Introduction: “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
“Literary Theory and Literary Aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen first appeared in the book “The End of Literary Theory” and explores fundamental philosophical questions concerning the nature and understanding of literature as a practice. Olsen’s approach centers on the concept of literature as an institutional practice, governed by constitutive rules that shape its identity and appreciation. Rejecting systematic literary theories, he argues that these often rely on unwarranted assumptions, leading to epistemological confusion. Olsen posits that literature, unlike texts in general, cannot be reduced to textual features alone; instead, its identity is contingent on the conventions of appreciation and interpretation inherent in the literary institution. A pivotal idea is his assertion that “the proper object of discussion for the philosopher interested in literature is the act of appreciation itself: the conventions and concepts that define the mode of apprehension necessary to operate a concept of and to appreciate a literary work.” This perspective underscores literature’s unique status as an evaluative concept, defying reductive theoretical frameworks, and affirming the essential role of value in literary aesthetics.
Summary of “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
- Literary Aesthetics as a Philosophical Inquiry
Olsen defines literary aesthetics as the study of philosophical problems surrounding the appreciation, evaluation, and understanding of literature, focusing on aspects such as aesthetic perception, judgment, authorial intention, truth, and fiction. Unlike systematic theories, which are criticized for unwarranted assumptions, Olsen’s essays embrace a consistent philosophical perspective (Olsen, p. 196). - Literature as an Institutional Practice
Central to Olsen’s argument is the notion of literature as an institutional practice. Institutions are defined by constitutive rules that not only regulate practices but also create and identify the objects or actions they govern. Literary works derive meaning through these institutional conventions, emphasizing the role of authorial intention and reader-response over textual features (Olsen, pp. 196-197). - The Limitations of Systematic Theories
Olsen critiques systematic literary theories for their reductive focus on textual features and their failure to address the evaluative aspects of literature. He argues that literary works cannot be analyzed independently of the institutional conventions that shape their interpretation (Olsen, p. 197). - The Role of Appreciation in Literary Aesthetics
Appreciation is identified as the proper focus of literary aesthetics. Olsen suggests that understanding a literary work requires engaging with the conventions and concepts that define its institutional role, positioning appreciation as a foundational aspect of interpretation (Olsen, p. 197). - Rejecting Reductionism in Literature
Olsen opposes the reduction of literature to textual or structural analysis. He highlights the non-reductive nature of the institutional perspective, which preserves the concept of literature as an art form and resists the reductive tendencies of modern critical theory (Olsen, p. 198). - Criticism of Alternative Theoretical Frameworks
Olsen critiques frameworks like New Criticism, which focused on text-centered analysis, for their dismissal of authorial intention and reliance on rigid principles. He also critiques metacriticism, which seeks to derive normative principles from critical practices, as inherently flawed and contradictory (Olsen, pp. 199-200). - Distinction Between Literary Aesthetics and Literary Theory
Olsen differentiates literary aesthetics from literary theory. While aesthetics addresses philosophical issues in literature, literary theory often imposes metaphysical assumptions and theoretical frameworks that claim privileged insight but may obscure literary appreciation (Olsen, p. 202). - Deconstruction as Post-Theoretical Critique
Deconstruction, as discussed by Olsen, represents a reaction to the rigidity of structuralist frameworks. While it challenges notions of unitary meaning and the concept of literature itself, Olsen argues that it ultimately perpetuates the structuralist metaphysical premise, reducing its relevance to aesthetic discussions (Olsen, pp. 205-206). - The Irreducibility of Literary Works
Olsen concludes that literary works are irreducible entities whose features are understood only in appreciation. Attempts to define literature through textual features or to develop general textual theories fail to account for the evaluative and institutional dimensions of literature (Olsen, p. 209). - Implications for Literary Theory and Value
Olsen emphasizes that “literature” is a value concept, central to its understanding. He asserts that literary theory’s inability to integrate value into its frameworks renders it both unnecessary and undesirable, underscoring the need for literary aesthetics to address value directly (Olsen, p. 211).
Key Quotation
“The proper object of discussion for the philosopher interested in literature is the act of appreciation itself: the conventions and concepts that define the mode of apprehension necessary to operate a concept of and to appreciate a literary work” (Olsen, p. 197). This statement encapsulates Olsen’s institutional perspective, highlighting the importance of appreciation over reductive textual analysis in understanding literature.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
| Term/Concept | Definition/Description | Significance |
| Literary Aesthetics | Philosophical inquiry into the appreciation, understanding, and evaluation of literary works. | Focuses on the conventions and institutional aspects of literature rather than systematic theoretical approaches. |
| Institutional Practice | A practice defined by constitutive rules that regulate and create the possibility for identifying objects and actions within it. | Central to understanding literature as an entity shaped by conventions rather than inherent textual properties. |
| Constitutive Rules | Rules that define and regulate practices, enabling the identification of institutional objects and actions. | Provide the framework for understanding literature as a practice and for identifying literary works. |
| Authorial Intention | The intentions and purposes of the author in creating a literary work. | An essential component of the institutional view, linking the literary work to the author-reader relationship. |
| Reader-Response | The interpretive role of the reader in engaging with a literary work. | Highlights the transactional nature of literary works within the institutional framework. |
| Appreciation | The process of understanding and valuing a literary work through its institutional conventions. | Identified as the primary focus of literary aesthetics, opposing reductive textual analysis. |
| Textual Features | The structural and relational elements within a text (e.g., grammar, texture). | Critiqued for their insufficiency in defining literary works outside institutional conventions. |
| Aesthetic Judgment | The evaluation of a literary work’s artistic and cultural value. | Integral to the appreciation of literature within the institutional framework. |
| Metacriticism | The philosophy of criticism aiming to abstract principles from critical practices. | Criticized for its normative goals and the logical flaws in deriving universal principles from specific practices. |
| New Criticism | A critical practice focused on close textual analysis while dismissing authorial intention. | Critiqued for elevating text-centered principles into rigid, untenable theoretical norms. |
| Systematic Theory of Literature | Theoretical frameworks that seek to generalize the understanding of literature through fixed rules or assumptions. | Criticized for making unwarranted assumptions that hinder the appreciation of literature as an institutional practice. |
| Deconstruction | A post-structuralist critique focusing on the contradictions and aporias within texts. | Positioned as a reaction to structuralism but critiqued for perpetuating its metaphysical premises. |
| Value Concept | The notion that literature is inherently tied to value judgments. | Central to Olsen’s argument, emphasizing the evaluative aspect of literature over reductive theoretical approaches. |
| Aesthetic Property | Qualities of a literary work recognized through appreciation and institutional conventions. | Underscores the non-reductive approach to defining literature. |
| Textual Theory | Theories focused on analyzing texts independent of their institutional or functional contexts. | Critiqued as reductive and insufficient for understanding literary works as institutional entities. |
| Function-Category | The intended purpose or category of a text within its institutional framework. | Determines the interpretive approach and features recognized in a work. |
| Epistemological Primacy | The claim that a particular theoretical framework offers the most fundamental understanding of literature. | Associated with literary theory’s reductive and authoritarian tendencies, critiqued by Olsen. |
Contribution of “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen to Literary Theory/Theories
- Critique of Systematic Literary Theories
Olsen argues that systematic literary theories often rely on unwarranted epistemological and logical assumptions. These theories fail to address the institutional and evaluative aspects of literature, making them obstacles rather than aids in understanding the phenomenon of literature (p. 196). - Institutional Perspective as an Alternative Framework
By positioning literature as an institutional practice, Olsen introduces a framework based on constitutive rules that define and regulate the production and appreciation of literary works. This institutional approach challenges atomistic views that focus solely on textual properties (pp. 196-197). - Reevaluation of Authorial Intention and Reader-Response
Olsen reasserts the importance of authorial intention and reader-response within the institutional framework. He critiques theories like New Criticism for dismissing these components and argues that the identity of a literary work is tied to the transaction between author and reader (p. 197). - Opposition to Reductionism in Literary Theory
The institutional perspective rejects the reduction of literature to textual or structural features. Olsen critiques frameworks like structuralism and textual theory for neglecting the evaluative and aesthetic aspects central to literature (p. 198). - Challenge to Metacriticism and Normative Theories
Olsen critiques metacriticism, particularly as practiced by New Criticism, for attempting to derive universal principles from specific critical practices. He argues this approach is flawed, as it conflates descriptive analysis with normative claims (pp. 199-200). - Insights into Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism
While acknowledging deconstruction’s critique of structuralism, Olsen critiques its reliance on structuralist metaphysical premises. He positions deconstruction as a reaction to structuralism that ultimately fails to provide a coherent theory of literature (pp. 205-206). - Emphasis on Literary Value as Central to Theory
Olsen highlights the concept of “literature” as inherently tied to value. He critiques literary theory for failing to integrate literary value into its frameworks, positioning literary aesthetics as better suited to address this evaluative dimension (p. 211). - Criticism of Theoretical Imperialism
Olsen critiques the authoritarian nature of literary theory, particularly its tendency to privilege certain theoretical frameworks as universal truths. He argues this creates ideological struggles and neglects the plurality of literary practices (p. 202). - Non-Reductive Definition of Aesthetic Properties
The institutional perspective provides a non-reductive approach to defining aesthetic properties, emphasizing appreciation and institutional conventions over textual or structural analysis (p. 197). - Impact on the Concept of Textual Theory
Olsen critiques textual theory for failing to account for the institutional context of texts, reducing them to features that are often irrelevant to their literary function. He positions this as a major limitation in deconstruction and similar approaches (pp. 209-210).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
| Literary Work | Critique Based on Olsen’s Theories | Key Reference from the Article |
| William Golding’s The Pyramid | Olsen critiques the reduction of the opening scene to mere textual features, instead contextualizing it within the institutional conventions of literature. He interprets Oliver’s descent to Evie as a metaphorical fall, emphasizing the evaluative role of appreciation (p. 208). | “The scene is recognized as a literary aesthetic feature of the novel through thematization and contextualization” (p. 208). |
| Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet | Olsen contrasts the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet with its parody in The Pyramid. He highlights how institutional conventions like allusion and metaphor shape the literary appreciation of both texts (p. 208). | “This scene parodies and inverts the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet… Romeo hails Juliet as ‘celestial’; Oliver looks down to Evie” (p. 208). |
| New Criticism on Hamlet | Olsen critiques New Criticism’s text-centric analysis of Hamlet for ignoring authorial intention and reader-response. He references Morris Weitz’s study, which demonstrates the multiplicity of critical principles applied to Hamlet (p. 199). | “Criticism of Hamlet, Weitz argued, rests on a varied menu of principles… a menu which cannot be reduced to one set of consistent principles” (p. 199). |
| Modern Post-Structuralist Readings | Post-structuralist readings are critiqued for their focus on textual contradictions and neglect of institutional and evaluative aspects. Olsen uses deconstruction’s analysis of rhetorical features to demonstrate this limitation (pp. 205-206). | “Deconstruction uses premises on which it rests to deny the presence of a unitary meaning… and, indeed, the validity of the concept of literature” (p. 206). |
Criticism Against “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
- Limited Applicability of the Institutional Perspective
Critics argue that Olsen’s reliance on the institutional framework may not adequately address literary works that exist outside traditional institutional conventions or are intended to challenge such structures. - Underestimation of Systematic Theories
While Olsen critiques systematic theories for their epistemological assumptions, some scholars contend that such frameworks provide valuable tools for consistent and comparative analysis of diverse texts. - Overemphasis on Appreciation
The centrality of appreciation in Olsen’s framework has been criticized for being subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations and a lack of methodological rigor. - Neglect of Socio-Political Dimensions
Critics note that Olsen’s institutional focus sidelines the socio-political and cultural dimensions often addressed by Marxist, feminist, or post-colonial theories, limiting the scope of his approach. - Dismissal of Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction
Olsen’s critique of deconstruction as reductive and reliant on structuralist premises has been contested, with some arguing that deconstruction offers unique insights into textual ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning. - Resistance to Interdisciplinary Approaches
By emphasizing the specificity of literary aesthetics, Olsen’s framework is seen as resistant to interdisciplinary methodologies that integrate literature with psychology, sociology, or cultural studies. - Risk of Overgeneralization in Institutional Rules
The notion of constitutive rules governing literature has been criticized for potentially oversimplifying the diverse practices and conventions across cultures and historical periods. - Potential for Elitism in the Concept of Value
Olsen’s focus on literary value has been interpreted as privileging certain canonical works, possibly marginalizing non-canonical or popular forms of literature. - Critique of the Rejection of Metacriticism
The dismissal of metacriticism has been challenged by those who believe it offers a vital way to analyze the coherence and validity of critical practices. - Lack of Engagement with Reader Diversity
The institutional perspective’s focus on authorial intention and literary conventions may underplay the diverse ways readers from different cultural or social backgrounds engage with literature.
Representative Quotations from “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “A philosophical discussion of basic problems of the understanding and appreciation of literary works is essential to literary aesthetics.” | This highlights the foundational focus of literary aesthetics on understanding and appreciation, distinguishing it from other theoretical frameworks. |
| “The literary work is therefore logically tied to the author/reader relationship and can only be understood as a transaction between these two institutional roles.” | Stresses the interdependence between the author’s intention and the reader’s response within the institutional framework of literature. |
| “An institution or a practice is defined by a set of constitutive rules, which not only regulate the practice but also create the possibility for identifying the objects or actions they regulate.” | Explains that institutions such as literature are governed by rules that enable recognition and categorization of literary works. |
| “Literary theory…is authoritarian in a way that theories of the natural sciences are not.” | Critiques the ideological and prescriptive nature of literary theory, contrasting it with the perceived objectivity and universality of scientific theories. |
| “The features of a literary work that define it as a literary work can be recognized only in appreciation of a work.” | Argues that the defining characteristics of literature emerge from the act of appreciation, rather than being inherent in the text itself. |
| “The institutional perspective offers the possibility of a definition of ‘aesthetic property’ which does not involve reference to independently identifiable textual features.” | Suggests that aesthetic properties are rooted in conventions and institutional contexts, not isolated textual analysis. |
| “Deconstruction…stays well within the structuralist semantic conceptual framework.” | Points out that deconstruction, despite claiming to diverge, remains rooted in structuralist assumptions about language and meaning. |
| “A text is always a text of some kind: a literary work, a philosophical treatise, or article…The concept of ‘text’ is logically secondary to the concept of ‘work.’” | Emphasizes the importance of categorizing a text as a specific type of work, as understanding depends on the context and intended function of the text. |
| “The literary work is an irreducible entity whose literary features are grasped only in appreciation.” | Highlights the idea that literary works cannot be fully understood through reductive theoretical approaches; they require contextual interpretation and appreciation. |
| “The attempt to substitute the concept of text or discourse for the concept of literature appears as a change of subject rather than as a development in literary aesthetics.” | Critiques the shift in focus from literature to text in contemporary theories, arguing that this undermines the aesthetic essence of literature. |
Suggested Readings: “Literary theory and literary aesthetics” by Stein Haugom Olsen
- Olsen, Stein Haugom. “Literary Theory and Literary Aesthetics.” (1987): 196-211.
- Showalter, Elaine. “Literary Criticism.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 435–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173056. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
- 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 15 Jan. 2025.
- 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 15 Jan. 2025.
- CAHILL, EDWARD, and EDWARD LARKIN. “Aesthetics, Feeling, and Form in Early American Literary Studies.” Early American Literature, vol. 51, no. 2, 2016, pp. 235–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43946747. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.