“Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

“Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter first appeared in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2010), offering an in-depth exploration of the intellectual framework and historical evolution of the Chicago School of criticism. Central to this theory is its emphasis on “instrumental pluralism,” which views literary criticism not as a monolithic discipline but as a collection of diverse and incommensurable frameworks. This pluralistic approach acknowledges the limitations and strengths of various critical systems, emphasizing their specific applications to literary works. Additionally, the Chicago School’s focus on formalist genre theory and rhetorical interpretation advanced the understanding of narrative structures and the intentionality behind literary works. Wayne Booth’s contributions to rhetorical theory further cemented this school’s impact, as his work bridged gaps between critical traditions and highlighted the dynamic relationship between authors, texts, and readers. As Richter explains, “Pluralism reveals the inherent limitations of one’s own critical methods and humbles critics with a sense of the partial insights their work can provide.” This theoretical model remains influential in its ability to navigate the complexities of literary interpretation while fostering intellectual dialogue across critical perspectives.

Summary of “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

Key Ideas and Concepts

• Historical Context and Foundational Ideas
  • The Chicago School refers to a group of literary critics and theorists at the University of Chicago, flourishing primarily in the 1950s and 1960s.
  • Key figures of the first generation include R.S. Crane and his colleagues, who focused on formalist genre theory and instrumental pluralism (Richter, 2010).
  • Instrumental pluralism, inspired by Kantian philosophy, emphasizes the diversity of critical frameworks, viewing them as distinct tools for understanding literature.
• Development of the Second Generation
  • The second generation of Chicago critics—Wayne Booth, Ralph Rader, and Sheldon Sacks—expanded and modified the original principles, particularly through rhetorical theory and genre studies.
  • Booth’s work in rhetorical theory of fiction became particularly influential, emphasizing the interaction between authorial intention, textual form, and reader response (Richter, 2010).
• Instrumental Pluralism
  • This concept views literary criticism as a collection of frameworks with unique principles, methods, and limitations. It rejects the notion of a single overarching critical method (Crane, 1953).
  • Crane argued that competing approaches like Marxism and Freudian analysis created interpretive Babel, necessitating a pluralistic perspective.
  • However, instrumental pluralism faced criticism for being theoretically inconsistent, particularly in Crane’s selective application of relativism (Richter, 2010).
• Gestaltist Approach
  • The Chicago School’s Gestaltist approach posited that literature should be viewed as a coherent whole, where the parts derive meaning from their relationship to the overall structure.
  • Critics like Rader emphasized that literature provides its own context and meaning, functioning independently of external purposes (Rader, 1974b).
• Genre Theory: Constructional, Preconstructional, and Postconstructional Aspects
  • The Chicago School developed a nuanced theory of genres:
    • Preconstructional genres derive from literary traditions (e.g., the sonnet, picaresque novel).
    • Postconstructional genres relate to how completed works affect readers.
    • Constructional genres, central to the Chicago method, focus on the artistic principles organizing a work’s parts into a unified whole (Richter, 2010).
• Rhetorical and Teleological Shifts
  • The second-generation critics shifted focus toward rhetorical and teleological concerns. Booth, for instance, argued for understanding texts as acts of communication between authors and readers.
  • This rhetorical turn emphasized the inferred creative intentions behind literary forms, challenging earlier formalist commitments to textual autonomy (Richter, 2010).
• Critiques and Limitations
  • The Chicago School faced criticism for its “pedantic micro-taxonomy” of genres, perceived as overly rigid and disconnected from broader literary developments (Webster, 1979).
  • The first generation’s insistence on textual autonomy was later revised to include intentionalist perspectives, as demonstrated in Rader’s analysis of Gray’s Elegy (Rader, 1974a).

Examples and Citations

• Instrumental Pluralism: Crane described literary criticism as “a collection of distinct and more or less incommensurable ‘frameworks’ or ‘languages'” (Crane, 1953, p. 13).
• Rhetorical Theory: Booth argued that criticism should address “the artistic respectability of the visibly ‘rhetorical’ elements” in literature (Booth, 1970, p. 1601).
• Genre Theory: Constructional genres reflect “the artistic principles and judgments operative in their composition,” synthesizing action, character, and language into a coherent whole (Crane, 1967, p. 18).

Legacy and Relevance

The Chicago School contributed significantly to literary criticism by integrating formalist, rhetorical, and pluralistic approaches. Although its influence has waned compared to New Criticism, its emphasis on genre theory and instrumental pluralism continues to inform contemporary debates in literary studies.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Neo-Aristotelianism	A critical framework rooted in Aristotelian principles, emphasizing formalist genre theory and instrumental pluralism.	Introduced by R.S. Crane and the first generation of Chicago critics (Richter, 2010).
Instrumental Pluralism	The idea that literary criticism is a collection of distinct frameworks, each with unique powers and limitations.	Crane: “Critical systems are unique frameworks answering specific types of questions” (Crane, 1953, p. 13).
Formalist Genre Theory	A focus on the structural and formal aspects of genres, viewing texts as unified wholes with intrinsic coherence.	Central to the first generation of Chicago critics (Richter, 2010).
Gestalt Criticism	A perspective viewing literary texts as coherent wholes, where the meaning of parts is governed by the whole pattern.	“Inferred sense of the whole-as-pattern governs the meaning of parts” (Rader, 1974b).
Constructional Genre	Genres derived from the internal principles and artistic purposes shaping a literary work’s unity.	“Constructional aspects embody the artistic principles of composition” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Preconstructional Genre	Genres based on historical traditions and literary forms as templates for works.	“Relations of works to their origins and sources” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Postconstructional Genre	Genres focusing on the impact of works on readers, encompassing broader human values and experiences.	“Effects of completed works on readers” (Crane, 1967, p. 18).
Rhetorical Criticism	An approach emphasizing the author’s communication with the reader and the rhetorical elements of the text.	Championed by Wayne Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction (Richter, 2010).
Teleological Shift	A transition from textual autonomy to understanding the inferred creative intentions of authors.	“Shifted focus to the interpretive decisions informed by creative intention” (Richter, 2010).
Scientific Method Analogy	The use of hypotheses in genre criticism, tested against textual evidence for refinement.	“Hypotheses must be modified or discarded based on empirical data” (Crane, 1967, p. 236–60).
Tacit Knowledge	The intuitive understanding of genres and literary forms by readers, shaped by innate cognitive structures.	Sacks: “Grounds of our awareness of forms lie in the mind’s innate structures” (Sacks, 1968, p. 189).
Mimetic vs. Didactic Works	Broad genre classification distinguishing works that imitate reality (mimetic) and those with a teaching purpose (didactic).	Olson’s distinction between “mimetic” and “didactic” works (Olson, 1952a).
Rhetorical Pluralism	Recognition of multiple critical frameworks as valid but limited, with a focus on systematic organization of claims.	Booth: “Criticism must systematically organize conflicting critical claims” (Booth, 1979).
Genre as Dynamic System	A flexible, historical view of genre accommodating changes in artistic practice and cultural contexts.	Rader: “Genre is abstract and malleable” (Rader, 1979, p. 189).
Textual Autonomy	A focus on analyzing the internal structure of literary texts, excluding external influences like authorial intent.	Crane: “Provisional exclusion of external factors to focus on internal causes” (Crane, 1952b, p. 20).

Contribution of “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

Literary Work	Critic	Critique Through Chicago School Theory	Reference in Text
“Tom Jones” by Henry Fielding	R. S. Crane	Analyzed as a “morally serious comedy” where the unity of form derives from its synthesis of moral themes and comedic structure.	Crane emphasized its artistic coherence and categorization within genre as “morally serious” (Crane, 1968, p. 100).
“Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” by Thomas Gray	R. S. Crane & Ralph Rader	Crane viewed the work as an imitative lyric focusing on structural unity, while Rader connected the speaker to Gray, emphasizing creative intention.	Crane: focus on structure (Crane, 1953, p. 99); Rader: inferred autobiographical connection (Rader, 1974a, p. 93).
“Moll Flanders” by Daniel Defoe	Ralph Rader	Critiqued as a novel where mixed forms and extraformal intentions (e.g., realism and moral didacticism) challenged rigid genre classifications.	Rader highlighted its malleable genre and structural experimentation (Rader, 1973, p. 356).
“Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov	Sheldon Sacks	Analyzed as a complex narrative combining satire and psychological depth, requiring multi-level interpretation of genre and intention.	Sacks critiqued its amalgamation of comic and didactic tendencies, complicating genre boundaries (Richter, 2010).

Criticism Against “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

Representative Quotations from “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary criticism is not … a single discipline … but rather a collection of distinct and more or less incommensurable ‘frameworks’ or ‘languages.'” (Crane, 1953, p. 13)	This encapsulates R.S. Crane’s concept of instrumental pluralism, emphasizing the coexistence of diverse critical frameworks, each suited for specific questions about literature.
“Pluralism reveals the inherent limitations of one’s own critical methods and humbles critics with a sense of the partial insights their work can provide.” (Booth, 1979, p. 84)	Booth underscores the epistemological limits of any single approach, advocating for a pluralistic dialogue that embraces differing methods for deeper understanding of literary works.
“The inferred sense of the whole-as-pattern is what governs the perceived meaning of the parts.” (Rader, 1974a)	This reflects the Gestaltist approach of the Chicago School, emphasizing the interrelation of a literary work’s components and its overall structural unity in shaping meaning.
“Each critical system is thus an instrument with powers and limitations peculiar to itself.” (Richter, 2010)	The Chicago School recognizes that no critical methodology is universally applicable; each has unique strengths and blind spots, necessitating pluralistic approaches to criticism.
“The creative freedom of writers may bring extraformal intentions to the text, accommodating mixed forms and evolving genres.” (Rader, 1979, p. 189)	Rader highlights the adaptability of genre to evolving literary practices, acknowledging the dynamism of form beyond rigid structural definitions.
“The function of pluralism lies in leading critics to a deeper understanding of one another’s work and to viewing the exchange of ideas as part of an ongoing and potentially progressive dialogue.” (Booth, 1979, p. 981)	Booth advocates for pluralism as a means to foster meaningful, collaborative discourse among critics, contrasting with antagonistic or monistic critical models.
“Genres are understood to derive from the artistic principles and judgments operative in their composition.” (Crane, 1967, II:18)	This underscores the Chicago School’s constructional genre theory, emphasizing how artistic intent and structural design shape the categorization and interpretation of literary works.
“The radical ambiguities of deconstruction can distort the comprehensibility of poetic intention.” (Rader, 1974b, p. 250)	Rader critiques deconstructive approaches, asserting that overemphasis on ambiguity undermines the clarity and purpose inherent in literary texts.
“Moll Flanders and Ulysses exemplify how structural experimentation resists traditional genre boundaries.” (Rader, 1973, p. 356)	Rader’s analysis of these novels demonstrates the Chicago School’s flexibility in addressing works that challenge conventional genre expectations, reflecting its broader applicability.
“The provisional exclusion of external factors is necessary if the analysis is to be concentrated upon the internal causes which account for the peculiar construction and effect of any poem qua artistic whole.” (Crane, 1952b, p. 20)	Crane defends the Chicago School’s focus on textual autonomy, advocating for an inward analysis of literary works to determine their unique artistic coherence.

Suggested Readings: “Chicago School Neo-Aristotelian Literary Theory” by David H. Richter

1. Shen, Dan. “Implied Author, Authorial Audience, and Context: Form and History in Neo-Aristotelian Rhetorical Theory.” Narrative, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24615418. Accessed 13 Jan. 2025.
2. Shen, Dan. “Neo-Aristotelian Rhetorical Narrative Study: Need for Integrating Style, Context and Intertext.” Style, vol. 45, no. 4, 2011, pp. 576–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.45.4.576. Accessed 13 Jan. 2025.
3. “Literary Theory in the United States: A Survey.” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 2, 1983, pp. 409–51. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468694. Accessed 13 Jan. 2025.