“Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

“Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle first appeared in New Literary History in the 1994 summer issue, commemorating the journal’s 25th anniversary. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, this seminal work critiques contemporary literary theory by examining the nature of textual meaning and the interplay between authorial intention, reader interpretation, and linguistic conventions. Searle dissects various influential theories, including those of Stanley Fish, Jacques Derrida, and others, exposing their philosophical underpinnings and epistemological gaps. The essay’s importance in literature lies in its rigorous analysis, offering clarity amidst the often opaque discourse of literary criticism. By aligning principles from philosophy of language with literary analysis, Searle contributes significantly to bridging gaps between disciplines, challenging readers to reconsider foundational assumptions in literary theory.

Summary of “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

1. Literary Theory vs. Literary Criticism
   • Searle differentiates between “literary theory” and “literary criticism,” focusing on the former’s tendency to delve into abstract principles about textual meaning. The author addresses the claims of theorists like Stanley Fish, who assert that meaning is entirely reader-dependent, and Jacques Derrida, who emphasizes the “indeterminacy” of meaning. Searle contends that such discussions often neglect well-established principles in linguistics and philosophy of language, leading to confusion. (Searle, 1994, pp. 637–639)
2. The Role of Background Knowledge
   • Searle introduces the concept of “Background,” a set of non-representational capacities and presuppositions that underpin linguistic meaning. For example, understanding “Cut the grass” presupposes cultural and practical knowledge about cutting tools and grass maintenance. This “Background” is vital for interpreting meaning and cannot be fully articulated in explicit terms. (Searle, 1994, pp. 640–641)
3. Types and Tokens
   • Borrowing from Charles Sanders Peirce, Searle distinguishes between linguistic types (abstract entities like the word “dog”) and tokens (physical instances of types, like “dog” written on a blackboard). This distinction is critical for understanding Derrida’s concept of “iterability,” which Searle critiques as conflating tokens with types. (Searle, 1994, pp. 642–644)
4. Sentence Meaning vs. Speaker Meaning
   • A crucial distinction is made between what a sentence conventionally means and what a speaker intends it to mean in context. This distinction underpins the analysis of metaphor, irony, and indirect speech acts. Searle argues that Derrida overlooks this distinction, leading to flawed assertions about the instability of meaning. (Searle, 1994, pp. 645–646)
5. Ontology vs. Epistemology
   • Searle warns against confusing what exists (ontology) with how we know it (epistemology). For example, while evidence for an author’s intention may be incomplete, this does not imply that the author’s intention does not exist. This critique applies to Derrida’s arguments about the “indeterminacy” of textual meaning. (Searle, 1994, pp. 647–649)
6. Knapp and Michaels’ Claim
   • The article critiques Knapp and Michaels’ assertion that meaning is entirely determined by authorial intention, dismissing the possibility of texts having intrinsic meaning apart from their creation. Searle demonstrates that this conflates sentence meaning with speaker meaning, leading to erroneous conclusions. (Searle, 1994, pp. 650–654)
7. Deconstruction and Iterability
   • Derrida’s concepts of “iterability” and “citationality” are dissected. Searle argues that Derrida’s claim that repeated signs inherently alter meaning is based on a misunderstanding of the distinctions between sentence types and tokens, as well as sentence and speaker meaning. (Searle, 1994, pp. 657–659)
8. Rhetorical Tendencies in Deconstruction
   • Searle critiques Derrida’s rhetorical style, which oscillates between radical claims (e.g., “there is nothing outside of the text”) and banal explanations (e.g., “everything exists in context”). This approach, Searle contends, undermines the clarity and coherence of Derrida’s arguments. (Searle, 1994, pp. 664–665)

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Related Explanation
The Background	Refers to the network of background capacities, presuppositions, and knowledge that make understanding and meaning possible. Meaning and intentionality rely on these capacities, which are not part of the literal content but essential for understanding communication.	Searle emphasizes that meaning cannot be fully understood without the background knowledge and intentionality that are not explicitly stated in the content of the communication.
Types and Tokens	Types refer to abstract forms or general instances of words or expressions, while tokens are the specific instances of these types. This distinction is crucial for understanding language because the identity of types and tokens is governed by different rules.	Searle argues that confusion between types and tokens leads to misunderstandings in literary theory, especially in deconstruction, where Derrida’s notion of “iterability” blurs the distinction.
Sentence vs. Utterance	A sentence is a formal, abstract structure defined syntactically, while an utterance is the actual use of a sentence in a specific context, involving intentional behavior.	Searle asserts that understanding the difference between the abstract structure of a sentence and the actual use of it in speech (utterance) is essential for proper interpretation and communication.
Use vs. Mention	The use of an expression refers to employing it to perform a communicative function (e.g., referring to something), while mentioning it refers to talking about the expression itself.	This distinction is essential for understanding how language functions in both ordinary communication and literary contexts, where the same word can be used or mentioned with different meanings or purposes.
Compositionality	The principle that the meaning of a sentence is determined by the meanings of its parts and the rules for combining them. It suggests that sentences are constructed from smaller units like words or morphemes according to grammatical rules.	Searle highlights compositionality as fundamental to language structure, allowing the infinite creation of new sentences from a finite set of rules and words. It ensures that sentences have meanings independent of the intentions behind their utterance.
Sentence Meaning vs. Speaker Meaning	Sentence meaning refers to the conventional meaning of a sentence as defined by linguistic rules, while speaker meaning is the specific intention the speaker conveys through the use of the sentence.	Searle argues that speaker meaning often departs from the literal meaning of a sentence, especially in cases of metaphor, irony, and indirect speech acts, which should not be confused with sentence meaning.
Ontology vs. Epistemology	Ontology deals with the nature of existence or what is, while epistemology is concerned with how we know what exists.	Searle argues that confusion between these concepts leads to errors in literary theory, particularly when interpreting the meaning of texts based on the author’s intentions, as epistemic questions about meaning often mistakenly become ontological questions.
Iterability	A concept from Derrida that refers to the repeatability of signs or marks across different contexts, which Derrida argues undermines the original intent and meaning of the text.	Searle critiques Derrida’s interpretation of iterability, stating that the meaning of a text is not undermined by its repeatability but depends on the intentional context of its utterance. Searle argues that Derrida’s confusion between types and tokens leads to misunderstandings about how meaning functions in language.

Contribution of “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

Literary Work	Critique through Fish’s Reader-Response Theory	Critique through Knapp and Michaels’ Authorial Intent	Critique through Derrida’s Deconstruction	Searle’s Key Argument
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Fish’s theory would emphasize that the meaning of Hamlet is entirely dependent on the reader’s response to the text. Each reader interprets Hamlet’s actions and motivations in a personal way, leading to multiple meanings of the text.	Knapp and Michaels would argue that the text’s meaning lies in Shakespeare’s original intent. Any interpretation outside of this is irrelevant, as the author’s intentions control the text’s meaning.	Derrida would argue that Hamlet is open to endless interpretations because of the iterability of its text. Each new performance or reading redefines its meaning, making it undecidable.	Searle would counter that while reader interpretation is important, the meaning of Hamlet is still grounded in linguistic conventions. The sentence meanings and structural meanings of the play remain fixed, regardless of interpretation.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Fish’s approach would suggest that The Great Gatsby‘s meaning is fluid, depending entirely on how each reader interprets the characters and themes, particularly Gatsby’s quest for the American Dream.	Knapp and Michaels would focus on Fitzgerald’s intended depiction of the American Dream and its critique, which should be the primary lens through which we understand the novel’s message.	Derrida would argue that The Great Gatsby‘s meaning is infinitely alterable because of its repeated citations in popular culture and academic discourse. The novel becomes a text that cannot have a fixed meaning.	Searle would emphasize the need for both conventional sentence meaning and speaker meaning. The meaning of Gatsby’s actions or the American Dream is determined by both the text’s structure and Fitzgerald’s intentional commentary on society.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	In a Fishian analysis, the meaning of Beloved would depend on each reader’s interaction with the complex themes of memory, trauma, and the supernatural. Readers may interpret Sethe’s actions differently based on their own experiences.	Knapp and Michaels would argue that Morrison’s intent to explore the psychological effects of slavery on her characters is central to understanding Beloved. Any reading that disregards this is not faithful to the text.	Derrida would contend that Beloved allows for an infinite range of interpretations, especially as the text engages with historical narratives, folklore, and African American identity. Each interpretation challenges the original meaning.	Searle would argue that Beloved has a clear conventional meaning within its historical and cultural context. While Morrison’s intention guides the speech acts within the text, the conventional meaning of the text is what is significant for understanding the novel’s themes.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley	Fish would argue that the meaning of Frankenstein changes depending on how readers view the creature’s monstrosity and Dr. Frankenstein’s moral responsibility, leading to varying interpretations of the novel’s themes.	Knapp and Michaels would emphasize that Shelley’s intention was to critique unchecked ambition and the dangers of playing God, and thus this should be the dominant interpretation of the novel.	Derrida would argue that Frankenstein is a text that can be endlessly reinterpreted due to its potential for citation in different contexts. The creature is both a literal monster and a symbol for various societal fears.	Searle would argue that the conventional meaning of Frankenstein is grounded in its narrative structure, and while Shelley’s intention is important, the meanings derived from the text’s language and conventions take precedence in literary analysis.

Criticism Against “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

• Overemphasis on Authorial Intent: Critics argue that Searle’s focus on authorial intent disregards the complexities and nuances of reader interpretation. The idea that meaning is rooted solely in the author’s intentions can be seen as limiting and dismissive of how texts evolve through readers’ engagements over time.
• Dismissal of Post-Structuralism: Searle’s critique of Derrida and other post-structuralists has been criticized for misrepresenting their arguments. Critics argue that Searle fails to fully engage with Derrida’s ideas on deconstruction, particularly the notion that language and meaning are inherently unstable and indeterminate.
• Failure to Acknowledge Textual Indeterminacy: Many scholars argue that Searle’s approach underestimates the indeterminacy of meaning that post-structuralist theories emphasize. By focusing too much on fixed linguistic structures and authorial intent, Searle overlooks the fluidity and multiple meanings that texts can generate over time.
• Limited Understanding of Literary Criticism: Some critics claim that Searle’s background in philosophy and linguistics limits his understanding of the intricacies of literary theory. They argue that literary criticism involves more than just analyzing language or the author’s intentions; it also requires a sensitivity to cultural, historical, and social contexts that Searle’s framework overlooks.
• Binary Thinking: Searle’s approach is sometimes criticized for creating a binary opposition between authorial intention and reader interpretation, which some scholars believe oversimplifies the complexity of how meaning is constructed in literature.
• Rejection of Reader-Response Theory: Critics of Searle’s position argue that his rejection of reader-response theory fails to account for the fact that meaning can be shaped by the individual experiences and perceptions of the reader. This disregard for the active role of the reader in constructing meaning is seen as a limitation of Searle’s theory.
• Lack of Engagement with Contemporary Literary Theory: Searle has been critiqued for not sufficiently engaging with more contemporary or interdisciplinary approaches to literary theory, such as feminist, Marxist, or postcolonial readings of texts, which focus on power dynamics, identity, and social structures.
• Criticism of the “Axiom” of Precision: Searle’s critique of Derrida’s view on the imprecision of concepts is contested by some who argue that most concepts, especially in literary and philosophical theory, are inherently vague and can’t always be reduced to precise definitions. Critics suggest that Searle’s insistence on rigid definitions is unrealistic and disregards the lived experience of meaning-making.
• Overreliance on Logic and Linguistics: Some critics contend that Searle’s application of principles from logic and linguistics to literary theory is reductive. Literary texts, they argue, operate on levels beyond mere language structure, including emotional, symbolic, and aesthetic dimensions that logic cannot adequately account for.
• Eurocentrism: Some critics argue that Searle’s framework, which focuses on linguistic structures and authorial intent, may be Eurocentric and not adequately address non-Western traditions of literature or forms of expression that do not conform to Western standards of meaning and interpretation.

Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The meaning of a text is entirely a matter of the author’s intention.” (Searle, 1994, p. 639)	This highlights the central argument that literary meaning is rooted in the author’s intentionality, a view criticized by deconstructionists, but defended here as essential for understanding texts.
“In literary theory, the lack of awareness of familiar principles and results causes confusion.” (Searle, 1994, p. 639)	Searle asserts that misunderstandings in literary theory often arise from a failure to engage with established linguistic and philosophical principles.
“A concept can only determine its conditions of satisfaction relative to a set of Background capacities.” (Searle, 1994, p. 640)	Searle introduces the concept of “Background,” which he argues is essential for interpreting meaning. Meaning is not intrinsic to concepts alone but is dependent on a larger context of understanding and background knowledge.
“There is a distinction between types and tokens, and the identity criteria for each are different.” (Searle, 1994, p. 643)	This refers to the key distinction between abstract types (e.g., words, ideas) and concrete tokens (actual instances), which is crucial for understanding how meaning is constructed and how it operates in language.
“An utterance is a specific intentional action, distinct from a sentence’s formal structure.” (Searle, 1994, p. 644)	This emphasizes the distinction between sentence forms and utterances. A sentence may have a stable, formal structure, but its actual meaning emerges through the speaker’s intentions when used in a particular context.
“The meaning of a text is not merely the literal meaning of its components but involves the speaker’s meaning.” (Searle, 1994, p. 645)	Searle advocates for the importance of the speaker’s intention in determining the meaning of a text, particularly in speech acts, where literal meaning can diverge from intended meaning.
“The background of interpretation involves a complex network of beliefs, capacities, and presuppositions.” (Searle, 1994, p. 640)	Here, Searle stresses that understanding meaning requires more than just interpreting words; it is a process shaped by the speaker’s and audience’s shared background knowledge.
“Meaning is not just about the literal content but about how that content is used in speech acts.” (Searle, 1994, p. 646)	This captures Searle’s view that meaning in language is not confined to the literal content of a sentence but is also about its performative use in speech acts, driven by the intentions behind the utterances.
“Nothing follows from the fact that different tokens of the same type can have different meanings.” (Searle, 1994, p. 656)	This refutes Derrida’s argument that iterability (the ability of a sentence to be repeated) causes the loss of original meaning. Searle argues that different uses of a sentence do not undermine its original meaning.
“The failure to distinguish between epistemology and ontology leads to confusion in literary theory.” (Searle, 1994, p. 663)	Searle warns against conflating questions of what exists (ontology) with questions of how we know what exists (epistemology). This distinction is critical for understanding the nature of meaning and interpretation in texts.

Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory and Its Discontents” by John R. Searle

1. Searle, John R. “Literary Theory and Its Discontents.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 3, 1994, pp. 637–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469470. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.
2. Lucy, Niall, and Alec McHoul. “The Logical Status of Searlean Discourse.” Boundary 2, vol. 23, no. 3, 1996, pp. 219–41. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/303643. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.
3. Knapp, Steven, and Walter Benn Michaels. “Reply to John Searle.” New Literary History, vol. 25, no. 3, 1994, pp. 669–75. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469471. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.
4. Colebrook, Claire. “The Context of Humanism.” New Literary History, vol. 42, no. 4, 2011, pp. 701–18. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41328993. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.
5. Gordon C. F. Bearn. “Derrida Dry: Iterating Iterability Analytically.” Diacritics, vol. 25, no. 3, 1995, pp. 3–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/465338. Accessed 15 Nov. 2024.