“Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

“Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin first appeared in College Literature in 1982, in the issue titled “The Newest Criticisms.” This essay, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, addresses the evolving tensions between literary theory and classroom pedagogy. Martin explores how the institutional frameworks of literary studies—classrooms, curriculums, and their inherent power dynamics—shape and are shaped by theoretical discourses. He critiques the separation of theory from practice, illustrating that literature as an institutional construct is deeply enmeshed in ideologies that resist theoretical innovation. Martin also highlights the role of cultural and pedagogical values in determining the relevance and application of literary theories, advocating for a critical reexamination of teaching practices to bridge the gap between theoretical abstraction and practical instruction. His essay remains a pivotal discussion on how literary theory’s institutional embeddedness influences its transformative potential in education and its alignment with broader societal and ethical implications.

Summary of “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

1. Literature, Theory, and the Classroom

• Wallace Martin highlights the tension between literature as a subject, theoretical frameworks, and classroom practices (Martin, 1982, p. 174).
• He critiques the “literature-theory-pedagogy” paradigm as overly simplistic, emphasizing institutional power dynamics over purely theoretical debates (Martin, 1982, p. 175).

2. Institutional Framework of Literary Studies

• Literary study is shaped by its institutional setting, including what articles are published and who gains career advancements (Martin, 1982, p. 175).
• Ideologies are inherently embedded in pedagogy and curriculum, resisting theoretical changes under the guise of “facts” (Martin, 1982, p. 176).

3. Shifting Focus from Literature to the Book

• Over time, the “book” has become the primary unit of literary study, displacing the broader concept of literature as epochs, movements, or cultural artifacts (Martin, 1982, p. 177).
• Martin critiques the reduction of literary study to individual works without broader context (Martin, 1982, p. 178).

4. Challenges in Incorporating Theory into Pedagogy

• The gap between theory and classroom practice arises because literary works are still treated as self-contained objects, incompatible with modern critical theories (Martin, 1982, p. 179).
• Attempts to simplify and incorporate fragments of theory often dilute its innovative potential (Martin, 1982, p. 181).

5. Interdisciplinary Integration

• Martin advocates for integrating literary study into broader humanities and social sciences to address its isolation (Martin, 1982, p. 182).
• Suggestions include revising curricula to emphasize interdisciplinary approaches and more rigorous general education requirements (Martin, 1982, p. 182).

6. Practical Suggestions for Classroom Application

• Courses on autobiography or narrative could utilize modern theories while incorporating classic literary traditions (Martin, 1982, p. 183).
• Teachers could encourage discussions on conflicting interpretations, engaging students in critical dialogue (Martin, 1982, p. 185).

7. Literary Theory and Popular Culture

• Structuralist approaches reveal overlaps between canonical literature and popular culture, such as detective fiction or song lyrics (Martin, 1982, p. 186).
• Recognizing students’ familiarity with popular culture’s semiotic systems could enrich classroom discussions (Martin, 1982, p. 186).

8. Modern Theories and Classroom Challenges

• Martin warns that adopting modern theories without addressing curricular structures may lead to superficial changes (Martin, 1982, p. 187).
• He proposes faculty-led discussion groups and interdisciplinary exchanges as catalysts for meaningful pedagogical reform (Martin, 1982, p. 188).

9. Future Directions for Literary Studies

• Theoretical innovation has plateaued, and Martin emphasizes building new frameworks based on the strengths of existing traditions (Martin, 1982, p. 189).
• Renewing ties with disciplines like history, sociology, and philosophy is essential for literary theory’s relevance and expansion (Martin, 1982, p. 190).

10. The Role of Collaborative Engagement

• Martin stresses the need for collaborative, localized efforts among faculty to bridge gaps between theory and practice (Martin, 1982, p. 191).
• He concludes that literary theory’s integration into classrooms depends on dynamic adaptation rather than rigid application (Martin, 1982, p. 191).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Context in the Article
Literature-Theory-Pedagogy Paradigm	A framework attempting to link literature as a subject, theoretical frameworks, and teaching practices.	Martin critiques this as overly simplistic and inadequate for addressing the institutional dynamics of literary studies (Martin, 1982, p. 175).
Institutional Ideology	The embedded ideologies in pedagogy, curriculum, and literary study practices, often presented as “facts” resistant to theoretical innovation.	Martin argues that these ideologies shape the character of literary study and constrain theoretical change (Martin, 1982, p. 176).
The Book as Object	The conceptual shift from literature as a cultural and historical entity to the individual “book” as the natural unit of study in literary scholarship.	This shift limits the scope of literary study, focusing on isolated works rather than broader cultural or theoretical implications (Martin, 1982, p. 177).
Reader-Literary Work Paradigm	A traditional framework focusing on the interaction between the reader and the literary text, often at the expense of broader institutional and social contexts.	Martin identifies this paradigm as limiting and reflective of past academic aesthetics and social contexts (Martin, 1982, p. 180).
Structuralism	A theoretical approach analyzing underlying structures in texts, including narrative frameworks and cultural conventions.	Martin discusses its application to popular culture and canonical literature, highlighting its potential for revealing deeper semiotic systems (Martin, 1982, p. 186).
Free Indirect Discourse	A narrative technique blending third-person narration with the inner thoughts of characters.	Mentioned as part of modern narrative theory that can provide rich analytical insights when applied in the classroom (Martin, 1982, p. 185).
Focalization	A concept from narrative theory differentiating between the “who sees” and “who speaks” in a text.	Highlighted as a critical development in understanding narrative perspectives, with practical applications in literary analysis (Martin, 1982, p. 185).
Heteroglossia	Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept describing the coexistence of multiple voices, ideologies, and languages within a single text.	Explored as an alternative to traditional monologic interpretations of literature, particularly in novels (Martin, 1982, p. 185).
Semiotics	The study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative systems, applicable to both literature and broader cultural texts.	Martin uses this to connect popular cultural artifacts like songs and TV shows with canonical literature, emphasizing shared structures (Martin, 1982, p. 186).
Logocentrism	A critique of Western thought’s privileging of speech or central meaning, often associated with Derrida and deconstruction.	Martin references this concept in discussing the philosophical underpinnings of modern literary theories (Martin, 1982, p. 183).
Interdisciplinarity	The integration of insights from multiple disciplines, such as history, sociology, and linguistics, into literary studies.	Proposed by Martin as essential for renewing literary theory’s relevance and expanding its methodological scope (Martin, 1982, p. 190).
Reader-Response Criticism	A theory emphasizing the role of the reader in creating meaning through their interaction with the text.	Martin critiques its limitations in classroom contexts, particularly when focusing solely on the reader’s subjectivity (Martin, 1982, p. 180).
Deconstruction	A critical approach questioning traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth in texts, often dismantling hierarchical oppositions.	Discussed in relation to its challenging of concepts like the “literary work” and its applicability to teaching (Martin, 1982, p. 181).

Contribution of “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of the Literature-Theory-Pedagogy Paradigm
  Martin critiques the simplistic alignment of literature, theory, and pedagogy, arguing that this framework inadequately addresses the institutional dynamics of literary studies (Martin, 1982, p. 175).
• Emphasis on Institutional Ideology
  He highlights how institutional contexts, including promotion and publication systems, significantly shape the development and application of literary theories, thus reframing theory as inherently political and ideological (Martin, 1982, p. 176).
• Redefinition of the Book as the Natural Unit of Study
  Martin traces the historical evolution of the book as the primary unit of literary analysis, emphasizing its limitations in addressing broader cultural and historical frameworks (Martin, 1982, p. 177).
• Integration of Reader-Response and Communication Theories
  The article critiques the focus on the reader’s subjectivity in reader-response criticism, advocating for broader frameworks such as communication theory to understand the interaction between text and reader (Martin, 1982, p. 180).
• Call for Interdisciplinarity
  Martin underscores the importance of incorporating insights from sociology, linguistics, history, and other disciplines to rejuvenate literary theory and address its fragmentation (Martin, 1982, p. 190).
• Analysis of Narrative Techniques
  By introducing and advocating for the teaching of concepts like free indirect discourse, focalization, and heteroglossia, Martin contributes to the practical applicability of narrative theory in literary studies (Martin, 1982, p. 185).
• Critique of Canonical and Popular Literature Dichotomy
  The article challenges the traditional divide between high and popular culture, suggesting that structuralist approaches reveal shared semiotic systems across both domains (Martin, 1982, p. 186).
• Reflection on the Evolution of Literary Theory
  Martin offers a historical perspective on the progression of literary theories, from structuralism to deconstruction, and critiques their integration into classroom pedagogy (Martin, 1982, pp. 182-183).
• Focus on the Practical Application of Theory in Pedagogy
  The article proposes concrete ways to integrate modern theories, such as structuralism and semiotics, into teaching practices while acknowledging institutional constraints (Martin, 1982, p. 182).
• Promotion of Theoretical Awareness in Curriculum Design
  Martin advocates for discussions on the curriculum structure to ensure the meaningful integration of contemporary theories and their relevance to broader cultural and social studies (Martin, 1982, p. 182).

Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

Literary Work	Theoretical Lens	Key Critique	Reference in Article
Wuthering Heights (Emily Brontë)	Deconstruction and Revisionist Interpretations	Deconstructionist critiques, such as those by J. Hillis Miller and Carol Jacobs, reveal layered meanings and challenge traditional narrative interpretations.	Martin references how revisionist theories alter our understanding of classics (Martin, 1982, p. 182).
Lucy Poems (William Wordsworth)	Speech-Act Theory and Hermeneutics	Various critiques explore how speech-act theory applies to Wordsworth’s poetic structure and how hermeneutic interpretations shift meanings.	Robert Meyers’ application of speech-act theory is highlighted (Martin, 1982, p. 183).
“The Figure in the Carpet” (Henry James)	Structuralism and Reader-Response Criticism	Structuralist approaches like Todorov’s and reader-response theories explore narrative ambiguity and its interpretive possibilities.	Martin notes how these perspectives reveal the complexity of narrative structure (Martin, 1982, p. 183).
Billy Budd (Herman Melville)	Deconstruction	Barbara Johnson’s deconstructionist reading highlights the interplay of justice and ambiguity in Melville’s narrative.	Johnson’s essay is cited as an example of nuanced textual analysis (Martin, 1982, p. 183).

Criticism Against “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

• Overemphasis on Institutional Dynamics
  Critics argue that Martin focuses heavily on institutional factors like promotions and publishing, which may detract from deeper theoretical discussions and practical classroom applications.
• Ambiguity in Resolving Theory-Pedagogy Divide
  While Martin critiques the gap between literary theory and pedagogy, he does not provide a clear, actionable framework to bridge this divide effectively, leaving practical educators with limited guidance.
• Limited Engagement with Contemporary Pedagogical Methods
  The article is critiqued for its insufficient exploration of how modern technologies and methodologies could facilitate the integration of literary theory into classrooms.
• Underestimation of the Pedagogical Value of Theories
  By suggesting that recent literary theories often lack practical classroom relevance, Martin arguably underestimates the adaptability and utility of these theories in innovative teaching strategies.
• Western-Centric Theoretical Focus
  The article’s discussion is predominantly centered on Western literary theories, neglecting global perspectives or theories from non-Western literary traditions.
• Generalized Depiction of “Traditional Pedagogy”
  Martin’s critique of traditional pedagogy as resistant to theoretical change is considered overly generalized and dismissive of educators who successfully incorporate contemporary theories.
• Neglect of Student-Centered Approaches
  The article focuses more on institutional and faculty dynamics, offering limited consideration of how literary theories can be tailored to diverse student needs and learning environments.
• Simplistic Treatment of Reader-Response Criticism
  Martin’s discussion of reader-response criticism as overly subjective fails to acknowledge its nuanced applications in understanding diverse reader interpretations.
• Minimal Attention to Interdisciplinary Challenges
  While advocating for interdisciplinarity, Martin provides little discussion of the challenges that arise when blending literary studies with other fields, such as differing methodologies or epistemologies.

Representative Quotations from “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Books are objects. . . . They wait. Are they aware that an act of man might suddenly transform their existence?”	This reflects the transformative potential of reading, emphasizing the active role of readers in bringing meaning to literary works (inspired by Poulet’s phenomenology).
“What is increasingly at stake in the quarrels of the critics is not theoretical differences, but…literary study as an institution.”	Martin critiques the institutional focus of literary theory debates, highlighting power dynamics and professional rewards over substantive theoretical engagement.
“Theoretical explanations cannot bridge the gap between the old professor whose voice brings the dead letter to life and the young man who appeals to the masses.”	The contrast illustrates the tension between traditional literary appreciation and modern, theory-driven pedagogies.
“Our theories should be chosen on the basis of the cultural and aesthetic values that we want to propagate.”	This statement underscores the ethical and cultural responsibilities inherent in adopting and teaching literary theories.
“Ideologies and theories do not exist at some remove from our discipline… They are already installed within literary study.”	Martin argues that theories and ideologies are intrinsic to literary studies and influence every aspect, from pedagogy to curriculum.
“The book, classroom, and curriculum of today are not unchanging facts; they are constructs inhabited by theories and ideologies.”	Martin deconstructs the notion of neutrality in literary education, framing it as shaped by specific theoretical and ideological frameworks.
“The literary work itself serves as the organizing object of literary study and any number of theoretical principles are employed for its elucidation.”	This emphasizes the multiplicity of approaches to interpreting literature, reflecting the theoretical diversity in modern criticism.
“Theory and pedagogy cannot dance cheek to cheek so long as both willfully insist on leading.”	This metaphor captures the persistent disconnect between theoretical frameworks and classroom practices, with each struggling for dominance.
“Literature and life are different realizations of the same textual matrix, one that does not exist apart from them.”	This challenges traditional distinctions between literature and reality, viewing them as interconnected expressions of cultural and semiotic systems.
“There cannot be any categorical separation of traditional and new theories… It works to the detriment of both.”	Martin calls for an integration of traditional and modern theoretical approaches, arguing that polarization undermines the richness of literary study.

Suggested Readings: “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom” by Wallace Martin

1. Martin, Wallace. “Literary Theory in/vs. the Classroom.” College Literature, vol. 9, no. 3, 1982, pp. 174–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111480. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
2. Nancy Easterlin. “From Theory and Criticism to Practice: Cognition in the Classroom.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1–5. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.16.1.0001. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.
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 19 Nov. 2024.
4. INCE, KATE. “Theory in the Classroom.” Critical Survey, vol. 4, no. 3, 1992, pp. 262–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555670. Accessed 19 Nov. 2024.