“Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

“Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” by Raman Selden first appeared in the journal Critical Survey, Vol. 3, No. 1, in 1991, published by Berghahn Books. This seminal essay examines the role and necessity of literary theory in literary studies, challenging traditional notions of textual analysis. Selden critiques the “common-sense” approach to literature, which treats texts as fixed entities with singular meanings dictated by authorial intent, and introduces alternative perspectives inspired by theorists like Brecht, Derrida, and Bakhtin. These perspectives emphasize the fluidity of meaning, the sociopolitical implications of language, and the interplay of power in literary discourse. By using examples from Shakespeare’s The Tempest and feminist readings of texts, Selden illustrates how literary theory destabilizes entrenched ideologies, offering tools to interrogate assumptions about race, gender, and colonialism. The essay underscores theory’s vital role in enriching literary studies by challenging dogma and fostering critical inquiry, thus positioning it as an essential component for dynamic and transformative scholarship.

Summary of “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

1. Challenging “Common Sense” in Literary Studies
   • Literary theory serves as a counterforce to the “common-sense” view, which perceives literary texts as fixed entities with singular, unified meanings (Selden, 1991, p. 96).
   • Common sense often simplifies texts into straightforward narratives, suppressing the multiplicity of meanings present in literature.
2. Historical Perspectives: Moral vs. Aesthetic Views
   • John Morley emphasized the moral role of literature in cultivating imagination and moral sensibility (p. 97).
   • In contrast, the aesthetic movement, represented by figures like Oscar Wilde, saw art as a rebellion against moral conventions, aligning with structuralist ideas that “language shapes the world” (p. 97).
3. Core Assumptions of Traditional Literary Studies
   • Selden critiques assumptions that:
     • Texts contain fixed meanings.
     • Authors’ intentions are central to interpretation.
     • Readers passively reflect textual meaning (pp. 98–99).
4. Reevaluating Shakespeare’s The Tempest
   • Common-sense readings portray Prospero as a benevolent authority figure.
   • A Brechtian or Bakhtinian reading highlights Prospero’s role as a colonizer and emphasizes Caliban’s voice as suppressed by Prospero’s language (pp. 99–100).
5. Language as Ideological and Multi-Accented
   • Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin, Selden argues that language is shaped by social struggles and cannot be neutral. Prospero’s discourse, for example, is imbued with colonialist and ideological undertones (p. 100).
6. Deconstruction and Derrida’s Logocentrism
   • Derrida challenges the search for an “essence” or “truth” in texts, revealing how language inherently resists stable meanings (p. 101).
   • Selden applies this perspective to show how texts like The Tempest harbor internal contradictions and resist univocal interpretations.
7. Feminist Criticism and Gender Representation
   • Feminist critics disrupt patriarchal interpretations, emphasizing how texts often objectify women and position readers in a male-dominated framework.
   • For instance, in Lucky Jim, women are reduced to stereotypes and subjected to a male gaze (pp. 102–103).
8. Theory as Liberation in Literary Studies
   • Selden asserts that theory liberates literary studies by questioning dogmatic beliefs and expanding interpretive frameworks.
   • It prevents literature from becoming stagnant and ensures dynamic engagement with texts (p. 103).
9. Conclusion: The Necessity of Theory
   • Selden likens theory to fresh air or manure, essential for revitalizing literary studies. It challenges closed-mindedness and promotes intellectual growth (p. 103).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Common Sense	A traditional approach in literary studies that assumes texts have fixed, univocal meanings.	Critiqued as limiting because it suppresses the multiplicity of interpretations (Selden, 1991, p. 96).
Moral Criticism	The view that literature’s primary function is to cultivate moral sensibilities and provide ethical guidance.	Represented by John Morley’s emphasis on literature as a source of stability and tradition (p. 97).
Aestheticism	An approach that values art for its own sake, independent of moral or utilitarian concerns.	Exemplified by Oscar Wilde, who argued that “nature imitates art” (p. 97).
Colonialist Discourse	A framework that justifies colonial domination through cultural, religious, or ethical superiority.	Applied to Prospero’s treatment of Caliban in The Tempest, marking it as a reflection of colonialism (p. 100).
Logocentrism	Derrida’s concept of a search for a central truth or essence in texts.	Critiqued as reductive because it ignores language’s inherent instability and contradictions (p. 101).
Deconstruction	A method of critical analysis that reveals internal inconsistencies within a text.	Used to demonstrate how texts resist singular meanings and contain contradictions (p. 101).
Multi-Accented Language	Bakhtin’s idea that language is shaped by ideological struggles and is inherently contested.	Highlighted in the interplay between Prospero’s and Caliban’s discourses in The Tempest (p. 100).
Alienation Effect	Brecht’s technique to prevent passive empathy by making familiar actions appear strange and questionable.	Advocated to critique traditional, uncritical engagement with literature, as seen in The Tempest (p. 99).
Feminist Criticism	An approach that examines gendered power structures and the objectification of women in texts.	Discussed in the context of gender stereotypes in Lucky Jim and other texts (pp. 102–103).
Reader-Response Criticism	The theory that readers actively participate in shaping a text’s meaning.	Contrasts with the view of the reader as a passive recipient of the author’s intended meaning (p. 98).
Romantic Readings	Interpretations that seek transcendental truths or essences in literary texts.	Illustrated through interpretations of The Tempest as a story of divine order and providence (p. 101).

Contribution of “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory
   • Analysis of Colonialist Discourse: Selden examines The Tempest through a postcolonial lens, revealing how Prospero’s authority and treatment of Caliban reflect colonial power dynamics (Selden, 1991, p. 100).
   • Contribution: This analysis aligns with postcolonial theory by demonstrating how texts encode and perpetuate colonial ideologies.
2. Deconstruction (Derridean Thought)
   • Critique of Logocentrism: Selden adopts Derrida’s critique of the search for an “essence” or “truth” in texts, illustrating how literature inherently resists singular interpretations (p. 101).
   • Contribution: He validates deconstruction as a method to uncover contradictions and challenge fixed meanings in literary texts.
3. Bakhtinian Dialogism
   • Language as Ideologically Contested: Using Bakhtin’s theory, Selden argues that language is multi-accentual and shaped by social and ideological struggles, opposing its view as a neutral medium (p. 100).
   • Contribution: This enriches Bakhtinian thought by applying it to analyze power relations in literary language, as seen in The Tempest.
4. Brechtian Literary Criticism
   • Alienation Effect in Reading: Selden advocates Brecht’s alienation effect to encourage critical distance and challenge Aristotelian empathy in literature (p. 99).
   • Contribution: By proposing Brechtian techniques for literary analysis, Selden bridges theater criticism and literary studies.
5. Feminist Literary Theory
   • Critique of Gender Representation: Selden examines how patriarchal structures in literature objectify women, using Lucky Jim as a case study (pp. 102–103).
   • Contribution: His analysis aligns with feminist literary criticism by exposing how texts construct women as the “Other” and perpetuate stereotypes.
6. Reader-Response Theory
   • Active Role of the Reader: Selden critiques the traditional notion of the passive reader, emphasizing the reader’s active participation in shaping textual meaning (p. 98).
   • Contribution: This supports reader-response theory by stressing the interpretive agency of readers in literary analysis.
7. Structuralism
   • Nature Imitating Art: Drawing on structuralist ideas, Selden references Wilde’s claim that “nature imitates art,” which parallels structuralism’s emphasis on sign systems shaping reality (p. 97).
   • Contribution: Selden connects structuralist thought to literary analysis, highlighting the constructed nature of meaning.
8. Romantic and Neo-Platonic Traditions
   • Critique of Transcendental Readings: Selden challenges romantic interpretations that seek a singular spiritual truth in texts, using The Tempest as an example (p. 101).
   • Contribution: He redefines these traditions within a contemporary theoretical framework, questioning their relevance to modern critical practice.
9. Anti-Foundationalism
   • Denial of Fixed Knowledge: Selden advocates for anti-foundationalism, rejecting ultimate forms of knowledge and fixed truths in literary studies (p. 103).
   • Contribution: This positions his argument as a critique of traditional methodologies, aligning with post-structuralist principles.

Examples of Critiques Through “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

Literary Work	Traditional Critique	Critique Through Selden’s Theoretical Lens	Theoretical Basis
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Prospero as a benevolent authority figure, safeguarding Miranda and maintaining order.	Prospero represents colonial power, and his treatment of Caliban reflects a colonialist discourse. Caliban’s voice is suppressed (Selden, 1991, p. 100).	Postcolonial Theory, Bakhtinian Dialogism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Language taught by Prospero is a neutral tool for communication.	Language is ideologically charged; Caliban’s ability to curse demonstrates resistance to Prospero’s colonial control (p. 100).	Bakhtinian Dialogism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Focus on universal themes such as divine providence and order.	Challenges romantic readings; instead, the text reflects historical and ideological conflicts, including colonization (p. 101).	Deconstruction, Anti-Foundationalism
Kingsley Amis’s Lucky Jim	Margaret is portrayed as a hysterical and manipulative character, embodying stereotypical female traits.	Critiques patriarchal construction of gender, exposing how the text objectifies Margaret and positions her as the “Other” (pp. 102–103).	Feminist Literary Criticism
Oscar Wilde’s Aesthetic Philosophy	Nature as an independent entity, reflecting art as imitation of reality.	Wilde’s idea that “nature imitates art” anticipates structuralist theories about how human sign systems shape perception (p. 97).	Structuralism, Aestheticism
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	Miranda as a virtuous character and symbol of moral goodness.	Feminist reading reveals Miranda as an object of male fantasy, confined to patriarchal roles within Prospero’s authority (p. 103).	Feminist Literary Criticism
General Aristotelian Theater	Theater creates empathy and mirrors real life.	Brechtian approach argues for alienation, showing actions as historically conditioned and open to critical scrutiny (p. 99).	Brechtian Literary Criticism
Elizabethan Travel Narratives	Explorations justified as honorable and pious endeavors, civilizing the “savage.”	Frames colonialism as a discourse that constructs natives as inferior and justifies their subjugation (p. 101).	Postcolonial Theory
Shakespeare’s The Tempest	The theme of usurpation focuses on Prospero’s rightful reclamation of his dukedom.	Highlights the occluded usurpation of Caliban’s sovereignty, suppressed by colonialist discourse (p. 101).	Postcolonial Theory, Anti-Foundationalism
Romantic Poetry	Romantic works uncover universal spiritual truths through the author’s vision.	Romantic readings are critiqued for colluding with ethical and religious elements of discourse, ignoring ideological conflicts (p. 101).	Deconstruction, Romantic Critique

Criticism Against “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

• Overemphasis on Theoretical Abstraction
  • Selden’s reliance on dense theoretical frameworks may alienate readers unfamiliar with literary theory, potentially limiting accessibility to a wider audience.
• Limited Practical Application
  • Critics argue that the essay provides insufficient guidance on applying theoretical concepts to broader literary analysis, leaving some interpretations abstract or unresolved.
• Neglect of Traditional Approaches
  • By heavily critiquing “common sense” and traditional readings, Selden risks dismissing approaches that offer valuable historical or moral insights into literature.
• Biased Toward Radical Theories
  • The essay predominantly highlights radical frameworks like postcolonialism, deconstruction, and feminism, potentially sidelining more conservative or balanced perspectives.
• Underrepresentation of Historical Contexts
  • While engaging with colonialist and feminist themes, Selden’s analysis might be criticized for underexploring historical specificities that influenced the creation of the texts he critiques.
• Ambiguity in Defending Theory’s Necessity
  • Although Selden advocates for theory, he does not fully address critiques from scholars who view theory as overly abstract, overly political, or disconnected from textual appreciation.
• Overgeneralization of Common-Sense Criticism
  • The categorization of traditional readings as “common sense” might oversimplify diverse critical practices that do not necessarily fit this label.
• Excessive Reliance on European Frameworks
  • The essay relies heavily on European theorists like Brecht, Derrida, and Bakhtin, potentially marginalizing non-Western critical frameworks and perspectives.
• Potential Dogmatism in Theory Advocacy
  • While critiquing dogmatic approaches in literary studies, Selden’s passionate defense of theory could itself appear dogmatic, privileging certain theoretical perspectives over others.
• Imbalance in Examples
  • The focus on a few works, particularly The Tempest and Lucky Jim, might be seen as limiting in scope, potentially overlooking how theory applies to a broader range of texts.

Representative Quotations from “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Theory is always the enemy of common sense; it is the spirit of subversion in the world of thought.” (p. 96)	Selden positions theory as a critical force that disrupts static interpretations, challenging the illusion of unity and completeness often associated with “common-sense” readings in literary studies.
“What are the common-sense assumptions which contemporary theory seeks to challenge?” (p. 98)	This rhetorical question introduces Selden’s critique of traditional assumptions about textual meaning, including the ideas of authorial intent, fixed meaning, and the passivity of readers in the interpretive process.
“You taught me language; and my profit on’t / Is, I know how to curse.” (Caliban in The Tempest, p. 100)	Quoting Caliban, Selden highlights the ideological dimension of language. Caliban’s resistance reflects the subjugation inherent in Prospero’s “gift” of language, illustrating colonialist discourse in Shakespeare’s text.
“Language cannot be neatly dissociated from social living; it is always contaminated, interleaved, opaquely coloured by layers of semantic deposits.” (p. 100)	Drawing on Bakhtin, Selden argues that language is ideologically charged, rejecting the notion of language as a neutral medium, and emphasizing its role as a site of power struggles and contested meanings.
“Romantic readings assume that the text tells us a certain truth which is communicated to us through the undistorting glass of language.” (p. 101)	Selden critiques romantic readings for treating language as transparent, ignoring its complexity and ideological underpinnings, which are central to modern theoretical approaches.
“The voice of Caliban resists the imperious truths of Prospero, but Caliban’s story has no authority because he is compelled to use Prospero’s language to tell it.” (p. 101)	This statement underscores the power imbalance in The Tempest, illustrating how colonial discourse limits the agency of the colonized by controlling their means of expression.
“Feminists object to the ways in which gender has been represented in literature.” (p. 102)	Selden introduces feminist literary criticism by challenging patriarchal structures in literary texts, emphasizing the need for resistance against male-dominated representations of women.
“Only by reading as a woman can the reader recognize the utterly patriarchal construction of gender in the passage.” (p. 103)	In discussing Lucky Jim, Selden illustrates how feminist theory reshapes interpretations of texts by questioning gender stereotypes and exposing the dominance of male perspectives in literary narratives.
“Deconstruction denies the possibility of ultimate forms of knowledge. It denies all essences and determinate grounds of truth.” (p. 103)	Selden outlines the core principle of deconstruction, highlighting its challenge to foundationalist approaches in literary studies and its role in destabilizing fixed interpretations.
“Do literary studies need literary theory? Does the tired soil need manure? Does a smoke-filled room need fresh air?” (p. 103)	In this metaphorical conclusion, Selden emphasizes the transformative and revitalizing role of theory in literary studies, likening it to essential elements that renew and sustain intellectual growth.

Suggested Readings: “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” By Raman Selden

1. SELDEN, RAMAN. “Does Literary Studies Need Literary Theory?” Critical Survey, vol. 4, no. 3, 1992, pp. 218–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555664. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
2. Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
3. Foley, Barbara. “Marxist Literary Criticism.” Marxist Literary Criticism Today, Pluto Press, 2019, pp. 122–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd2jf.9. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
4. Nicholas O. Pagan. “The Evolution of Literary Theory and the Literary Mind.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 157–79. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.15.2.0157. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.