging deeper reflection.	Readers encounter unexpected phrasing or imagery that disrupts habitual perceptions, creating a sense of newness and prompting reinterpretation.
Personal Transformation	The change in readers’ personal feelings, perspectives, or self-conceptions after engaging with a text.	Through engagement with literary features, readers may experience shifts in their worldview or understanding of themselves.
Situation Model	A mental representation of the events, characters, and setting in a narrative, typically used in discourse processing theory.	The authors contrast this with literary reading, arguing that situation models do not account for the unique interpretive transformations in literary texts.
Affective Response	Emotional reactions triggered by reading, often linked to specific text features like foregrounding.	Empirical studies cited by the authors show that affective responses, such as feeling “struck” by text, are core to the experience of literariness.
Interpretive Community	Concept by Stanley Fish referring to groups of readers who share norms for interpreting texts.	Miall and Kuiken address how interpretive communities influence readings but emphasize individual transformations in literary engagement.
Free Indirect Discourse	A narrative technique that allows readers to access a character’s internal thoughts and feelings without direct narration.	Free indirect discourse is cited as one of many devices that can enhance foregrounding, adding depth to readers’ emotional engagement.
Schema Refreshment	A reconfiguration or update of mental frameworks (schemas) as new information is processed, especially through literary defamiliarization.	The authors argue that literariness involves refreshing schemas by challenging preconceived ideas through stylistic disruptions.
Empirical Study of Literature	A research approach involving systematic observation and analysis of readers’ responses to literary texts.	Miall and Kuiken base their argument on empirical studies, measuring reader responses to literary elements such as foregrounding and defamiliarization.
Enactive Reading	A mode of reading where the reader actively “lives through” the experience of the characters or scenes in the text.	The concept describes how some readers experience the text viscerally, connecting personal memories or emotions to the narrative.
Psychobiological Inheritance	The natural, innate human capacity for emotion and self-perception that influences literary response.	The authors propose that literariness draws on basic human tendencies for emotional engagement and self-reflection.

Contribution of “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken to Literary Theory/Theories

• Challenging Cognitive Psychology’s Discourse Processing Theory
  • Miall and Kuiken argue that cognitive theories of discourse processing, which often subsume literary understanding into general reading processes, fail to account for the unique, affective responses characteristic of literary reading. By proposing that literary texts evoke distinct emotional and cognitive engagement, they challenge the “situation model” approach, which emphasizes cognitive coherence over emotional response (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 122).
• Expansion of Russian Formalism and Defamiliarization
  • Building on Russian Formalism, particularly Viktor Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization,” Miall and Kuiken empirically validate the idea that literature disrupts ordinary perceptions and prompts readers to re-evaluate familiar ideas. Their research provides empirical evidence for defamiliarization as an essential element of literariness, showing how stylistic foregrounding unsettles readers’ conventional understanding (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 123).
• Foregrounding as a Unique Feature of Literariness in Stylistics
  • The authors build on stylistic theories, including those by Leech and Short, by defining foregrounding as a stylistic marker that provokes readers’ attention and enhances affective engagement. This contribution establishes foregrounding not just as a stylistic element but as a key feature that distinguishes literary texts from other forms (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 124).
• New Insights into Reader-Response Theory
  • Miall and Kuiken’s work extends reader-response theory by detailing how readers’ personal transformation through literature results from specific text features, such as foregrounding and defamiliarization. Unlike traditional reader-response approaches, which often emphasize subjective interpretation alone, they empirically investigate how text-induced psychological responses facilitate individual transformation (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 125).
• Redefining the Role of Feeling in Hermeneutics and Literary Understanding
  • By highlighting the role of affective response, Miall and Kuiken’s model emphasizes the interpretive importance of emotions in reading, diverging from hermeneutic theories that prioritize intellectual engagement. Their research suggests that feeling, as a vehicle for personal transformation, is crucial in reading, aligning literary interpretation with psychological insight (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 130).
• Critique of Postmodern Relativism in Literary Value
  • Miall and Kuiken critique postmodern theorists like Barbara Herrnstein Smith, who argue that literary value is culturally relative and imposed by social authorities. By providing evidence of consistent reader responses to foregrounding and defamiliarization across cultural contexts, they contend that literariness has inherent features that evoke universal patterns of response, thereby resisting purely relativistic views (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 126).
• Empirical Validation of the Aesthetic Experience in Literary Theory
  • This article offers an empirical framework for studying the aesthetics of reading, positing that literariness involves measurable changes in readers’ affective and cognitive states. The findings suggest that the aesthetic experience in reading is characterized by a distinctive mode of engagement, contributing to theories of literary aesthetics by providing a model grounded in empirical data (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 136).
• Advancing the Concept of Schema Refreshment in Cognitive Literary Studies
  • The authors introduce “schema refreshment,” a term for how defamiliarization in literature can update readers’ cognitive frameworks or schemas. This concept advances cognitive literary studies by illustrating how literary reading prompts an adaptive re-evaluation of conventional perceptions, driven by the distinct features of literariness (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 135).

Examples of Critiques Through “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

Literary Work	Critique Through Miall & Kuiken’s Model	Explanation
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Nightingale”	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization in Time Perception	The poem’s metaphorical language, such as “sunken day” and “no relique,” disrupts typical perceptions of time, creating a “nothing time” where ordinary concepts dissolve. Readers experience a heightened engagement as they search for meaning in the altered imagery, a key aspect of defamiliarization (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 123).
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”	Foregrounded Themes of Guilt and Fate	Readers encounter stylistic and narrative foregrounding, such as the repeated references to “fiend” and the image of the Mariner haunted by guilt. This defamiliarization prompts readers to personally reflect on themes of fate and inevitability, transforming conventional notions of guilt and consequence into profound, personal insights (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 135).
Elizabeth Bowen’s “The Demon Lover”	Foregrounding and Temporal Disruption	Bowen’s use of stylistic foregrounding, such as repetitive sounds and metaphor in phrases like “stopped dead,” creates a sense of unease and suspension of time. This defamiliarization challenges readers’ standard temporal understanding, evoking fear and uncertainty—emotions that contribute to the story’s impact and exemplify Miall & Kuiken’s model (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 129).
Sean O’Faolain’s “The Trout”	Personal Transformation Through Enactive Reading	The narrative foregrounds sensory descriptions of the trout’s environment, prompting readers to live through the character Julia’s experience. Through defamiliarized imagery, readers engage in an enactive reading process, transforming their perspective on themes of life and freedom, illustrating Miall and Kuiken’s component of reader transformation (Miall & Kuiken, 1999, p. 131).

Criticism Against “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

• Overemphasis on Empirical Evidence
  • Critics may argue that Miall and Kuiken’s reliance on empirical studies to measure affective responses limits the scope of literary theory, reducing complex interpretive experiences to quantifiable data. This empirical focus may overlook the nuances and subjective nature of individual literary interpretations.
• Neglect of Cultural and Social Contexts
  • By emphasizing universal affective responses, Miall and Kuiken’s model may fail to account for how cultural, historical, and social contexts shape readers’ interpretations and emotional responses, which could challenge their claim of consistent patterns across readers.
• Incompatibility with Postmodern Theory
  • Postmodern critics could argue that Miall and Kuiken’s notion of inherent literariness contradicts theories that view literary value as culturally constructed and fluid. Their model implies an essential quality of literariness, which postmodernists like Barbara Herrnstein Smith would see as problematic.
• Simplification of Literary Aesthetics
  • The model’s focus on foregrounding, defamiliarization, and personal transformation may be seen as oversimplifying literary aesthetics, potentially ignoring other aspects of literary art, such as symbolic complexity, intertextuality, and irony, which also contribute to literariness.
• Limited Engagement with Reader Diversity
  • While Miall and Kuiken emphasize personal transformation, critics could contend that they inadequately address the diversity of readers’ backgrounds, interests, and reading purposes, which can result in different levels of engagement and interpretation beyond the proposed model.
• Potential Reduction of Literature to Psychological Processes
  • Some critics might argue that by focusing on affective and cognitive processes, Miall and Kuiken risk reducing literature to psychological phenomena, which may ignore the intrinsic aesthetic and artistic value of the text itself.

Representative Quotations from “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literariness is constituted when stylistic or narrative variations defamiliarize conventionally understood referents and prompt reinterpretive transformations of a conventional feeling or concept.” (p. 123)	This statement defines Miall and Kuiken’s concept of literariness, emphasizing how literature disrupts conventional ideas through stylistic features, leading to a rethinking of familiar concepts.
“Foregrounding occurs when linguistic elements or features deviate from the norms of everyday language.” (p. 124)	Here, the authors explain foregrounding, a central feature of literariness, where linguistic deviations attract attention and prompt deeper engagement with the text.
“Defamiliarization unsettles readers’ habitual perceptions, making the familiar seem strange and thought-provoking.” (p. 123)	Miall and Kuiken argue that defamiliarization in literature challenges readers’ usual perspectives, encouraging them to reconsider what they know or assume.
“The process of change initiated by literary texts is a distinctive form of psychological transformation.” (p. 125)	The authors propose that engaging with literature results in psychological transformation, a unique and defining feature of literariness.
“The experience of feeling ‘struck’ by a literary phrase or image indicates that foregrounding is at work.” (p. 127)	This quote highlights how readers’ emotional reactions, like feeling “struck,” are responses to foregrounded elements in the text, pointing to a key effect of literariness.
“Personal transformation occurs when readers reinterpret and modify conventional feelings or concepts.” (p. 130)	Miall and Kuiken describe how reading literature leads to personal transformation, where readers’ understanding and emotions shift as they engage with the text.
“Literary response…plays a critical role in alerting us to alternative perspectives on ourselves and our social and natural environments.” (p. 126)	The authors assert that literary reading enhances self-awareness and broadens perspectives on social and environmental contexts, demonstrating literature’s impact beyond individual experience.
“The model of literary reading we propose resists reduction to general discourse processing theories.” (p. 122)	Miall and Kuiken challenge general theories of discourse processing, arguing that literary reading involves unique processes that cannot be fully explained by standard cognitive models.
“Foregrounding may be evident within molar narrative structures, through devices that provide shifts in point of view.” (p. 124)	This statement extends foregrounding to narrative structures, showing how shifts in point of view and other narrative techniques also contribute to the experience of literariness.
“Empirical studies indicate that feeling is the primary vehicle for the search for meaning in response to literary texts.” (p. 134)	Miall and Kuiken emphasize the role of emotion in literary interpretation, arguing that feelings drive readers’ engagement with and understanding of the text, a foundation for their empirical approach to studying literariness.

Suggested Readings: “What Is Literariness? Three Components of Literary Reading” by David S. Miall & Don Kuiken

1. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “What is literariness? Three components of literary reading.” Discourse processes 28.2 (1999): 121-138.
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
3. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
4. Ramchand, Kenneth. “West Indian Literary History: Literariness, Orality and Periodization.” Callaloo, no. 34, 1988, pp. 95–110. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2931112. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.

•  

Introduction: “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

“Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom,” by Barbara Frey Waxman, first appeared in College English in March 2008, published by the National Council of Teachers of English. In this article, Waxman explores the appeal of food memoirs as literary texts that reveal personal histories, cultural identities, and communal values, often drawing on food as a metaphor for love, identity, and nostalgia. She argues that food memoirs are more than narratives filled with recipes and culinary descriptions; they represent profound reflections on family traditions, cross-cultural experiences, and the processes of self-discovery and identity formation. Waxman asserts that these memoirs offer readers, especially students, valuable insights into diverse cultures, historical traditions, and the universality of food as a social bond. By studying food memoirs, students can develop empathy and emotional intelligence, as well as deepen their understanding of literary techniques, such as metaphor and narrative voice. Waxman champions the inclusion of food memoirs in literature classrooms for their rich narrative styles, emotional depth, and their potential to broaden students’ perspectives on multiculturalism, personal growth, and the enduring human connection to food.

Summary of “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

• Defining Food Memoirs and Their Appeal
  Food memoirs offer narratives where food memories reveal the growth and development of the writer. These memoirs often feature emotionally rich stories interwoven with vivid descriptions of food, creating a deep resonance with readers. Waxman argues that food memoirs are distinct from other food writing because they often begin with childhood memories or flashbacks, providing insights into family, culture, and identity. She describes how these texts blend culinary and cultural elements that give readers insight into the writers’ lives and perspectives, making them highly engaging and educational in a classroom setting (Waxman 365).
• Autobiographical and Ethnographic Qualities
  Food memoirs not only reflect personal experiences but often serve as a form of “auto-ethnography,” where the author explains their cultural background through the lens of food. This characteristic enables readers to learn about different traditions and customs from an insider’s perspective, fulfilling a dual role of personal narrative and cultural education. Waxman references Paul John Eakin’s theory that memoirists adopt an “ethnographic posture” toward their own past, sharing these customs and stories with a broader audience (Waxman 366).
• Food as a Link in Diaspora Narratives
  The memoirs Waxman examines often focus on the experience of living in the diaspora, where food becomes a medium for preserving cultural identity and memory. These narratives, such as those by Diana Abu-Jaber and Shoba Narayan, highlight the emotional struggle of immigrants attempting to recreate their native dishes with American ingredients. This struggle reflects both their connection to their heritage and the adaptation required to live in a new culture. Waxman argues that these memoirs offer valuable insights into the complexities of cultural adaptation and identity formation (Waxman 369-370).
• The Food Memoir as Multicultural Literature
  Food memoirs also serve as powerful multicultural texts, providing insight into how food traditions bridge cultural divides. For example, through detailed descriptions of traditional ceremonies and festive meals, authors like Leslie Li and Elizabeth Ehrlich invite readers into Chinese and Jewish cultural practices, respectively. This process helps demystify foreign customs and fosters empathy and understanding, reinforcing the role of food memoirs as vehicles for cultural education (Waxman 367).
• Psychological Insights and Family Dynamics
  Waxman discusses how food memoirs provide an intimate view of family relationships and psychological dynamics within different cultural contexts. She cites Madhur Jaffrey’s memoir, which portrays both idyllic and painful memories within her extended family. These personal stories offer readers a window into the emotional and sometimes challenging aspects of family life across cultures, highlighting universal themes such as love, loss, and resilience (Waxman 371).
• Mentoring and Self-Reinvention Through Food
  Many food memoirs highlight the role of mentors in the author’s culinary and personal growth, symbolizing a “second family” and guiding them toward self-reinvention. For instance, in Ruth Reichl’s “Tender at the Bone,” culinary mentors help her find independence and purpose, even as she distances herself from a difficult family background. These mentors often encourage the authors to overcome personal struggles and cultivate a fulfilling career in the food world, symbolizing the transformative power of food and mentorship (Waxman 376-377).
• Eroticism and the Sensuality of Food
  Waxman notes the erotic elements present in many food memoirs, which link the physical pleasure of eating with broader themes of desire and connection. In Reichl’s memoir, the sensuality of food is portrayed vividly, mirroring her personal relationships and romantic experiences. This erotic aspect appeals to readers on a primal level, adding another layer of intimacy to the food memoir genre and contributing to its popularity and allure (Waxman 378).
• Life Lessons in Moral and Emotional Intelligence
  Food memoirs convey life lessons that cultivate readers’ moral and emotional intelligence. Waxman suggests that by reading about other families’ challenges and dynamics, students can better understand and reflect upon their own relationships and values. The emotional depth and ethical dilemmas presented in these narratives foster empathy and encourage readers to appreciate the complexity of human connections and cultural identities (Waxman 380).
• Justification for Food Memoirs in the Classroom
  Waxman argues that food memoirs are valuable teaching tools, enriching literature classrooms by introducing students to diverse cultural perspectives, promoting introspection, and fostering emotional growth. The genre’s familiar subject matter—food—makes it approachable and engaging for students. By analyzing these memoirs, students can learn about narrative structure, cultural symbolism, and identity formation, making food memoirs a unique and effective addition to literature curricula (Waxman 381-382).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Application in Food Memoirs
Auto-Ethnography	A form of self-reflection and writing that explores the writer’s personal experiences and connects them to broader cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.	Food memoirists use their personal food stories to reveal and explain cultural practices to readers. For instance, Diana Abu-Jaber and Shoba Narayan provide insights into cultural customs and traditional foods, helping readers understand the immigrant experience and cultural heritage through food. (Waxman 366-367)
Diaspora	The dispersion of people from their original homeland and the cultural identity and nostalgia associated with it.	Food memoirs frequently discuss the role of food in preserving cultural identity for those in the diaspora. For example, memoirs by authors like Diana Abu-Jaber and Leslie Li reveal how food helps them connect with their heritage and navigate their dual cultural identity. (Waxman 369-370)
Bildungsroman	A literary genre focusing on the psychological and moral growth of the protagonist from youth to adulthood.	Waxman suggests that food memoirs often resemble a culinary bildungsroman, tracing the author’s journey toward maturity and professional identity in the food world, as seen in Ruth Reichl’s “Tender at the Bone,” which chronicles her growth as a food writer. (Waxman 365)
Sensory Imagery	Descriptive language that appeals to the senses, helping readers to visualize, smell, taste, hear, and feel scenes vividly.	Food memoirists use vivid sensory details to evoke strong responses in readers, often connecting food with memories and emotions. For instance, Ruth Reichl describes her first taste of brie as a sensual experience, using imagery that engages readers’ senses. (Waxman 378)
Metaphor and Symbolism	Using one thing to represent or symbolize another, often to convey deeper meanings or associations.	Waxman notes how food becomes a metaphor for love, family bonds, and emotional needs in memoirs. For instance, M. F. K. Fisher links the satisfaction of hunger with the satisfaction of love, showing food as a symbol for human connection and warmth. (Waxman 373)
Mentorship	A recurring theme in narratives where characters provide guidance, support, and life lessons, often leading to the protagonist’s growth.	Mentors in food memoirs guide authors through personal and professional growth. In Ruth Reichl’s memoir, mentors teach her about food and life, helping her gain independence and emotional resilience. This theme underscores the idea of food professionals as a “second family.” (Waxman 377)
Transculturalism	The blending and merging of cultures, often resulting from global interaction and exchange.	Waxman highlights how food memoirs explore the unifying power of food across cultural boundaries, such as Leslie Li’s description of Chinese New Year foods. This cultural blending makes food memoirs an effective tool for teaching multicultural literature. (Waxman 367)
Eroticism and Sensuality	The use of language to convey sensual pleasure or erotic attraction, often in connection with food.	Food memoirs often portray food experiences as sensual or erotic, linking physical taste to emotional or romantic desire. Waxman mentions Isabel Allende’s use of food’s seductive powers in “Aphrodite,” adding another layer of engagement for readers. (Waxman 378)
Emotional and Moral Intelligence	The development of empathy, self-awareness, and understanding of ethical values, often encouraged by literature that explores family dynamics and personal relationships.	Through stories of dysfunctional family relationships and personal growth, food memoirs encourage readers to reflect on moral and emotional values. Waxman asserts that Madhur Jaffrey’s memoirs, which depict complex family dynamics, help readers build empathy and moral understanding. (Waxman 380)
Nostalgia	A sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, often idealized or remembered through specific experiences, symbols, or cultural practices.	Waxman describes how food memoirs convey a sense of nostalgia, as authors remember early food experiences tied to family and culture. Nigel Slater’s “Toast,” for example, recalls the taste and smell of foods from his childhood, which convey a deep sense of longing and identity. (Waxman 375)

Contribution of “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Autobiographical Theory and Auto-Ethnography
   Waxman’s analysis highlights the role of auto-ethnography in food memoirs, where memoirists serve as “insiders” offering personal yet culturally informative narratives. Waxman aligns with Paul John Eakin’s view that memoirists often function as auto-ethnographers who interpret their childhood communities for readers. She emphasizes that food memoirists explore their personal identities and family traditions through food, functioning as “cultural interpreters” who explain their cultural customs to outsiders (Waxman 366). This extension of autobiographical theory sees memoir as not only self-revelatory but as inherently cultural and didactic, linking individual memory to collective cultural identity.
2. Memory Theory
   The article connects memory theory with food memoirs, particularly the constructed nature of memory in autobiographical writing. Waxman incorporates Eakin’s insights that “memory constructs the materials from the past,” and memoirists “refashion” these memories in their narratives (Waxman 366). In food memoirs, sensory experiences—especially taste and smell—are instrumental in accessing memories, a concept Waxman supports with Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin’s notion of “taste memories” and James Beard’s reflections on memory’s physical connection to food (Waxman 364). This contribution deepens memory theory by emphasizing the unique sensory and emotional access food offers to autobiographical memory.
3. Cultural Anthropology
   Waxman’s work contributes to cultural anthropology by positioning food memoirs as key texts for examining cultural practices. Citing anthropologists’ views that cooking and eating mark social boundaries and reinforce group identities, she demonstrates how food memoirists like Shoba Narayan and Leslie Li convey cultural belonging and values through culinary rituals. Waxman aligns with Robin Fox’s idea that food helps define social boundaries (Waxman 367) while simultaneously expanding readers’ understanding of various cultural practices. This approach establishes food memoirs as significant texts in studying identity formation, assimilation, and the cultural significance of culinary practices in literary analysis.
4. Diaspora and Transcultural Theory
   Waxman positions food memoirs as crucial to diaspora and transcultural theory, suggesting that food serves as a “contact zone” where diasporic individuals negotiate their identities between “here” and “there” (Waxman 369). Memoirs by authors like Diana Abu-Jaber depict this “Janus-faced” existence, using food to connect with their heritage while adapting to American culture. Waxman’s discussion of the symbolic role of food as a link to cultural roots emphasizes the diasporic individual’s negotiation of identity and belonging, contributing to transcultural theory by showing how food acts as a mediator of cultural memory and assimilation.
5. Feminist Theory
   Waxman’s exploration of the feminist implications in food memoirs examines how these texts empower women by celebrating their culinary expertise and personal agency. She highlights the work of M.F.K. Fisher and Ruth Reichl, who gain self-identity and autonomy through food and cooking, transforming traditional domestic roles into forms of personal expression and professional identity (Waxman 365). By acknowledging women’s narratives in a traditionally domestic sphere, Waxman emphasizes the feminist potential of food memoirs in literary studies, where cooking becomes a form of self-discovery and empowerment, thus extending feminist literary theory’s analysis of domestic narratives.
6. Reader-Response Theory and Sensory Engagement
   Waxman’s article contributes to reader-response theory by noting the intense sensory engagement food memoirs evoke, which activates readers’ “jouissance” as described by Roland Barthes. She observes that readers often feel hunger or cravings while reading these vivid descriptions (Waxman 379). This emotional and physical response to food memoirs exemplifies how texts can engage readers in bodily, affective ways, expanding reader-response theory to include multisensory reader experiences that blur the line between reading and tasting.
7. Narrative Theory and Structure of the Memoir
   Waxman discusses the structure of food memoirs as similar to the bildungsroman or growth narrative, contributing to narrative theory by identifying the genre’s progression through childhood experiences with food, the influence of mentors, and the eventual formation of identity and professional role (Waxman 365). This developmental structure is unique to food memoirs, as it combines personal growth with sensory and cultural education, enriching narrative theory’s understanding of memoir as a medium that intertwines the personal and cultural through sensory and emotional experiences.

Examples of Critiques Through “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

Literary Work	Author	Critique Through Waxman’s Themes	Relevant Theme/Concept
The Language of Baklava	Diana Abu-Jaber	Waxman discusses how Abu-Jaber’s memoir uses food as a way to navigate and portray Jordanian-American identity. In recounting her father’s attempts to recreate traditional Jordanian foods in the U.S., Waxman interprets food as a “Janus-faced” symbol, connecting the Jordanian diaspora’s experiences of “here” and “there.”	Diaspora and Transcultural Theory
The Gastronomical Me	M.F.K. Fisher	Fisher’s memoir explores the connection between food, emotional nourishment, and personal growth. Waxman highlights Fisher’s portrayal of sensual experiences with food as symbolic of her journey into adulthood, where food hunger reflects the broader hunger for love, acceptance, and self-expression.	Autobiographical Theory & Feminist Theory
Monsoon Diary	Shoba Narayan	Waxman analyzes how Narayan uses food memories to depict Indian cultural traditions. Descriptions of ceremonies like “choru-unnal” (a child’s first solid meal) function as cultural bridges, allowing non-Indian readers to engage with unfamiliar customs and deepen cross-cultural empathy.	Cultural Anthropology & Auto-Ethnography
Tender at the Bone	Ruth Reichl	Reichl’s memoir is used by Waxman to illustrate the development of identity and autonomy through food. Waxman emphasizes the role of Reichl’s mentors in teaching her the skills and emotional resilience to become a food professional, overcoming family dysfunction to create a “new home” in the culinary world.	Feminist Theory & Mentoring/Self-Reinvention

Criticism Against “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

• Overemphasis on Cultural and Ethnic Nostalgia: Waxman’s focus on food as a way to preserve cultural heritage and identity may be viewed as overly nostalgic, potentially oversimplifying the complexities of cultural identity in favor of idealized representations.
• Limited Scope of Literary Analysis: The article primarily examines food memoirs through autobiographical and cultural lenses, potentially neglecting other literary theories and analytical approaches, such as psychoanalytic or postmodern perspectives, that could add depth to the analysis.
• Potentially Narrow View of the Memoir Genre: By focusing on the thematic elements of food and cultural identity, Waxman may overlook how food memoirs intersect with broader themes common in other memoirs, such as trauma, gender identity, or socioeconomic factors.
• Risk of Cultural Stereotyping: The portrayal of food as inherently representative of cultural identity could inadvertently reinforce stereotypes, suggesting that specific foods or culinary practices uniformly define a culture, which may not reflect individual or contemporary cultural diversity.
• Assumed Accessibility for the Classroom: Waxman advocates for the inclusion of food memoirs in literature classrooms, but critics might argue that these works are less academically rigorous or challenging than traditional literary texts, potentially limiting critical engagement and interpretative depth.
• Simplification of Diaspora Experience: Waxman’s interpretation of food as a bridge between “here” and “there” for diasporic communities might simplify the complexities of diaspora, overlooking the varied and sometimes contradictory experiences of those navigating multiple cultural identities.

Representative Quotations from “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Food memoirists intuitively grasp these important links among smells, tastes, strong emotions, and keen memories.”	Waxman emphasizes the sensory power of food memoirs, which invoke emotions and memories through detailed sensory descriptions, providing readers with visceral experiences that make the past come alive. This helps explain why food memoirs are both appealing and nostalgic for readers.
2. “Food is clearly a link among generations of immigrants and exiles; those who cook and write about food are ‘culture-tenders.'”	Here, Waxman connects food memoirs to cultural preservation. By cooking and sharing stories, authors protect and pass down cultural traditions, making food memoirs a powerful genre for exploring identity, heritage, and intergenerational bonds.
3. “Memoirists often ‘adopt an ethnographic posture’ toward their childhood food culture.”	This quote highlights the role of food memoirists as cultural translators, introducing readers to cultural traditions through a personal lens. This ethnographic approach allows readers to understand not only specific foods but the social and familial practices tied to them.
4. “Culinary memoirs generally trace the memoirists’ passage from youth to a maturity in which they have discovered a passion for food.”	Waxman observes that food memoirs often follow a growth arc similar to a bildungsroman. The narrative is typically a journey of personal discovery and maturity, where food symbolizes both personal and professional fulfillment.
5. “Many of these authors in telling their life stories give readers a little psychology on how to interact with others—even across cultures—and how to get to know themselves.”	Waxman emphasizes that food memoirs are more than personal stories; they offer psychological and social insights. By narrating their experiences with food, authors share life lessons about relationships, self-discovery, and empathy, fostering connections between readers and different cultures.
6. “Food memoirs […] can be both unifying and divisive: they draw boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and define notions of ‘here’ and ‘there.'”	This quotation speaks to the complexity of food as both a unifier and divider. Waxman acknowledges that while food can bridge cultures, it can also reinforce cultural boundaries, giving food memoirs the ability to explore issues of belonging, identity, and diaspora.
7. “The therapeutic value of writing a cross-cultural food memoir…appeals to American readers who may be the sons and daughters or grandchildren of immigrants.”	Waxman suggests that food memoirs can offer healing, particularly for those experiencing cultural dislocation or loss. This therapeutic angle makes these memoirs resonant for readers exploring their heritage and cultural identity.
8. “Writing about food hunger is really writing about love, and the hunger for it.”	Drawing a parallel between food and emotional nourishment, Waxman demonstrates that food memoirs often go beyond culinary appreciation, delving into universal human experiences like love, connection, and intimacy.
9. “Food memoirs […] often represent food as a Janus-faced signifier, pointing to the ‘here’ of diasporic life and the ‘there’ of a home they cannot really go back to.”	Waxman identifies the dual nature of food for diasporic individuals. Food serves as both a connection to the past and an adaptation to the present, allowing memoirists to explore complex feelings of nostalgia, identity, and assimilation.
10. “Food memoirs cultivate readers’ moral and emotional intelligence.”	Waxman argues that by confronting themes of family, ethics, and emotional conflict, food memoirs encourage readers to reflect on their values and cultivate empathy, making them valuable educational tools in the literature classroom.

Suggested Readings: “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom” by Barbara Frey Waxman

1. Waxman, Barbara Frey. “Food Memoirs: What They Are, Why They Are Popular, and Why They Belong in the Literature Classroom.” College English, vol. 70, no. 4, 2008, pp. 363–83. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472276. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
2. “Front Matter.” College English, vol. 70, no. 4, 2008. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472273. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
3. Avakian, Arlene. “Cooking Up Lives: Feminist Food Memoirs.” Feminist Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, 2014, pp. 277–303. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15767/feministstudies.40.2.277. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.
4. Cognard-Black, Jennifer, and Melissa A. Goldthwaite. “Books That Cook: Teaching Food and Food Literature in the English Classroom.” College English, vol. 70, no. 4, 2008, pp. 421–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472279. Accessed 11 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

“The form of reading: Empirical Studies of Literariness” by David S. Miall and Don Kuiken first appeared in 1998 in the journal Poetics (Volume 25, pages 327–341). This study is seminal in challenging poststructuralist dismissals of formalist approaches to literature, which prioritize the text’s formal elements in influencing reader response. Miall and Kuiken argue against the poststructuralist view that perceives reader engagement with form as a socially constructed behavior, proposing instead that empirical research supports a psychological and cognitive basis for responses to literary features, such as style, structure, and linguistic “foregrounding.” Their research shows that, contrary to poststructuralist claims, readers often respond to these formal features naturally, regardless of external conventions or institutional training. This study is significant because it reinvigorates formalism within literary theory, suggesting that readers’ reactions to specific formal aspects of literature are not solely learned but are rooted in universal cognitive and psychobiological processes. The findings underscore the importance of formal structures in shaping literary experience, proposing that these structures play a central role in how literature functions to evoke feelings, inspire reflection, and cultivate deeper human understanding, reinforcing the unique cultural value of literary works.

Summary of “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

• Challenge to Poststructuralism:
  Miall and Kuiken critique the poststructuralist dismissal of formalism in literature, arguing that the neglect of formal textual elements—such as style and structure—fails to recognize their intrinsic role in reader responses. Contrary to the claim that reader focus on form is purely socially constructed, the authors assert that formal features of texts invoke responses grounded in psychobiological and cognitive processes (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 329).
• Foregrounding in Literary Texts:
  Foregrounding, defined as the use of distinctive language forms (phonetic, grammatical, semantic), emerges as a primary element that influences literary response. Empirical studies reviewed by Miall and Kuiken suggest that these features naturally attract attention and evoke emotional engagement, challenging the view that “literariness” is merely an institutional construct (Mukarovsky, 1964/1932; Van Peer, 1986; Miall & Kuiken, 1994a).
• Empirical Evidence Supporting Formalism:
  Through analyses of Hoffstaedter (1987) and Hanauer (1996), Miall and Kuiken provide empirical support for formalism. Hoffstaedter’s study showed that poetic qualities were consistently recognized regardless of context, contradicting the conventionalist position. Similarly, Hanauer’s work demonstrated that novice and experienced readers alike recognized poetic elements, supporting the notion that responses are not solely due to educational conditioning (Hoffstaedter, 1987; Hanauer, 1996; Miall & Kuiken, 1998, pp. 332-336).
• Defamiliarization and Cognitive Engagement:
  The study of foregrounding revealed that “defamiliarization” or making the familiar strange heightens reader engagement by prompting deeper cognitive processing and emotional responses. This mechanism is particularly potent in passages with pronounced foregrounding, fostering a search for new interpretative contexts, and highlights literature’s unique capacity to evoke adaptive responses to the environment (Shklovsky, 1965; Miall & Kuiken, 1995).
• Natural Basis for Literary Responses:
  Miall and Kuiken propose that literary reading is driven by innate psychobiological and cognitive processes rather than solely by social conditioning. Their studies suggest that the recognition of foregrounded features and subsequent emotional responses are “natural” responses not restricted to trained or institutionally conditioned readers (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).
• The Formalist Contract:
  They introduce the concept of the “Formalist Contract,” wherein readers commit to engage with the text as a coherent whole and explore its communicative intent. This framework contrasts with poststructuralist notions that focus on deconstructing texts as dispersed cultural artifacts, reaffirming the role of literary reading in fostering empathy and reflective understanding (Barthes, 1977; Miall & Kuiken, 1998, pp. 339-341).
• Implications for Literary Studies:
  Miall and Kuiken argue that re-embracing formalist elements in literary studies would bridge the gap between academic discourse and the general reader’s experiential engagement with literature. They advocate for an “ecologically valid approach” that respects literature’s longstanding role in cultural and psychological development (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Literary Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Relevance in Miall & Kuiken’s Study
Formalism	A critical approach focusing on the inherent formal features of a text (e.g., structure, style) rather than its social or historical context.	Miall and Kuiken argue that formal features play a significant role in shaping reader response, countering poststructuralist views that dismiss formalism as purely socially constructed.
Foregrounding	The use of distinctive language features (e.g., unusual syntax, figurative language) that make certain parts of a text stand out, drawing readers’ attention.	Foregrounding is central to their argument; it is posited as a trigger for cognitive and emotional engagement, encouraging readers to interpret texts more deeply.
Literariness	Qualities that distinguish literary texts from non-literary ones, often associated with aesthetic or formal features that elicit a unique reader response.	The study suggests that literariness is perceived through inherent textual qualities (e.g., foregrounding) rather than being solely an institutional construct.
Defamiliarization	A technique where familiar objects or concepts are presented in a new way, creating a sense of estrangement or freshness in perception.	Following Shklovsky, Miall and Kuiken discuss defamiliarization as a key effect of literary texts that prompts readers to re-evaluate and engage with content more deeply.
Aesthetic Convention	A set of socially constructed norms that guide how readers interpret texts as “literary” or “aesthetic.”	The authors critique this concept, suggesting that literariness arises from intrinsic features of the text rather than purely from convention or reader expectations.
Psychobiological Response	A reaction based on psychological and biological mechanisms, such as emotional engagement and cognitive processing.	Miall and Kuiken argue that responses to formal features are rooted in psychobiological processes, challenging the notion that all responses are shaped by social constructs.
Empirical Study	A research approach based on observation and experimentation to test hypotheses, often involving data collection.	The authors emphasize the need for empirical studies in literary theory, presenting data that support the significance of formal features in reader response.
Interpretive Community	A term from Stanley Fish that suggests readers interpret texts based on shared cultural or institutional norms.	Miall and Kuiken dispute this, arguing that readers’ responses to formal features can be consistent across different educational backgrounds, suggesting a more universal basis for literary experience.
Schema Creation	A cognitive process where readers develop new frameworks or structures of understanding while reading.	They argue that literary texts prompt schema creation through foregrounding, enabling readers to explore new interpretive paths.
Formalist Contract	The implicit agreement between reader and text, wherein the reader approaches the text as a unified, coherent entity with meaning.	The concept of a Formalist Contract frames literary reading as an engagement in which readers explore formal structures, contributing to a richer interpretive experience.
Poststructuralism	A critical approach that deconstructs the idea of stable meaning, suggesting that meaning is fluid and shaped by cultural context.	Miall and Kuiken contrast their findings with poststructuralist views, proposing that certain text features have inherent qualities that guide interpretation independent of cultural constructs.
Textual Autonomy	The belief that a text has its own inherent meaning, independent of reader interpretation or external context.	The authors argue for a form of textual autonomy, suggesting that formal elements elicit consistent responses that transcend individual or cultural biases.

Contribution of “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Challenge to Poststructuralism
   Miall and Kuiken argue against the poststructuralist claim that literary meaning is fluid, shaped primarily by social constructs, and void of inherent textual structure. By empirically demonstrating that readers respond to foregrounded elements regardless of context, they suggest that certain formal features have universal appeal and function beyond cultural interpretation (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 329). This counters the poststructuralist focus on intertextuality and the “infinite deferment of meaning,” as noted by theorists like Barthes and Derrida, by emphasizing text-driven responses (Barthes, 1977).
2. Empirical Formalism
   The authors contribute to formalism by grounding it in empirical research, particularly through the study of “foregrounding” and “defamiliarization.” They revisit classic formalist ideas (e.g., Shklovsky’s defamiliarization) to show that these techniques effectively evoke reader engagement and emotional response, thereby validating formalist claims through data. Their work suggests that literariness is based on universal cognitive and psychobiological reactions to form, rather than on social or institutional conventions alone (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 338; Shklovsky, 1965).
3. Foregrounding Theory
   By focusing on foregrounding, Miall and Kuiken reinforce the concept that literary texts utilize unique language features that command attention and shape interpretation. Foregrounding, through techniques like distinctive syntax or phonetic choices, makes familiar experiences “strange,” prompting readers to engage in deeper cognitive processing (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 337). Their empirical data demonstrates that foregrounding influences readers consistently, supporting its role as a fundamental aspect of literariness and challenging theories that view literary interpretation as wholly context-dependent.
4. Cognitive Poetics
   The study makes a significant contribution to cognitive poetics by proposing that literary responses are based on innate cognitive mechanisms. Miall and Kuiken argue that readers process foregrounded features intuitively, engaging in schema creation and defamiliarization, processes that are “natural” and universal rather than solely learned. They align with cognitive theorists like Reuven Tsur, who also views literary reading as a cognitive experience that goes beyond social constructs, suggesting that empirical approaches can explain the interpretive processes activated by formal features (Tsur, 1983).
5. Interpretive Community and Reader-Response Theory
   The authors question Fish’s notion of interpretive communities, which asserts that literary meaning is determined by shared cultural conventions. By demonstrating that readers of diverse backgrounds respond similarly to foregrounded elements, they challenge the idea that interpretation is purely socially constructed. Their findings suggest a more universal basis for reader response, which contrasts with theories in reader-response criticism that emphasize interpretive variability based on social or cultural factors (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 331; Fish, 1980).
6. Ecological Validity in Literary Studies
   Miall and Kuiken’s approach to understanding reader responses to literary texts through empirical research addresses a gap in literary theory for ecologically valid methods. They argue that studying actual readers’ reactions, rather than relying solely on theoretical models, provides a more accurate understanding of the function of literature in culture and individual psychology. This approach supports the development of literary theory that is grounded in empirical data, offering a model for integrating psychological and cognitive insights into the study of literature (Miall & Kuiken, 1998, p. 340).

Examples of Critiques Through “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

Literary Work	Critique Focus	Application of Miall & Kuiken’s Concepts
“To the Lighthouse” by Virginia Woolf	Foregrounding and Defamiliarization	Woolf’s fragmented narrative and syntax foreground language, slowing reading and inviting introspection. According to Miall and Kuiken, this foregrounding prompts defamiliarization, which deepens emotional engagement, allowing readers to access the consciousness of characters.
“The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot	Cognitive Processing and Schema Creation	Eliot’s imagery and stream-of-consciousness defamiliarize modern alienation, requiring readers to create new interpretive schemas. Miall and Kuiken’s ideas on foregrounding and schema creation explain how Eliot’s unconventional language evokes disorientation and introspection.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Empathy and Defamiliarization	Morrison’s poetic language and fragmented narrative structure foreground trauma, creating a defamiliarizing effect. Miall and Kuiken’s theories suggest that this disruption forces readers to confront historical trauma, fostering empathy and an emotional response.
“The Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka	Defamiliarization and Foregrounding	Kafka’s surreal premise—Gregor’s transformation—immediately defamiliarizes the character’s life, creating emotional and cognitive distance. Miall and Kuiken’s emphasis on defamiliarization shows how Kafka’s foregrounded absurdity prompts readers to re-evaluate themes of alienation and humanity.

Criticism Against “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

• Over-reliance on Empirical Methods
  Critics may argue that Miall and Kuiken’s reliance on empirical studies to understand literary response risks oversimplifying complex, subjective experiences of reading, which cannot be fully captured by quantitative data.
• Neglect of Cultural and Historical Context
  By focusing on universal psychobiological responses, the study potentially downplays the influence of cultural, historical, and social contexts that shape how different readers engage with and interpret texts.
• Limitations in Generalizing Reader Response
  The authors’ findings may not be universally applicable, as individual reader responses can vary widely based on personal background, education, and emotional state, challenging the notion of a “natural” response to foregrounded text features.
• Underestimation of Interpretive Community Theory
  Miall and Kuiken’s challenge to Stanley Fish’s interpretive community theory could be seen as limited, as they may overlook how deeply shared cultural norms influence literary interpretation, especially within educational settings.
• Ambiguity in Defining Literariness
  While the study attempts to define literariness through foregrounding and reader response, critics may find this approach reductive, arguing that literariness encompasses a broader range of elements, including thematic and symbolic depth, which are not fully addressed.
• Reduction of Literature to Cognitive Processes
  The emphasis on psychobiological and cognitive processes risks reducing literature’s value to a set of predictable reader responses, potentially undermining literature’s artistic and imaginative dimensions that resist empirical measurement.
• Limited Scope of Foregrounding as a Literary Device
  Miall and Kuiken’s focus on foregrounding as central to literariness may be seen as narrow, as literary texts often rely on various elements—such as narrative structure, genre conventions, and thematic complexity—that are not solely dependent on foregrounded language.
• Challenge to Poststructuralism without Sufficient Nuance
  Their critique of poststructuralist perspectives may be viewed as one-dimensional, as they dismiss the fluid and interpretative nature of meaning emphasized by poststructuralist theorists, potentially overlooking valuable insights on intertextuality and the variability of meaning.

Representative Quotations from “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The assumption that formal features in literary texts typically shape response… has been rejected by poststructuralist critics.”	This sets up the core argument of the paper, contrasting the authors’ belief in the power of formal features to shape literary experience with poststructuralist views, which minimize formal features in favor of sociocultural conventions.
“We argue that such views are misleading and ultimately self-defeating…”	The authors critique the poststructuralist focus on theory over readers’ actual experiences with texts, proposing that this disconnect undermines literature’s cultural relevance. They advocate returning focus to formal aspects of texts that directly engage readers.
“Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories.”	Here, Miall and Kuiken discuss key concepts they believe are central to literary experience: foregrounding (highlighting textual features), defamiliarization (making the familiar seem new), and affect (emotional response). They argue that these elements together create the distinct impact of literature.
“The encounter with foregrounded features plays a formative role in the interpretive effort of a reader.”	The authors emphasize that foregrounded text (e.g., vivid language, poetic devices) catalyzes readers’ interpretive processes, encouraging a deeper, more engaged reading experience that is distinct to literary texts.
“Readers… experience a text as literary depending on their linguistic competence, not on literary training.”	This suggests that the ability to recognize literary qualities is a general linguistic skill rather than an acquired academic one, challenging the idea that only trained readers can fully appreciate literariness.
“Our empirical studies suggest that all readers, regardless of experience, respond to foregrounding.”	Through studies comparing different groups, the authors found that all readers, trained or not, react to foregrounding, underscoring that certain textual qualities evoke universal reactions that are intrinsic to the text itself.
“Literariness… resides in foregrounded textual features.”	This reiterates the authors’ main argument that literary quality, or “literariness,” is a tangible property of the text, made manifest through stylistic and figurative features that distinguish it from non-literary text.
“Foregrounding initiates interpretive activity in the reader… arousing feeling, then uncertainty, which the reader must resolve.”	The authors propose a two-step process of literary engagement: foregrounded language first stirs emotions, then prompts readers to actively interpret the text to resolve any ambiguity, making reading an interactive process.
“The more poetic the text, the more judgments of it are independent of literary experience.”	In line with their empirical focus, the authors show that texts high in literary features are widely recognized as “poetic” regardless of a reader’s background, suggesting that literary qualities have an inherent, recognizable value.
“Literary reading is… more plausible than the view that has been emerging from the advocates of poststructuralist literary theory.”	Miall and Kuiken defend their formalist approach, advocating for the view that empirical study of reading can offer a more practical, accessible understanding of literature than poststructuralist theories, which often separate texts from readers’ actual experiences.

Suggested Readings: “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness” by David S. Miall and DonKuiken

1. Miall, David S., and Don Kuiken. “The form of reading: Empirical studies of literariness.” Poetics 25.6 (1998): 327-341.
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
3. Hartman, Geoffrey H. “On Traumatic Knowledge and Literary Studies.” New Literary History, vol. 26, no. 3, 1995, pp. 537–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057300. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
4. Zamora, Margarita. “Historicity and Literariness: Problems in the Literary Criticism of Spanish American Colonial Texts.” MLN, vol. 102, no. 2, 1987, pp. 334–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2905693. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

“Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson first appeared in the Journal of Reading, Vol. 17, No. 2, in November 1973, published by Wiley on behalf of the International Reading Association. In this seminal article, Thompson argues for the importance of explicit instruction in literary devices—such as plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone—as essential tools for enhancing students’ interpretive skills in literature. His study, conducted with ninth-grade students, compared traditional theme-based discussions to an experimental method incorporating targeted explanations and practice exercises on literary devices. Thompson’s findings suggest that while instructional methods alone may not significantly impact interpretive abilities, a skilled teacher can make a marked difference in student outcomes. This work emphasizes the potential of structured literary device instruction to deepen students’ engagement with texts, advocating for a balanced approach that combines thematic discussion with analytical skills in literary education.

Summary of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

• Purpose of the Study: Richard F. Thompson’s article explores the hypothesis that teaching literary devices directly enhances students’ ability to interpret literature. This stems from prior research indicating that authors often embed specific literary devices, expecting readers to understand them for full comprehension (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
• Methodology of Instructional Comparison: The study compared two instructional approaches: a traditional, theme-centered method and an experimental approach that incorporated explicit teaching of literary devices like plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone. Thompson selected these devices based on their fundamental role in understanding fiction, as emphasized by literary critics and educators such as Brooks and Warren (1947) and Danziger and Johnson (1961) (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).
• Sample and Testing: The experiment involved ninth-grade students from varying achievement levels. Their interpretive skills were evaluated using the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED), chosen for its reliability and established use in literature comprehension studies (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
• Instructional Treatments and Exercises: For experimental instruction, Thompson implemented discussions, written exercises, and detailed explanations on interpreting specific devices. This method encouraged students to delve into plot events, character motivations, underlying figurative meanings, and overall tone (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
• Analysis and Findings: Using an ANOVA analysis, Thompson discovered no statistically significant difference in interpretive skills between students who received experimental instruction and those in the control group. Rather, the effectiveness was notably linked to the teacher’s instructional quality, suggesting that skilled teaching, rather than method, may be more critical for literature interpretation improvement (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).
• Implications and Conclusions: Thompson’s study indicates that while literary devices are essential for deeper understanding, the role of a highly skilled teacher can substantially influence student outcomes. This challenges the notion that instructional methods alone can markedly enhance literary interpretation skills, underscoring the importance of teaching quality in literature education (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Role in Thompson’s Study
Plot	The sequence of events in a story that form the main structure.	Analyzed as a fundamental device for understanding narratives; students practiced identifying main events to interpret literature better (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Character	The individuals in a narrative, whose traits, motivations, and development contribute to the story.	Studied as a key device; students examined character traits and motivations to enhance comprehension of literary themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Theme	The underlying message or central idea conveyed by the author.	Emphasized in both instructional methods; students discussed themes to connect literature to their own experiences (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Figurative Language	Non-literal language, such as metaphor, simile, and symbolism, used to create deeper meaning.	Taught in the experimental method to help students interpret underlying meanings beyond literal text (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Tone	The author’s attitude or emotional quality expressed in the writing.	Considered essential for interpretation; students learned to discern tone as part of their analysis of literary passages (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
Interpretation	The process of deriving meaning, mood, or effect from a text based on its literary elements.	The primary skill measured; defined as determining the author’s implied meanings, ideas, and moods within a text (Thompson, 1973, p. 114).
Literary Device	Techniques used by writers to enhance storytelling, such as symbolism, imagery, and irony.	Central to the hypothesis that teaching these devices improves interpretative skills (Thompson, 1973, p. 113).
Instructional Methodology	Teaching strategies used to facilitate literary comprehension, including thematic and device-based approaches.	Compared traditional thematic instruction with device-based methods to assess the impact on student interpretation (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-114).
Experiment Design	The structure of the study, including pretests, posttests, and control/experimental groups.	Involved a factorial design to control for variables, emphasizing the importance of consistent methodology in educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)	A statistical method used to determine if there are significant differences between groups.	Applied to test the effectiveness of instructional methods, showing no significant difference in outcomes between methods (Thompson, 1973, p. 116).

Contribution of “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Reader-Response Theory: Thompson’s study emphasizes that literary devices are crucial for readers to make meaningful interpretations of texts. In line with reader-response theory, which posits that readers actively construct meaning from their interactions with a text, Thompson argues that teaching literary devices such as plot, character, and tone enables students to engage more deeply with literature by guiding them in decoding an author’s intent and themes (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115). By training students to recognize these devices, Thompson contributes to the reader-response theory by advocating a structured method to empower readers as active participants in the meaning-making process.
2. Formalist Literary Theory: Rooted in formalism, Thompson’s emphasis on literary devices as fundamental to understanding fiction reflects the formalist view that a text’s structure, language, and elements form the basis of its meaning. Formalists like Brooks and Warren (referenced by Thompson) argue that analyzing these components is essential for a comprehensive interpretation (Brooks and Warren, 1947; Thompson, 1973, p. 114). Thompson’s research reinforces this perspective by hypothesizing that literary devices provide the framework through which students can systematically interpret a text’s underlying meanings, thus aligning with formalist principles that prioritize intrinsic textual elements over external context.
3. Educational Theory in Literature: Thompson’s study advances educational theories on literature instruction by empirically testing how instructional methods impact students’ interpretative skills. His findings—that a teacher’s skill may outweigh the specific method in enhancing comprehension—add nuance to the debate on educational approaches in literature. He questions the effectiveness of method-centered teaching and instead highlights the importance of teacher quality, suggesting that pedagogy must balance method with teacher expertise (Thompson, 1973, p. 117). This insight resonates with constructivist education theories, which emphasize that skilled educators guide students to build knowledge actively rather than passively receiving information.

Examples of Critiques Through “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

Literary Work	Literary Device	Example of Critique Using Thompson’s Approach
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Theme, Tone	Through the lens of theme and tone, students explore the disillusionment and decay underlying the American Dream in the Jazz Age. By focusing on Fitzgerald’s critical tone and recurring theme of lost idealism, students interpret how the author critiques materialism and the moral decline of society (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee	Character, Figurative Language	Using character and figurative language, students analyze Atticus Finch’s moral integrity and Scout’s coming-of-age journey. By examining Lee’s nuanced language in describing racial tensions and justice, students gain a deeper understanding of the characters’ motivations and the broader social issues they reflect (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger	Plot, Tone	Applying plot and tone, students interpret Holden Caulfield’s journey as an exploration of adolescence and alienation. Through discussions on Salinger’s melancholic tone and Holden’s erratic experiences, students grasp the thematic emphasis on personal identity and societal disillusionment (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Character, Theme	Using character analysis and theme, students explore Elizabeth Bennet’s evolving perception of Darcy and the theme of social class. This approach highlights Austen’s critique of class and gender expectations, as students evaluate character motivations and transformations as central to the social commentary (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Criticism Against “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

• Limited Impact of Literary Device Instruction: Thompson’s study concludes that instruction in literary devices does not significantly improve students’ interpretive skills compared to traditional methods. Critics may argue that this finding undermines the article’s premise that teaching literary devices enhances comprehension, suggesting a need to reconsider the value of device-based instruction in isolation (Thompson, 1973, p. 117).
• Teacher Effectiveness Overshadowing Methodology: The study reveals that teacher quality had a more substantial effect on student interpretation than the specific instructional method. This finding could lead to criticism that the study’s focus on instructional methods is less relevant if teacher proficiency plays a more significant role in learning outcomes, possibly limiting the article’s contributions to pedagogical theory (Thompson, 1973, p. 116-117).
• Small Sample Size and Generalizability: With only four ninth-grade classes from a single junior high school, the sample size may be too small to generalize findings to broader educational settings. Critics may argue that the study’s conclusions are limited and may not apply to diverse educational contexts or age groups, reducing its impact in the field of educational research (Thompson, 1973, p. 114-115).
• Lack of Consideration for Socio-Cultural Context: Thompson’s focus on formal literary devices overlooks the socio-cultural dimensions of literature. Critics might argue that this approach neglects how students’ backgrounds and identities can influence their interpretation, and that incorporating socio-cultural analysis could provide a more holistic educational approach to literature (Thompson, 1973, p. 113-115).
• Reliance on Standardized Testing for Interpretation Assessment: The study uses the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) to measure students’ interpretive skills, which could be critiqued for failing to capture the depth and nuance of literary interpretation. Standardized tests may not fully assess students’ abilities to engage with complex themes or ideas, potentially limiting the study’s conclusions on interpretive skill development (Thompson, 1973, p. 115).

Representative Quotations from “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It was hypothesized that students would learn to interpret literature better if they had explanations and practice in interpreting literary devices.” (p. 113)	Thompson sets the foundation of his study, suggesting that teaching literary devices explicitly would enhance students’ ability to interpret texts more deeply and accurately.
“Authors use literary devices and expect their readers to be familiar with the devices if they are to understand what they are reading.” (p. 113)	This underscores Thompson’s belief in the inherent connection between literary devices and understanding, highlighting that authors assume a level of reader familiarity with these devices to convey complex ideas.
“Interpreting literature in this study meant determining the meanings, ideas, moods, or effects an author has expressed or implied within a particular piece of literature.” (p. 114)	Thompson clarifies what he means by “interpretation,” framing it as a comprehensive engagement with a text’s meaning, tone, and authorial intent, which serves as the study’s metric for success in teaching literary devices.
“The experimental instruction involved explanation and written practice exercises in interpreting the literary devices of plot, character, theme, figurative language, and tone.” (p. 115)	Here, Thompson outlines the experimental approach, which incorporated hands-on practice with specific literary devices, reinforcing the idea that structured exercises help students engage with texts more analytically.
“The practice periods for these exercises were short, about twenty minutes. And ample time was allowed to check the students’ responses to the exercises and to discuss any problems they encountered.” (p. 115)	This shows Thompson’s consideration of both instructional design and student support, as he ensures students have adequate time for feedback and clarification, which is critical in skill development.
“Neither instructional method was strong enough to dominate the other in the statistical test of their main effects or their effects on the three levels.” (p. 116)	Thompson reflects on the findings, acknowledging that neither the experimental nor the control method led to significantly better results, suggesting that the method alone may not be the defining factor in interpretive skill development.
“A superior teacher had more effect on improving students’ ability to interpret literature than either of the two instructional methods.” (p. 117)	Thompson reveals a key insight from his study: that teacher effectiveness plays a larger role in student success than the specific instructional method, suggesting the importance of skilled teaching in literature education.
“Consequently, the addition of explanations and written practice in interpreting literary devices to class discussions of themes… has no significant effect on ninth grade students’ ability to interpret literature.” (p. 117)	This conclusion challenges the initial hypothesis, indicating that explicit teaching of literary devices may not significantly enhance students’ interpretive skills, thereby questioning the utility of device-focused instruction in isolation.
“The relative differences existing among the classes and levels after the experiment could be accounted for by differences prior to the experiment.” (p. 117)	Thompson points to pre-existing differences in student ability as a factor in interpretive skill variance, suggesting that individual learning abilities may influence interpretative outcomes more than instructional strategies alone.
“The skills were reviewed according to a schedule that allowed for increased intervals between the initial instruction in the use of a device and review practices.” (p. 115)	This highlights Thompson’s structured approach to skill retention, suggesting a spaced repetition model, which is a pedagogically effective strategy for ensuring long-term retention of analytical skills in literature.

Suggested Readings: “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature” by Richard F. Thompson

1. Thompson, Richard F. “Teaching Literary Devices and the Reading of Literature.” Journal of Reading, vol. 17, no. 2, 1973, pp. 113–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016540. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
2. Kovalcik, Beth, and Janine L. Certo. “The Poetry Café Is Open! Teaching Literary Devices of Sound in Poetry Writing.” The Reading Teacher, vol. 61, no. 1, 2007, pp. 89–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204555. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. Dallacqua, Ashley K. “Exploring Literary Devices in Graphic Novels.” Language Arts, vol. 89, no. 6, 2012, pp. 365–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804360. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
4. Lenters, Kimberly, and Kimberley Grant. “Feedback Loops: Assembling Student Editors, Stories, and Devices for Multimodal Peer Feedback.” Language Arts, vol. 93, no. 3, 2016, pp. 185–99. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24577565. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

“Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes first appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry in September 2020. This article offers a reflective and critical examination of teaching literature in settings historically marked by colonial legacies, specifically South Africa and Canada. Noyes discusses “decolonizing” as creating a conceptual “outside” that provides context and meaning to the classroom’s “inside,” thus challenging the boundaries of traditional academic settings. His reflections emphasize the pervasive influence of neocolonial and neoliberal structures within universities, shaping both curricula and student demographics. Through the lens of critical theory, including insights from thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Theodor Adorno, and Frantz Fanon, Noyes argues that the classroom must acknowledge and actively counter the remnants of imperialism embedded in its structure, content, and teaching methods. He advocates for “critical literacy” as a means to engage students with the broader social forces that influence what is taught and how it is understood, a process he sees as crucial to resisting the commodification of knowledge in neoliberal institutions. The article is significant for literary theory and pedagogy as it challenges educators to consider how institutional and societal structures influence education, and calls for a more inclusive, critically engaged approach to literature that dismantles historical inequalities and empowers all students to interrogate the assumptions underlying their education.

Summary of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

• Defining Decolonization in the Classroom: John K. Noyes emphasizes that decolonizing the literature classroom involves constructing an “outside” that influences and gives meaning to the internal learning environment. His approach challenges traditional boundaries and seeks to address neocolonial dynamics within educational settings, particularly as he reflects on his teaching experiences in South Africa and Canada (Noyes, 2020, p. 266).
• Imperialism versus Colonialism: Noyes argues for the use of “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” rather than “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” asserting these terms are historically accurate and conceptually precise. He contends that the term decolonization often fails to encompass the broader structures of imperial dominance affecting education (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).
• Critical Literacy as a Pedagogical Tool: Noyes advocates for “critical literacy” in literature education, where students learn to interpret cultural products in relation to the social and political forces shaping them. This concept draws on the work of theorists like Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson and enables students to engage with literature through a critical lens that questions established authority (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Intersection of Education and Neoliberalism: The article addresses the impact of neoliberalism in higher education, suggesting that the commodification of knowledge poses a threat to academic freedom and critical thought. Noyes argues that the neoliberal model restricts intellectual autonomy by favoring economically driven goals over critical engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Influence of Frankfurt School Critical Theory: Drawing from the Frankfurt School, particularly Theodor Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes underscores the value of critical theory in exposing the limitations imposed by late capitalism on educational practices. This theory supports a pedagogy that resists superficial “critical thinking” in favor of deeper, context-based critique (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Historical and Institutional Constraints: Noyes explores the South African university system under apartheid and post-apartheid conditions, noting how racial inequities shaped classroom dynamics and limited Black students’ access to education. He describes the residual institutional imbalances as a significant barrier to decolonizing the classroom (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
• Resistance through Education: Noyes highlights movements like #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall in South African universities, which advocate for accessible and decolonized education. These movements reflect students’ dual desire to deconstruct colonial legacies while achieving equal educational access for all, regardless of socioeconomic status (Noyes, 2020, p. 273).
• Non-Instrumentalist Learning: Noyes argues for non-instrumentalist education that values critical inquiry over vocational training. He warns that instrumentalizing learning for economic productivity undermines the true purpose of higher education, which should prioritize critical and reflective thinking over economic utility (Noyes, 2020, p. 271).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Term/Concept	Description	Reference
Decolonization	In the context of literature education, decolonization involves challenging colonial and neocolonial frameworks within the classroom, creating an “outside” influence that shapes and provides meaning to the educational “inside.” Noyes seeks to counter imperial legacies embedded in curricula and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 266
Imperialism/Neo-Imperialism	Noyes prefers the terms “imperialism” and “neo-imperialism” over “colonialism” and “neocolonialism,” arguing that these terms better capture the lasting impact of imperial power structures on educational institutions and cultural studies.	Noyes, 2020, p. 267
Critical Literacy	A pedagogical approach focused on interpreting cultural texts in light of the social and political forces that shape them. Drawing from theorists like Raymond Williams, this concept encourages students to engage with literature critically rather than passively absorbing established narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Kantian Critique	Refers to the Kantian idea of “putting reason on trial,” distinguishing between autonomous reasoning and reasoning dictated by authority. Noyes applies this concept to the classroom, encouraging students to question and contest dominant narratives.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Neoliberal University	The framework within which universities are increasingly influenced by market-driven priorities. Noyes argues that neoliberalism commodifies education, reducing it to an economic product rather than a space for critical and intellectual development.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Frankfurt School Critical Theory	A theoretical framework that critiques capitalism’s impact on social structures and cultural production. Noyes draws on Adorno’s Negative Dialectics to advocate for a critique that addresses the broader political and economic forces shaping education.	Noyes, 2020, p. 268
Immanent Critique	A method of critical analysis that examines a text or concept from within its own structure, exposing its contradictions. Noyes uses this approach to critique literature, teaching students to analyze works within their historical and social contexts.	Noyes, 2020, p. 270
Instrumentalism in Education	Refers to the view of education primarily as a means to economic ends. Noyes critiques this perspective, advocating instead for a non-instrumentalist approach that values critical inquiry and intellectual growth over vocational utility.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271
Humanist Idea of Wholeness	The notion of a cohesive, universal human experience, which is challenged by critical and postcolonial perspectives. In the African context, thinkers like Fanon and Biko critique this concept, advocating for recognition of diverse and fragmented realities.	Noyes, 2020, p. 269
Political Context of Interpretation	The understanding that interpretation is inherently shaped by the social and political environment. Noyes emphasizes that critique in the literature classroom must include recognizing these influences on both content and pedagogy.	Noyes, 2020, p. 271

Contribution of “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Contribution: Noyes’s reflections align with postcolonial theory by emphasizing the need to dismantle colonial and neocolonial influences in education. He discusses how the classroom can become a space to challenge colonial legacies by drawing on both imported and indigenous critical traditions, which destabilize dominant narratives in literature and culture (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).
• Reference: Noyes advocates for the recognition of imperialism’s lasting impact on the curriculum, suggesting that imported literature must be taught alongside a critical understanding of its cultural and historical implications. He draws on thinkers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o and Frantz Fanon to demonstrate how postcolonial ideas can shape an alternative, decolonized educational model (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

2. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

• Contribution: Drawing from Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, Noyes uses Frankfurt School critical theory to critique the commodification of knowledge in the neoliberal university. He suggests that literature education should go beyond “critical thinking” to embrace a deeper “critical literacy” that recognizes the capitalist structures limiting educational spaces (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Reference: He adopts Adorno’s view of critique as a means to address the broader capitalist logic governing cultural and educational structures. This critical approach enables students to examine not only the text but also the sociopolitical and economic forces influencing it (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

3. Educational Theory (Critical Pedagogy)

• Contribution: Noyes’s work contributes to educational theory, particularly critical pedagogy, by redefining the classroom as a space where students confront and question power structures. He posits that teaching is incomplete if it ignores the institutional and societal limits within which it operates, advocating for an educational approach that encourages resistance to authority and traditional norms (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: His concept of “critical literacy” as opposed to mere “critical thinking” is rooted in the idea that education should engage students in challenging dominant ideologies, making literature classrooms spaces for political and social engagement (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).

4. Neocolonial Theory and Theory of Neoliberalism

• Contribution: Noyes’s reflections address the influence of neoliberalism on higher education, critiquing its impact on academic freedom and the commodification of learning. He argues that neoliberal agendas in universities reinforce neo-imperial dynamics, thus stifling the critical examination of colonial legacies in literature (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: By highlighting the economic constraints that shape educational practices, Noyes connects neoliberalism to the persistence of imperial structures in academia, noting how divestment movements are attempting to counteract these links in Canadian universities (Noyes, 2020, p. 267).

5. Humanist Theory and Critique of Wholeness

• Contribution: Noyes challenges the humanist idea of a cohesive and universal human experience, which often underpins literature education. He critiques this idea, particularly within the African context, where theorists like Fanon and Biko argue for recognizing fragmented realities shaped by racial and colonial histories (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
• Reference: In this context, Noyes aligns with African humanist critiques that view the humanist ideal of “wholeness” as incompatible with the fragmented lives of those affected by colonial and apartheid histories. This perspective opens literature education to include diverse cultural experiences rather than universalizing Eurocentric narratives (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).

6. Kantian Epistemology and Critique of Authority

• Contribution: Noyes’s notion of “putting reason on trial,” drawn from Kantian critique, aligns with epistemological approaches that encourage skepticism toward authority. In the classroom, this approach allows students to question prescribed knowledge, embracing multiple, contesting perspectives rather than passively receiving information (Noyes, 2020, p. 268).
• Reference: By invoking Kant’s ideas on autonomy and reason, Noyes encourages a classroom environment where knowledge is produced through dialogue and critical engagement, which he considers crucial for a truly decolonized literature curriculum (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

Literary Work & Author	Critique Approach through “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom”	Reference to Noyes’s Concepts
Woyzeck by Georg Büchner	Critiqued as a reflection on class oppression and psychological fragmentation. Büchner’s indecision about the story’s coherence mirrors fragmented social realities in unjust societies, making it a powerful text to explore themes of societal and systemic injustice.	Emphasizes immanent critique and critical engagement with texts’ structure to expose societal inequalities (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon	Analyzed for its postcolonial critique of colonial violence and psychological oppression. In line with Noyes’s approach, this work can be studied to understand the mental impact of colonization and the struggle for decolonization.	Aligns with postcolonial theory and critiques of neocolonial legacies that impact identity and resistance (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).
The Engagement in Santo Domingo by Heinrich von Kleist	Explored through race deconstruction and its portrayal of racial dynamics. In a decolonized classroom, students critically examine race as a social construct, questioning stereotypes and exploring broader racial inequalities.	Supports critical literacy and the critique of race-based narratives, inviting examination of race as a social and political construct (Noyes, 2020, p. 270).
Decolonizing the Mind by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o	Studied as an articulation of the cultural and linguistic impacts of colonialism, examining how language enforces imperial power structures and alienates individuals from their culture.	Reinforces critical pedagogy by addressing how language shapes power dynamics in colonial and postcolonial contexts (Noyes, 2020, p. 269).

Criticism Against “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

• Abstract Approach Lacks Practical Implementation: While Noyes provides a theoretical foundation for decolonizing the classroom, critics may argue that his approach lacks specific, practical strategies for educators to apply within varied classroom settings.
• Ambiguity Around “Outside” and “Inside” Framework: The idea of creating an “outside” to give meaning to the “inside” of the classroom might be seen as overly abstract, leaving educators without clear guidance on how to define and integrate these concepts effectively in practice.
• Overemphasis on Western Critical Theory: Although Noyes advocates for decolonizing literature education, his reliance on Western critical theories, such as those of Adorno and the Frankfurt School, may seem contradictory, potentially limiting his perspective on indigenous and non-Western approaches to pedagogy.
• Critique of Neoliberalism Lacks Depth on Institutional Constraints: While Noyes criticizes neoliberal forces within universities, he may not fully address the practical constraints educators face within these institutions, potentially making his critique feel detached from the realities of academic settings where resources and autonomy are limited.
• Risk of Excluding Canonical Literature: The emphasis on destabilizing traditional canons and focusing on indigenous and postcolonial texts may lead to concerns that canonical Western texts will be marginalized, which some educators and students may view as an essential part of a balanced literary education.
• Insufficient Exploration of Non-Western Educational Philosophies: Noyes could be criticized for not adequately incorporating or exploring educational frameworks and philosophies from diverse, non-Western traditions, which would strengthen his argument for a decolonized approach to literature education.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“What does it mean to decolonize the literature classroom?”	Noyes opens by questioning the definition of decolonization in a classroom context. This frames the discussion, prompting readers to consider how decolonization might apply to education and what it entails in practical terms.
“I prefer to speak of imperialism and neo-imperialism, rather than colonialism and neocolonialism.”	Noyes emphasizes the lasting influence of imperialism as a systemic force, suggesting that the term is conceptually stronger than colonialism. This distinction sets a foundation for understanding his view on the power structures within educational institutions and the terminology he believes better reflects their influence.
“The literature classroom… is best seen as a place where students acquire skills in advanced critical literacy.”	Noyes argues for a curriculum focused on “critical literacy,” where students learn to interpret literature within broader social contexts, not merely absorbing content but engaging analytically with the world around them. This aligns with his goal of producing students who question and understand societal structures.
“Ideally, knowledge in the classroom is not a finished product handed out in acts of authority.”	Here, Noyes advocates for a classroom where knowledge is not simply dispensed by the instructor but actively constructed by students through questioning and critique, challenging authoritative structures within education.
“Teachers in neoliberal universities have a responsibility to resist the building of walls designed to keep students out of the classroom.”	Noyes criticizes neoliberalism’s impact on education, which he views as prioritizing economic outcomes over accessibility and intellectual freedom. He calls on educators to counteract these trends, ensuring that education remains inclusive and resistant to financialization.
“Critical theory defines the outside of the classroom in order to produce meaning for its inside.”	Noyes applies critical theory’s notion of the “outside” to the classroom, suggesting that bringing external social and political contexts into education enriches the learning experience and allows students to see the classroom as connected to wider societal issues.
“One of the tools I find useful in negotiating this chasm is critical theory of the Frankfurt School.”	Noyes draws on Frankfurt School critical theory, particularly Adorno’s ideas, to critique late capitalism’s role in academia. He uses this theoretical framework to question how education can exist within capitalist structures while resisting the pressures of commodification.
“Ngũgĩ was right that the institutional imbalance in the teaching of indigenous versus imported languages and literatures is a relic of imperialism.”	By referencing Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Noyes critiques the unequal representation of indigenous literature in education, arguing that prioritizing European literature reflects and sustains imperialist structures. He advocates for a curriculum that includes both imported and indigenous traditions.
“The project of de-imperializing the literature classroom is muddied by… complicity and critique.”	Noyes describes the inherent tension for educators who both operate within and seek to challenge institutional structures. This ambivalence between complicity with and critique of imperialist frameworks highlights the complexities educators face when attempting to decolonize their curricula.
“Students in South Africa wanted both [universalist and particularist education], and I believe they were right to want both.”	Noyes reflects on the dual goals of the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, supporting the idea that students should have access to education that is both inclusive and acknowledges specific historical and cultural contexts. He advocates for an approach that recognizes both the universal right to education and the unique needs of historically marginalized groups.

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing the Literature Classroom” by John K. Noyes

1. Noyes, John K. “Decolonizing the literature classroom.” Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry 7.3 (2020): 266-273.
2. TWOHIG, ERIN. “Decolonizing the Classroom.” Contesting the Classroom: Reimagining Education in Moroccan and Algerian Literatures, Liverpool University Press, 2019, pp. 47–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32t59.7. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
3. Parker, Kendra R. “Introduction: Decolonizing the University: A Battle for the African Mind.” CLA Journal, vol. 60, no. 2, 2016, pp. 164–71. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26355914. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.
4. Afolabi, Olugbemiga Samuel. “Globalisation, Decoloniality and the Question of Knowledge Production in Africa: A Critical Discourse.” Journal of Higher Education in Africa / Revue de l’enseignement Supérieur En Afrique, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, pp. 93–110. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48618319. Accessed 10 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan first appeared in Stylistyka XI and examines how the concept of “literariness” is embedded within cultural and social contexts, rather than being an intrinsic quality of texts. Building upon the ideas of literary theorists like Jonathan Culler, Juvan argues that literary theory has moved beyond formalist approaches that isolated literature’s distinct features, instead focusing on how literariness is socially constructed. He references Bourdieu’s sociology of art, suggesting that the identity of literature is shaped within social frameworks that include historical, ideological, and institutional influences. Juvan highlights that literature, as a category, is a construct reflecting the cultural, social, and ideological frameworks that determine what qualifies as literary. By grounding literariness in these external conventions, Juvan’s work challenges traditional definitions and emphasizes the mutable and context-dependent nature of literary texts. This study is crucial as it reshapes literary theory by underscoring that our understanding of “literary” qualities is contingent upon the cultural context, which broadens the scope for interdisciplinary approaches to studying texts.

Summary of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

• Literariness in the Context of Literary Theory’s Evolution
  Juvan highlights how the concept of literariness has evolved alongside literary theory, particularly noting a shift away from the “distinctiveness of literature” as a primary theoretical concern, as stated by Jonathan Culler (2000: 274). The focus has shifted from purely aesthetic or formalist concerns to interdisciplinary issues, integrating concepts such as race, gender, and class. This shift reflects an understanding that the very notion of literariness is deeply embedded in cultural and evaluative frameworks, rather than isolated in the text itself (Juvan, Stylistyka XI).
• The Crisis and Transformation of Literary Theory
  The development of literary theory was significantly influenced by Eastern and Central European intellectual traditions, particularly post-World War II, in response to the decline of positivism and historicism. The establishment of literary theory as a distinct discipline helped solidify the field, moving beyond the practical norms of poetics and rhetoric to treat literature as an autonomous social system governed by its own internal rules (Tihanov 2001; Bourdieu 1996: 294). This institutionalization and historicity underlie current challenges to the discipline as postmodern critique questions literature’s unique ontological status.
• Defining Literariness as an “Objective” Feature
  Juvan examines the idea of literariness as an objective feature within texts, proposing two core criteria: unique language use and a distinct perspective on reality (Culler 1989: 34). However, Jan Mukarovsky’s (1948) observations indicate that poetic language is not entirely autonomous; rather, it exists in a spectrum of linguistic styles influenced by conventions. This view challenges the notion of an inherent literary language and suggests that literariness depends on the interplay of textual structure and the reader’s interpretative practices (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83).
• Polyvalence and Referentiality in Literary Texts
  Juvan expands on literariness through the lens of polysemy and textual self-referentiality, emphasizing that literary texts invite layered, interconnected readings that transcend straightforward interpretation (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79). Such qualities, termed “depragmatization,” lead to a text’s meaning being tied more to cultural memory than to specific contexts (Culler 1989: 34). The literary text, therefore, generates meaning through intertextual references and requires greater reader engagement for interpretation.
• Literariness as Convention and Institutional Influence
  Anti-essentialist perspectives, such as those of Eagleton (1983) and Leitch (1992), argue that literariness is not confined to traditionally literary genres but arises from interpretive frameworks and social conventions that can elevate any text, including journalism, to literary status (Leitch 1992: 42). Juvan’s discussion of Tomaz Salamun’s poem exemplifies how literariness is contextually assigned, where a shift in medium or authorial name reconfigures a text’s perceived literariness based on cultural expectations (Danto 1981: 51).
• The Literary Canon as a Basis for Literariness
  Canonical texts play a vital role in defining literariness by setting paradigms for what is considered exemplary in literary art. These works serve as cultural reference points, embedding norms, genres, and ethical standards that guide the broader understanding of literature (Juvan 1994: 277-289). This canonization process, supported by the social and educational institutions, creates a quasi-religious “belief” in literature’s transcendent qualities, reinforcing the culturally specific effects that define a text as literary (Bourdieu 1996: 170).
• Interdependent Factors of Literariness
  According to Juvan, literariness results from multiple interdependent factors, including authorial intent, thematic and stylistic organization, and cultural reception (Rusch 1997: 97). These elements collectively shape a text’s literariness, with the “appropriate expectations, frameworks, and conventions” activated through reader interaction and metatextual discourse.
• Conclusion: Literariness as a Flexible, Culturally-Based Convention
  Juvan concludes that literariness is not a fixed quality but a “historically, socially, and culturally differentiated convention” (Schmidt 1997: 144). Systems theory, as outlined by Bourdieu and Schmidt, offers a nuanced approach to understanding the socio-historical contexts that produce literariness, underscoring that literary theory practitioners are also participants in shaping these conventions within educational and scientific frameworks.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation
Literariness	The quality or feature that makes a text literary, often based on distinctive use of language and textual structure.
Cultural Construct	The idea that literature’s status and interpretation are shaped by cultural, social, and historical frameworks.
Formalism	A literary theory focusing on the form and structure of a text rather than its content or cultural influences.
Structuralism	An approach in literary theory that examines underlying structures in a text that determine its meaning and function.
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within words or phrases, creating depth and complexity in interpretation.
Self-Referentiality	A feature where the text refers to itself or its elements, encouraging readers to focus on the structure over referential content.
Canon	A collection of literary works and authors considered exemplary, establishing norms and values within a culture.
Depragmatization	The process by which literature removes pragmatic concerns, emphasizing interpretative autonomy within the text.
Postmodernism	A movement critiquing absolute narratives and fixed meanings, questioning literature’s unique ontological status.
Heteroglossia	The inclusion of multiple voices or perspectives within a text, often reflecting social and historical diversity.
Aesthetic Function	The distinct use of language in a text that foregrounds artistic qualities, distinguishing literary from non-literary texts.
Intertextuality	The shaping of a text’s meaning through references to other texts, creating interconnected layers of interpretation.
Autonomy of Art	The notion that art exists independently of practical and social utility, governed by its own aesthetic principles.
Defamiliarization	A technique of presenting familiar elements in unfamiliar ways to enhance reader awareness and perception.
Possible Worlds	A theory proposing that fictional narratives can represent “possible worlds,” parallel yet distinct from reality.
Institutionalization	The establishment of literary studies as a formal, structured discipline, especially post-World War II.
Nomos (Auto-nomy)	A principle where the literary field operates by its own rules, independent of other social or political domains.
Ideological Investment	The role of ideological beliefs in shaping what is deemed literary, often reflecting societal power dynamics.
Objective Literary Features	Attributes believed to inherently distinguish literary from non-literary texts, such as stylistic or thematic features.
Anti-Essentialism	A view opposing fixed definitions of literariness, arguing it is a social convention rather than an intrinsic quality.

Contribution of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

Literary Work	Critique through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature”	Key Concepts
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s work exemplifies heteroglossia, with multiple voices and linguistic styles reflecting the diversity of urban life, and challenges essentialist views of literariness.	Heteroglossia, Anti-Essentialism
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	García Márquez creates a “possible world” where magical realism defamiliarizes everyday events, encouraging a deeper interpretation of Latin American cultural history.	Possible Worlds, Defamiliarization
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s novel uses polysemy and self-referentiality, as Woolf’s language and themes require readers to engage deeply with symbols of time, memory, and perception.	Polysemy, Self-Referentiality, Interpretive Flexibility
T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land	The work’s intertextuality and reliance on cultural references construct its literariness; Eliot weaves a complex canon that evokes an atmosphere of Western cultural decay.	Canon, Intertextuality, Ideological Construct

Criticism Against “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

• Overemphasis on Cultural Context
  Critics may argue that Juvan’s theory places excessive emphasis on cultural, social, and historical contexts, potentially undermining the intrinsic qualities of a text that can contribute to its literariness. This perspective might challenge Juvan’s cultural relativism by asserting that certain formal or aesthetic qualities are universally literary, regardless of cultural framework.
• Subjectivity of Literariness
  By defining literariness as a culturally contingent concept, Juvan’s approach may lead to overly subjective interpretations of what is “literary.” Some critics may feel that this flexibility erodes any stable criteria for distinguishing literature from other discourses, making it difficult to maintain literary studies as a coherent field.
• Neglect of Authorial Intent
  Juvan’s emphasis on reception and cultural interpretation might be seen as neglecting the role of authorial intent in constructing literariness. Critics may argue that understanding an author’s intended artistic choices is essential to defining what makes a text literary, as opposed to relying solely on the interpretations of cultural institutions or readers.
• Ambiguity in Canon Formation
  Critics might question Juvan’s reliance on the literary canon as a determinant of literariness, arguing that canon formation is itself a contested and politically charged process. By aligning literariness with canonical status, Juvan’s theory risks perpetuating existing biases within the canon and marginalizing works from underrepresented cultures or voices.
• Potential Reduction to Sociological Analysis
  Juvan’s approach could be criticized for reducing literary analysis to a sociological investigation of cultural and institutional practices. Some may argue that this perspective overlooks the aesthetic and imaginative power of literature as art, risking a focus more on cultural frameworks than on the text itself.

Representative Quotations from “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The question of literariness has become surpassed or irrelevant” (p. 9)	Juvan discusses the shift away from traditional literary theory’s focus on “literariness,” reflecting modern cultural influences.
“To ask ‘what is literature?’ is a way of arguing about how literature should be studied” (p. 10)	This highlights how questioning literature’s nature influences the methodologies and perspectives adopted in literary studies.
“Art is the kind of thing that depends for its existence upon theories” (p. 10)	Juvan reflects on the notion that art is defined by theoretical frameworks, making theory essential for understanding literature.
“Literature as art is a special class of phenomena of extraordinary cultural value” (p. 11)	This emphasizes the cultural and societal significance placed on literature, beyond mere aesthetics.
“Modern literary theory was actually born… in East-Central Europe” (p. 11)	He notes the origins of modern literary theory, linking it to specific historical and regional developments.
“The literary field has become fully developed from Post-romanticism to Modernism” (p. 11)	This outlines how the literary field’s growth reflects broader cultural movements, emphasizing autonomy from external pressures.
“The term ‘literary work of art’ is the name of a function-class” (p. 23)	Juvan explains that literariness is seen as a function within specific cultural and social contexts, not merely a textual feature.
“The question of literariness… can have considerable implications for policies and the situation concerning the present study of literature” (p. 13)	This suggests that defining literariness affects academic and institutional approaches to literature.
“Literariness is a flexible, historically, socially and culturally differentiated convention” (p. 25)	He describes literariness as a dynamic, evolving concept influenced by cultural and historical shifts.
“Literariness appears to be a time-, culture-, and milieu-sensitive variable” (p. 25)	Juvan concludes that literariness is a contextual construct, shaped by its environment rather than inherent qualities.

Suggested Readings: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan

1. Komaromi, Ann. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, vol. 51, no. 2/3, 2009, pp. 397–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871447. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
2. Juvan, Marko. “Literariness as a culturally based feature.” Stylistyka 11 (2002): 9-30.
3. Taylor, Joanna E., and Ian N. Gregory. “Deep Mapping and the Corpus of Lake District Writing.” Deep Mapping the Literary Lake District: A Geographical Text Analysis, Bucknell University Press, 2022, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2v55bsf.6. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.

Introduction: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge. This seminal work examines the characteristics that distinguish literary language from other forms of communication, exploring the elusive question, “What is literature?” The authors argue against a rigid binary between literary and non-literary language, suggesting instead that literariness exists along a continuum, or “cline,” where elements of literary style can appear even in “ordinary” language. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how stylistic effects and semantic density contribute to literariness. Carter and Nash emphasize that literariness is not merely about specific vocabulary or syntax but is found in the text’s ability to engage readers in multi-layered, polysemic interpretations. The text is thus self-contained, encouraging readers to explore meanings generated within its boundaries, which marks it as “sovereign” and distinct from functional, transactional texts. Their work is influential in literary theory, as it challenges traditional boundaries and enriches the study of prose by considering linguistic and stylistic elements as fundamental to literary appreciation and critique.

Summary of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Defining Literary Language: Carter and Nash argue that understanding what makes language “literary” is central to literary studies, as it addresses the essential question: “What is literature?” They critique the conventional literary-critical approach, which often involves interpreting established texts, proposing instead that literary language merits a dedicated investigation (Carter & Nash, 1983, p. 123).
• Polarity in Language: The authors reject a strict division between literary and non-literary language, which, they claim, unnecessarily polarizes language types. They advocate for viewing literary qualities along a “cline” or continuum, recognizing that traits of literariness can appear in what might traditionally be considered “ordinary” or “scientific” language (p. 124).
• Absence of Intrinsic Literary Properties: The authors assert that no inherent property makes language literary, arguing that while some words or phrases are associated with a “literary lexicon,” they do not independently constitute literariness. This is seen even in works with rich language structures, which may lack “literariness” on their own (p. 124-125).
• Deviations from Norms: Many theories of literary language rely on deviations from linguistic norms (e.g., syntactic in e.e. cummings, phonological in Hopkins), yet Carter and Nash find such approaches lacking as they fail to account for the multi-layered stylistic interplay that gives rise to literariness (p. 125).
• Semantic Density and Displaced Interaction: They propose “semantic density” as a marker of literariness, where meanings are layered and interconnected. They also introduce the concept of “displaced interaction,” wherein literary texts create indirect or complex interactions between author and reader, contrasting with straightforward transactional texts (p. 125-126).
• Textual Sovereignty: A key feature of literariness, according to Carter and Nash, is the “sovereignty” of the text—its ability to generate meaning independently without needing external references or prior reader knowledge. This self-contained quality distinguishes literary texts from other types, like instructional manuals (p. 130).
• Re-Registration and Polysemy: Literary language often re-registers non-literary expressions in new, symbolic contexts, fostering “polysemy” or multiple layers of meaning. This richness allows literature to operate on various levels simultaneously, thus enhancing its interpretative depth and literary value (p. 132-133).
• Broadening Literary Criticism: The authors call for a shift in English studies toward “linguistic criticism,” focusing on detailed linguistic analysis across different genres, not only conventionally literary ones. This approach, they believe, would deepen understanding and appreciation of diverse texts’ stylistic qualities (p. 130-131

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation from Text
Literary Language	A form of language characterized by unique stylistic and semantic qualities.	Carter and Nash explore how “literary language” differs from ordinary language by its complex, layered meanings and unique structures (p. 123-124).
Cline of Literariness	A continuum that places language along a spectrum from ordinary to highly literary.	Instead of a strict division, literary qualities exist along a spectrum, with degrees of literariness across language types (p. 124).
Semantic Density	The quality of language having layered or complex meanings that contribute to literariness.	They use “semantic density” to indicate texts where meanings are richly interwoven, enhancing literary quality (p. 125).
Displaced Interaction	A form of indirect interaction between author and reader, often found in literary texts.	In literary texts, the interaction between author and reader is not straightforward; instead, meaning is layered and indirect, creating depth (p. 125-126).
Textual Sovereignty	The ability of a text to generate meaning independently, without relying on external references.	Literary texts are “sovereign,” meaning they do not depend on external aids (e.g., diagrams) to convey meaning, unlike instructional texts (p. 130).
Re-Registration	The adaptation of non-literary language or expressions within a literary context to give new, symbolic meaning.	Carter and Nash discuss how words from non-literary contexts can be adapted in literature, creating new meanings through re-registration (p. 132-133).
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within a text or word, contributing to interpretative richness.	Literary texts often have polysemic structures, where multiple meanings exist simultaneously, allowing varied interpretations (p. 130).
Monosemy	The opposite of polysemy; language that has a single, clear meaning.	Found in functional texts (e.g., manuals or contracts), where language serves a specific purpose with no additional layers (p. 127).
Literary Lexicon	A set of words or phrases commonly associated with literary language.	Although some words or phrases are traditionally viewed as “literary,” Carter and Nash argue they don’t inherently confer literariness (p. 124-125).
Functional Language	Language used for practical or transactional purposes, often direct and unlayered.	Functional language is marked by single-purpose usage, such as instructional or contractual language, which contrasts with literary style (p. 127).
Norm and Deviation	The concept that literary language deviates from linguistic norms to create artistic effects.	Carter and Nash critique theories that limit literariness to deviations from norms, arguing for a more complex view (p. 125).
Self-Referentiality	A quality of literature where the text displays awareness of its own conventions and techniques.	Seen in passages where a text reflects on its own stylistic elements, adding a meta-level of meaning, which is a unique feature of literariness (p. 136).
Register Borrowing	The practice of adopting terms from specialized language fields (e.g., legal, technical) within literary texts.	Literary texts often incorporate specialized language for symbolic or aesthetic purposes, blending different registers creatively (p. 130).
Stylistic Effects	The cumulative impact of linguistic choices, such as syntax, phonology, and diction, that create a unique literary style.	Carter and Nash argue that the literariness of a text is due to multi-layered stylistic effects rather than isolated lexical choices (p. 125).

Contribution of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory	Contribution of Carter & Nash	Reference from the Article
Formalism and Structuralism	Carter and Nash challenge the formalist tendency to view literary language as entirely distinct from ordinary language. They argue instead that “literary language” operates along a continuum or cline, suggesting that elements of literariness can be found even in ordinary language.	“We hold that the division between literary language…and other kinds of language…is a harmful one” (p. 124).
Stylistics	Their work emphasizes the stylistic effects of literary language, encouraging a multi-layered linguistic analysis over a focus on isolated lexical or syntactic features. This approach enhances the understanding of stylistic choices across genres, not only in conventionally literary texts.	“Literariness in language…comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels” (p. 125).
Reader-Response Theory	Carter and Nash introduce displaced interaction, where the literary text becomes a space for indirect, interpretative engagement between author and reader. This interaction reflects reader-response theory’s emphasis on the active role of readers in co-creating meaning within texts.	“The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced, the text presenting an intermediate stage” (p. 139).
Deconstruction	They explore the idea of polysemy, or multiple layers of meaning, which resonates with deconstruction’s emphasis on the instability of meaning in texts. Carter and Nash argue that literary texts are inherently polysemic, allowing for interpretative openness and ambiguity.	“The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Post-Structuralism	In their critique of binary distinctions (e.g., literary vs. non-literary language), they align with post-structuralism’s questioning of rigid structures. They argue that literary language should be understood as part of a continuum rather than an isolated category.	“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation” (p. 124).
Linguistic Criticism	They propose linguistic criticism as a discipline, distinct from traditional literary stylistics, where detailed linguistic analysis is applied across genres. This approach extends stylistics into a broader critique applicable to both literary and non-literary texts.	“…students of English studies will practice linguistic criticism…to a range of texts…not only those conventionally marked as literary” (p. 130).
Intertextuality	By emphasizing re-registration, where language from non-literary registers is adapted in literature, Carter and Nash show how texts are enriched through intertextuality. This borrowing across genres creates new symbolic meanings, enhancing the interpretative possibilities of a text.	“…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships and acquire…symbolic value in the context of the literary work” (p. 130).

Examples of Critiques Through “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Literary Work	Critique Using Carter & Nash’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Carter & Nash
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s use of polysemic language in Ulysses creates layers of meaning, encouraging readers to interpret the text through multiple perspectives, which aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea that literary language is inherently multi-layered, enabling expansive interpretative possibilities.	Polysemy: “The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s narrative style employs displaced interaction, where the reader interprets indirect dialogues and internal monologues, enhancing the immersive literary experience. This aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea of indirect reader-author interaction in literary texts.	Displaced Interaction: “The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced…” (p. 139).
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot	Beckett’s minimalist language reveals semantic density, where every line is charged with multiple meanings, creating a depth that compensates for the sparse dialogue. This concept resonates with Carter & Nash’s idea of condensed meaning as a hallmark of literariness.	Semantic Density: “Literariness in language…has something to do with the existence of what we term ‘semantic density’” (p. 125).
George Orwell’s 1984	Orwell’s integration of register borrowing (e.g., bureaucratic language in “Newspeak”) reflects Carter & Nash’s concept of re-registration, as he uses non-literary language to create an oppressive narrative style, enhancing the novel’s symbolic meaning.	Register Borrowing / Re-Registration: “…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships…” (p. 130).

Criticism Against “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Overemphasis on Linguistic Analysis: Some critics argue that Carter and Nash’s focus on linguistic elements, such as syntax and vocabulary, may sideline the emotional and thematic elements of literature that are central to literary appreciation and interpretation.
• Lack of Cultural Context Consideration: The framework presented may be critiqued for not adequately considering how cultural, historical, and societal factors influence what is perceived as “literary” or “non-literary,” which can vary significantly across different audiences.
• Dismissal of Norm-Deviation Framework: Carter and Nash challenge the traditional notion of literary language as a deviation from norms, yet some critics believe this framework is useful for distinguishing unique literary styles, as it highlights the ways authors subvert or innovate upon linguistic norms.
• Broad Definition of Literariness: Their concept of a “cline of literariness” can be seen as too broad or inclusive, potentially diminishing the uniqueness of literature by blurring distinctions between literary and non-literary texts.
• Insufficient Attention to Reader Response: While Carter and Nash introduce “displaced interaction” between author and reader, critics might argue that their approach does not fully explore how individual reader interpretations and personal engagement contribute to the perception of literariness.
• Limited Practical Application Across Genres: Although they propose that their model applies across genres, some might find the framework better suited to certain types of prose rather than poetry, drama, or other literary forms where structural and stylistic norms vary greatly.
• Reduction of Literariness to Linguistic Features: Critics could argue that their analysis risks reducing literariness solely to linguistic features, overlooking how narrative techniques, genre conventions, and plot structure also contribute to the literary qualities of a text.
• Insufficient Consideration of Authorial Intent: Some literary theorists might criticize the work for focusing more on textual analysis than on authorial intent, which can be essential in understanding why specific stylistic or lexical choices are made.

Representative Quotations from “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We hold that the division between literary language and other kinds of language is a harmful one.”	Carter and Nash challenge traditional divisions between “literary” and “non-literary” language, arguing that this dichotomy restricts understanding of language’s full potential and value.
“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation.”	This statement introduces their idea of a spectrum, or “cline,” of literariness, rejecting fixed boundaries and allowing for literary qualities to be present in various language forms.
“There is no such thing as literary language insofar as there is any single property intrinsic to language which can be called literary.”	Here, they refute the idea of intrinsic properties defining literary language, suggesting instead that context and interaction contribute to literariness.
“Literariness in language comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels in the language system.”	This quotation underscores the complexity of literary language, emphasizing that multiple stylistic and linguistic layers contribute to its unique qualities.
“We do believe… degrees of literariness can and should be identified.”	Carter and Nash support nuanced analysis by recognizing that certain texts may display more “literary” characteristics than others, reinforcing their cline approach.
“Attempts to define literary language in terms of truth-conditions or of fictional v. non-fictional… run the risk of instituting the same divisions and polarities.”	The authors caution against definitions based on binary oppositions, which, they argue, oversimplify and constrain interpretations of literary texts.
“In literary discourse… text explains text, text expands text, text projects an extra-textual ‘reality.'”	This observation emphasizes the autonomy of literary texts, suggesting that they create and sustain their own realities independent of external references.
“The sovereignty of the text… enables the text to stand on its own terms.”	By “sovereignty,” Carter and Nash mean the text’s self-contained meaning and structure, a trait they argue is central to literariness.
“A literary text… is a creative end for the author and a primary object for the reader.”	This highlights the interactive role of literature, where the text serves as a point of co-creation between the author’s intentions and the reader’s interpretation.
“The ‘literary’ does not effectively exist without the ‘non-literary,’ and it draws constantly on ‘non-literary’ sources.”	The authors argue that literary texts frequently incorporate elements from non-literary contexts, a process they call “re-registration,” which allows language to adopt new meanings.

Suggested Readings: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

1. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.