“Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

“Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey first appeared in 1982 in New Literary History as part of a special issue on the challenges within literary theory. In this article, Belsey addresses the critical problem of meaning, which she argues is a central concern in literary criticism. By examining different theoretical frameworks—empiricism, formalism, and poststructuralism—Belsey explores how each perspective conceptualizes meaning in varied, often conflicting ways. She posits that these disputes highlight the theoretical nature of interpretation itself, where meaning is not merely found within a text but is actively constructed through critical frameworks influenced by language, ideology, and cultural contexts. The work gained popularity due to its incisive critique of traditional literary methods and its accessible analysis of complex theoretical issues. Belsey’s arguments resonated widely, encouraging critics to rethink the assumptions underlying literary interpretation, making this work foundational in debates about objectivity, the role of the critic, and the very nature of meaning in literature.

Summary of “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

• Central Problem of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning
  Catherine Belsey begins by framing the central issue of literary theory as the “problem of meaning,” noting that this question of meaning is crucial to literary criticism across different approaches (Belsey, 1982, p. 175). Meaning is contested not only in its definition but also in its implications for how critics interpret texts. Belsey points out that literary theory’s divisions—between empiricism, formalism, and poststructuralism—reflect fundamentally different views on how meaning is constructed and understood (p. 176).
• Challenges of Neutrality in Literary Criticism
  Belsey argues that there is no “neutral place” from which to conduct literary criticism without engaging with theoretical assumptions about meaning (p. 176). Ignoring theoretical questions leads to a reliance on “unexamined assumptions,” an issue she sees as pervasive and problematic in the field. She critiques the notion that literary competence or appreciation can provide a non-theoretical foundation for criticism, as advocated by some critics, such as Stein Haugom Olsen (p. 177).
• Plurality of Textual Meaning
  Addressing the debate on textual interpretation, Belsey highlights Jeffrey Stout’s argument that multiple interpretations of a text—such as Marxist, Freudian, or theological readings—do not necessarily compete but can coexist by focusing on different aspects (p. 177). She emphasizes that recognizing this plurality enriches criticism by acknowledging that there is no single, fixed meaning in a text.
• Theoretical Critiques of Objective Meaning
  Belsey critiques attempts to ascribe fixed or “obvious” meanings to literary works. She notes the complexity of meaning within texts, where even seemingly clear sentences can yield diverse interpretations. She uses examples from works by Shakespeare and Yeats to illustrate that meanings often require contextualization and are subject to cultural and historical influences (p. 178).
• Role of Language in Constructing Meaning
  Drawing on Saussure’s model of the sign, Belsey underscores that language itself is a crucial site of meaning construction. In her view, language signifies through relational and cultural processes, aligning with poststructuralist theories that view meaning as fluid and context-dependent (p. 180). By connecting this view to Derrida’s concept of différance, Belsey suggests that the meanings of words are never fully fixed, always carrying multiple, historically situated interpretations (p. 181).
• Influence of Power in Interpretation
  Belsey introduces Michel Foucault’s ideas to emphasize that interpretations of texts are not neutral but often reflect power dynamics. According to Foucault, knowledge and meaning are produced within institutions that enforce specific interpretations and practices, affecting how literary texts are read and understood (p. 181). For Belsey, Foucault offers a framework that allows literary criticism to pursue a transformative role by analyzing how power shapes meaning.
• Implications for Literary Criticism
  Belsey concludes by discussing the implications of adopting a Foucauldian approach, which challenges the objectivity of criticism. She suggests that such an approach would expand the scope of criticism beyond traditional aesthetic evaluations, focusing instead on texts’ capacity to reveal the fluidity of meanings and their sociopolitical contexts. This perspective, Belsey argues, would reframe criticism as a practice not of finding fixed meanings but of understanding how meanings and values are constructed and contested (p. 182).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

Concept/Term	Explanation
Meaning	Central issue in literary theory; Belsey explores how meaning is constructed through different theoretical frameworks, with no fixed or objective interpretation.
Empiricism	Approach focusing on observable facts, often associated with intuitive interpretation of texts, critiqued by Belsey for avoiding deeper theoretical questioning.
Formalism	A method focusing on the form and structure of texts, treating meaning as inherent in literary form itself, independent of historical or social contexts.
Poststructuralism	A critical framework that views meaning as unstable and context-dependent, questioning the fixed interpretations of traditional criticism.
Plurality of Meaning	Concept that texts do not have a single, fixed meaning but instead support multiple interpretations based on the reader’s theoretical perspective.
Signifier and Signified	Saussurean terms for the components of linguistic signs; “signifier” is the form of the word, while “signified” is its meaning, which is contextually constructed.
Différance	Derridean concept suggesting that meaning is deferred and relational, never fully present or fixed, making interpretation a continuous process.
Textuality	Refers to the qualities and structures within a text that shape how it is interpreted, often seen in poststructuralist theory as inherently unstable.
Power and Knowledge	Foucault’s idea that knowledge production, including literary interpretation, is intertwined with power dynamics within societal institutions.
Ideology	Belsey’s exploration of how meanings within texts reflect and challenge ideological structures, showing that interpretation is influenced by cultural beliefs.
Reader-Response Theory	Theory that considers readers’ role in creating meaning, suggesting that interpretations are shaped by individual and cultural perspectives.
Deconstruction	Derrida’s approach to examining texts by uncovering inherent contradictions, emphasizing the multiplicity and instability of meaning.
Structuralism	Framework focusing on underlying structures (linguistic or social) that shape meaning, which poststructuralism critiques for assuming stable meanings.
Critique of Objectivity	Belsey challenges the idea that criticism can be objective or neutral, arguing instead that interpretations are shaped by theoretical assumptions.
Interpretive Frameworks	Theories or perspectives (e.g., Marxist, Freudian) that influence how critics understand and derive meaning from texts.
Hypostasized Meaning	Concept of meaning as an assumed “essence” that can exist outside language, critiqued by Belsey for implying fixed truths without theoretical grounding.

Contribution of “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Poststructuralism

• Contribution: Belsey advances poststructuralist thought by arguing that meaning in texts is not fixed or inherent but rather constructed through interpretive practices. She critiques the idea of a singular, stable meaning, supporting Derrida’s concept of différance, which posits that meaning is always deferred and relational (Belsey, 1982, p. 181).
• Reference: Belsey highlights that poststructuralism offers a productive model for understanding texts, as meaning is seen as fluid, “always in process, always contextually deferred” (p. 180).

2. Structuralism and Saussurean Linguistics

• Contribution: Using Saussure’s model of the sign (signifier and signified), Belsey builds on structuralist principles to emphasize that meaning is created through language itself, not by external reference or authorial intent. She critiques interpretations that assume a “real presence” of meaning within a text, instead positioning language as the core of meaning construction (p. 180).
• Reference: Belsey draws directly from Saussure’s ideas, stating, “language itself which signifies,” and hence, it is the “location of meaning” rather than any inherent essence (p. 180).

3. Reader-Response Theory

• Contribution: Belsey contributes to reader-response theory by addressing the role of readers in creating meaning. She argues that each reader brings their own interpretive framework, leading to plural and varied meanings based on personal, cultural, or theoretical perspectives (p. 177). This plurality underscores that meaning arises in the interaction between text and reader.
• Reference: Belsey refers to the multiple interpretations that readers may apply, noting that “readings are not necessarily in competition with each other…there is no single meaning” (p. 177).

4. Ideological Criticism and Cultural Studies

• Contribution: Belsey’s examination of meaning also contributes to ideological criticism by challenging the neutrality of interpretations. She suggests that texts reflect ideological positions and power structures, as in Foucault’s assertion that knowledge, including literary interpretation, is inherently linked to power (p. 181). This approach has influenced cultural studies by connecting literary meaning with sociopolitical and institutional contexts.
• Reference: She asserts that meaning cannot be separated from its ideological implications, stating that the problem of meaning is “centrally a debate about meaning” and its ideological influences (p. 175).

5. Deconstruction

• Contribution: Belsey’s critique of objective meaning is aligned with Derridean deconstruction, questioning stable interpretations and examining texts for internal contradictions. By rejecting the notion of a single, inherent meaning, she encourages a deconstructive reading that exposes multiple meanings and the limits of language (p. 181).
• Reference: She suggests that meaning is “never single, never fixed,” emphasizing deconstruction’s role in destabilizing absolute interpretations (p. 182).

6. Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

• Contribution: Belsey draws from Michel Foucault’s ideas on discourse to argue that literary criticism is itself a discourse shaped by power. By treating meaning as a product of institutional forces, she links literary theory to Foucault’s concept of knowledge as power, proposing a critical approach that investigates how texts function within larger ideological systems (p. 181).
• Reference: She states that meaning in texts is “produced in institutions” and is “a network of signifieds” that often serves power, supporting a Foucauldian analysis of literary texts as products of cultural power dynamics (p. 181).

7. Empiricism Critique

• Contribution: Belsey critiques empiricist approaches that claim to objectively evaluate texts without theoretical bias, which she argues are based on “unexamined assumptions.” By revealing that all interpretations are theoretically and ideologically influenced, Belsey challenges empiricism’s claims of objectivity and promotes a more self-aware, theoretically grounded criticism (p. 176).
• Reference: Belsey warns against “falling back on unexamined assumptions” that empiricist criticism relies on, suggesting that true neutrality in interpretation is impossible (p. 176).

8. Formalism Critique

• Contribution: By questioning the inherent meaning in a text’s form or structure, Belsey challenges formalism’s emphasis on the text as an isolated entity. Instead, she argues that form and structure gain meaning only through the interpretive frameworks applied by readers, which vary according to cultural and ideological contexts (p. 176).
• Reference: She asserts that interpretations should not be “intuitive, explicitly antitheoretical,” critiquing formalist ideas that elevate the text’s form above cultural context (p. 177).

Examples of Critiques Through “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

Literary Work	Application of Belsey’s Theory	Example of Critique
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Plurality of Meaning & Reader Interpretation Belsey’s emphasis on plural readings suggests that Hamlet allows for multiple interpretations depending on readers’ theoretical lenses.	A Marxist reading may interpret Hamlet’s hesitation as reflecting class struggles and power dynamics, while a Freudian analysis might focus on psychological conflicts, showing that meaning shifts based on interpretive frameworks.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen	Ideology and Cultural Context Belsey’s framework highlights how texts reflect and challenge cultural ideologies. Pride and Prejudice offers critiques of class and gender roles.	By focusing on Elizabeth Bennet’s rejection of societal expectations, a feminist reading aligns with Belsey’s view on ideological critique, examining how meaning shifts with changing perceptions of gender and power.
The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot	Instability of Meaning & Deconstruction Belsey’s support for Derrida’s différance aligns with the fragmented nature of Eliot’s poem, where meaning is deferred and elusive.	The Waste Land can be critiqued as resisting a single interpretation; its fragmented structure and intertextuality invite a poststructuralist reading, which sees meaning as always deferred, aligning with Belsey’s ideas on textual instability.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Power Dynamics & Foucauldian Discourse Belsey’s Foucauldian view suggests analyzing how Morrison’s novel constructs identity and power within cultural memory and historical trauma.	A critique using Belsey’s approach would explore how Beloved reveals the power structures surrounding race and memory, examining how the text constructs meanings around identity, survival, and history through competing discourses.

Criticism Against “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

• Overemphasis on Theoretical Relativism
  Some critics argue that Belsey’s focus on the instability and plurality of meaning undermines the possibility of definitive interpretation, potentially rendering any textual analysis as equally valid or invalid, which could dilute critical rigor.
• Limited Practical Application
  Belsey’s theoretical insights, while intellectually stimulating, are sometimes criticized for being challenging to apply practically in literary analysis, leaving critics without clear methodologies for analyzing specific texts.
• Neglect of Authorial Intent
  Belsey’s disregard for authorial intent has been criticized as limiting; some argue that understanding an author’s purpose can enhance rather than constrain the interpretation, offering insights into cultural and historical contexts.
• Dismissal of Empirical Criticism
  Belsey’s critique of empiricism as overly simplistic and reliant on “unexamined assumptions” has been contested by critics who believe that empirical methods can offer valuable insights and that objectivity, while complex, is not entirely unattainable.
• Ideological Bias in Criticism
  Critics note that Belsey’s emphasis on ideology and power structures risks politicizing literary criticism excessively, potentially sidelining aesthetic and literary qualities of the text in favor of ideological readings.
• Dependency on Poststructuralist Theories
  Belsey’s reliance on poststructuralist thinkers like Derrida and Foucault has been critiqued for potentially limiting her theoretical framework. Critics argue that this dependency could close off alternative interpretative frameworks, especially those outside postmodernist thought.
• Potential for Reader Subjectivity Overload
  By endorsing the plurality of reader responses, Belsey’s approach may be seen as enabling overly subjective readings, where the reader’s biases dominate the text’s meaning, raising concerns about relativism in literary criticism.

Representative Quotations from “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The central problem of literary theory is the problem of meaning.”	Belsey identifies meaning as the primary concern in literary theory, emphasizing that understanding how meaning operates in literature is foundational to all other critical analysis.
“To ignore the theoretical question is simply to fall back on unexamined assumptions.”	This statement highlights the necessity of engaging with theoretical questions about meaning rather than relying on intuitive or simplistic understandings.
“Meaning is conventionally hypostasized, a real presence, never quite defined, understood as other than language itself, but the source, paradoxically, from which language derives its substance, its life.”	Belsey critiques the conventional notion of meaning as something abstract and separate from language, urging that meaning and language are inseparable and contextually grounded.
“The question ‘What is the meaning of a text?’ might elicit answers of various kinds, in terms of the author’s intention, the external relation of the text, or the discourse the reader brings to bear on the text in the process of producing a reading.”	This highlights the multiplicity of interpretations that can emerge from a text, emphasizing that meaning is not fixed but contingent on different interpretative frameworks.
“Texts are (or can be) interesting: ‘The more interesting the text, the more readings we shall be able to give.'”	Belsey suggests that the complexity and richness of a text lead to multiple readings, and this plurality is part of what makes texts compelling in literary criticism.
“The specter of a pure, conceptual intelligibility, a ‘truth in the soul,’ as Derrida puts it, of which words are only an expression, is at the heart of our problems.”	Here, Belsey engages with Derrida’s view on the instability of meaning, where meaning is always deferred and cannot be pinned down to a singular, unchanging concept.
“The more interesting the text, the more readings we shall be able to give.”	This underlines the idea that engaging with a text can lead to varied interpretations, and texts with rich layers of meaning allow for a multiplicity of critical perspectives.
“For Foucault the signified is inscribed in knowledges which are repositories simultaneously of meaning and power.”	Belsey integrates Foucault’s theory, emphasizing how meaning is not only linguistic but also shaped by power structures and historical context, affecting how knowledge is produced and interpreted.
“A knowledge (or a discourse) is a network of signifieds, and these meanings may conflict with those delimited by the same signifiers in other knowledges.”	This refers to the concept that meaning is fluid and context-dependent, and the same words or ideas can hold different meanings in different discourses or knowledge systems.
“The alternative I am proposing is not a return to ‘objective criticism’ but a move beyond the empiricist framework of ideas, which gives us a world consisting only of subjects and objects, into a problematic where meaning is not spectral and singular but substantial and plural.”	Belsey critiques both traditional objective criticism and the overly subjective framework of literary theory, proposing a more nuanced view of meaning as plural and dynamic, produced in the interplay of power and language.

Suggested Readings: “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning” by Catherine Belsey

1. Belsey, Catherine. “Problems of Literary Theory: The Problem of Meaning.” New Literary History, vol. 14, no. 1, 1982, pp. 175–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468964. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
2. Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History, vol. 2, no. 1, 1970, pp. 7–37. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468585. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
3. Rowlett, John L., editor. “Reviewing Criticism: Literary Theory.” Genre Theory and Historical Change: Theoretical Essays of Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia Press, 2017, pp. 122–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xtv6.12. Accessed 13 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 13 Nov. 2024.