“The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis first appeared in the 1974 collection The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical Analysis.
Introduction: “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
“The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis first appeared in the 1974 collection The Theory of Literary Criticism: A Logical Analysis. This seminal essay significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about the importance of context in literary theory, challenging prevailing assumptions and offering a rigorous philosophical framework for understanding the relationship between a text and its historical, social, and cultural milieu.
Summary of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
The Importance of Context in Understanding Literature
Ellis emphasizes that understanding a literary text necessitates considering its relevant context, which traditionally involves “recreating the original circumstances of its composition” including the historical, biographical, and social context.
Critique of Historical and Biographical Contexts
While it is common to assume that historical and biographical contexts enhance the understanding of a text, Ellis challenges this by stating that “literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin.” He argues that reverting a text to its original context undermines its status as literature.
The Unique Status of Literary Texts
According to Ellis, literary texts transcend their original contexts and become something more significant within the broader cultural discourse. He argues that treating them merely as products of their origin “annihilates exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”
The Process of a Text Becoming Literature
Ellis describes the transformation of a text into literature as a three-stage process: its creation by the author, its presentation as literature, and its acceptance by society as literature. He asserts that returning to the original context reverses this process and diminishes the text’s literary value.
Criticism of Intentionalism
The essay critiques the intentionalist approach, which seeks to understand a text based on the author’s intent. Ellis argues that this method is flawed because “the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended” can only be reliably evidenced by the text itself, not by external biographical information.
The Fallacy of Adding Historical Specificity
Ellis argues that adding historical or biographical specificity to a text diminishes its general literary impact, stating that “what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.” He contends that knowing more about the historical details of a text’s origin often results in understanding less about its literary significance.
The Problem with Studying the Creative Process
He further critiques the value of studying the creative process, suggesting that it contributes nothing to understanding the text’s meaning. Instead, he argues, “only an understanding of the meaning of the text makes the study of its genesis possible and intelligible.”
Final Argument Against Intentionalism
Ellis concludes that even if we accept the premise that the meaning of a text is what the author intended, the “only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem” itself. Thus, relying on any other evidence over the text itself is misguided.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Term/Concept
Definition
Relevant Context
The historical, social, and cultural background of a literary work.
Intentional Fallacy
The belief that an author’s intended meaning is the sole or primary determinant of a literary work’s interpretation.
Literary Text
A piece of language that is treated independently of its original context, focusing on its aesthetic and linguistic qualities.
Genesis of a Work
The process of a literary work’s creation and development.
Selective Operation
The author’s choices in including or excluding details in a literary work.
Contribution of “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis to Literary Theory/Theories
Ellis questions the traditional emphasis on historical, biographical, and social contexts in literary interpretation, arguing that these contexts can often obscure rather than clarify a text’s meaning. This critique contributes to the ongoing debate in literary theory regarding the role of context in interpretation.
By arguing against the intentional fallacy, Ellis reinforces the idea that a literary work should be understood independently of the author’s intentions. This perspective aligns with and strengthens the arguments of New Criticism, which advocates for a close reading of the text itself rather than external factors.
Reinforcement of Textual Autonomy
Ellis’s assertion that literary texts outgrow their original contexts and acquire a broader cultural significance contributes to the theory of textual autonomy. This idea suggests that a text should be interpreted based on its internal elements rather than external influences, reinforcing the concept that literature operates independently of its origins.
Redefinition of Literary Status
Ellis offers a redefinition of what makes a text literary by arguing that its transformation from its original context to its acceptance by society is what grants it literary status. This contributes to literary theory by proposing that the literary value of a text is determined by its ability to transcend its initial circumstances.
Criticism of Biographical Approaches
Ellis critiques the biographical approach to literary criticism, arguing that it can distort the understanding of a text by reintroducing details that the author deliberately excluded. This contribution challenges the validity of biographical criticism and supports the notion that the text itself is the most reliable source for interpretation.
Emphasis on Generality over Specificity
By arguing that adding historical or biographical specificity can reduce a text’s literary impact, Ellis contributes to the theoretical discussion on the importance of maintaining the generality and universality of literary texts. This idea aligns with theories that prioritize the universal themes and experiences conveyed by literature.
Expansion of the Debate on Literary Interpretation
Ellis’s essay expands the debate on literary interpretation by introducing the idea that understanding a text’s genesis (its creation process) offers little value to interpreting its meaning. This perspective adds depth to discussions on the relevance of authorial background in literary theory.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Literary Work
Original Context
Critique Through Ellis’ Lens
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Racial tensions in the American South during the 1930s
While understanding the historical context of racism in the American South can illuminate the struggles faced by characters like Scout Finch, Ellis would argue that focusing solely on this context can diminish the novel’s broader exploration of human empathy, prejudice, and the importance of moral courage.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The emergence of Romanticism and scientific advancements in the early 19th century
While knowledge of Romanticism and scientific discovery during Shelley’s time can provide interesting background, Ellis would argue that getting caught up in these details risks overshadowing the timeless themes of Frankenstein, such as the dangers of unchecked ambition, the nature of responsibility, and the consequences of playing God.
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
The history and politics of Colombia, including the rise of magical realism as a literary genre
While appreciating the influence of Colombian history and magical realism on One Hundred Years of Solitude can be enriching, Ellis would argue that prioritizing this context can distract from the novel’s universal themes of love, loss, family, and the cyclical nature of history.
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
The rise of totalitarian regimes and anxieties of modern life in early 20th-century Europe
While understanding the historical context of Kafka’s time can provide insight into the nightmarish world of The Metamorphosis, Ellis would argue that dwelling on this context can take away from the story’s power to explore alienation, isolation, and the dehumanizing effects of societal expectations.
Criticism Against “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Oversimplification of Contextual Relevance
Critics may argue that Ellis oversimplifies the role of context by suggesting that historical and biographical contexts are largely irrelevant to understanding literary texts. This view could be seen as dismissive of the valuable insights that contextual knowledge can provide in interpreting literature, particularly in understanding complex or culturally embedded works.
Neglect of Cultural and Social Influences
By downplaying the significance of the original context, Ellis’s argument could be criticized for neglecting the influence of cultural and social factors on a text’s meaning. Critics might argue that these factors are essential for a comprehensive understanding of literature, especially when considering texts that are deeply rooted in specific cultural or historical settings.
Potential Limitation of Interpretive Flexibility
Some may contend that Ellis’s emphasis on textual autonomy limits interpretive flexibility by discouraging the exploration of diverse contexts that could enrich the understanding of a text. This could be seen as restricting the range of possible interpretations and reducing the depth of literary analysis.
Undermining the Role of Authorial Intent
Ellis’s rejection of intentionalism might be seen as overly dismissive of the author’s role in shaping a text’s meaning. Critics could argue that understanding an author’s intent, even if not definitive, can offer valuable perspectives and should not be entirely disregarded in literary criticism.
Risk of Ignoring Historical and Political Contexts
The argument against considering a text’s original context could be criticized for potentially ignoring important historical and political dimensions that influence both the creation and reception of a work. In some cases, understanding these contexts may be crucial for a full appreciation of the text’s significance and impact.
Overemphasis on Textual Autonomy
Critics might challenge Ellis’s strong emphasis on textual autonomy by arguing that it creates an artificial separation between a text and its context. This approach could be seen as neglecting the interconnectedness of literature with the broader social, political, and historical environments in which it is produced and consumed.
Reduction of Literature’s Educational Value
By minimizing the importance of context, Ellis’s approach could be criticized for reducing the educational value of literature. Understanding the context in which a work was created can provide important lessons about history, society, and human experience, which might be overlooked if the focus is solely on the text itself.
Potential Elitism in Interpretation
The emphasis on textual analysis over contextual understanding might be seen as promoting an elitist approach to literary criticism, accessible primarily to those with advanced skills in close reading, while potentially alienating readers who find value in understanding the historical and cultural backgrounds of texts.
Suggested Readings: “The Relevant Context of a Literary Text” by John M. Ellis
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text, translated by Stephen Heath, Hill and Wang, 1977, pp. 142-148.
“Literary texts are not to be taken as part of the contexts of their origin; and to take them in this way is to annihilate exactly the thing that makes them literary texts.”
Ellis argues that interpreting a literary text solely through its original context reduces its literary value and transforms it into something other than literature.
“The process of a text becoming a literary text involves three stages: its originating in the context of its creator, its then being offered for use as literature, and its finally being accepted as such.”
This quote outlines Ellis’s view that a text’s transformation into literature is a process that moves beyond its initial creation and involves societal acceptance and recognition.
“But that specificity is a loss, not a gain; what is taken away is the level of generality possessed by the text as a literary text.”
Ellis emphasizes that adding historical specificity to a text diminishes its broader, more universal literary significance, which is essential to its impact as literature.
“The study of the creative process, in the sense of the development of a work in the hands of its author, contributes nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the meaning of the text.”
Ellis critiques the focus on the author’s creative process, arguing that it does not enhance the understanding of the text’s meaning, which should be derived from the text itself.
“Even if we grant the intentionalist thesis that the meaning of the poem is what the poet intended, it would still be true that the only reliable evidence of that intent is the poem.”
Ellis contends that the text itself is the most reliable source of understanding its meaning, even if one accepts the premise that the author’s intention is central to that understanding.
“The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks was first published in 1947 as part of the influential collection The Kenyon Review.
Introduction: “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
“The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks was first published in 1947 as part of the influential collection The Kenyon Review. This essay is a cornerstone of New Criticism, a literary movement that emphasized close reading and formal analysis of a text, independent of authorial intent or historical context. Brooks’s exploration of the formalist approach in this essay has had a profound impact on literary criticism and continues to be widely studied and debated.
Summary of “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
Role of Literary Criticism:
Literary criticism is primarily concerned with “a description and an evaluation of its object,” focusing on the literary work itself. The main issue for critics is “the problem of unity”—how the various parts of a work contribute to creating or failing to create a cohesive whole. This perspective emphasizes that criticism should not just describe but also evaluate the effectiveness of this unity in the literary piece.
Form and Content Unity:
In literature, “form and content cannot be separated,” as “form is meaning.” This principle highlights the idea that the structure of a work is not just a vessel for content but is integral to the work’s overall meaning. A successful literary work achieves a seamless fusion of form and content, making them indistinguishable from one another.
Focus on the Work Itself:
The formalist critic is “concerned primarily with the work itself,” rather than the author’s life, intentions, or the reactions of various readers. The critic’s task is to analyze the structure and unity of the literary work, avoiding distractions from external factors such as “biography and psychology” or “the history of taste.” This focus allows for a more precise and objective analysis of the literary piece.
The formalist critic assumes that “the relevant part of the author’s intention is what he got actually into his work.” This means that the critic does not prioritize what the author consciously tried to achieve or what the author recalls about the writing process. Additionally, the critic uses the concept of an “ideal reader” to maintain a central point of reference, focusing on the “structure of the poem or novel” rather than the spectrum of potential interpretations by various readers.
Criticism of Popular Value Tests:
Formalist criticism rejects the idea that the value of a work can be determined by the author’s “sincerity” or “the intensity of the author’s feelings as he composed it.” For example, Ernest Hemingway’s claim that his last novel was his best is dismissed as “pathetically inept” in determining the novel’s actual value. Similarly, subjective reactions, such as A. E. Housman’s “bristling of his beard at the reading of a good poem,” are considered irrelevant unless they come from a reader whose critical judgment is already trusted.
Criticism’s Modest Role:
The role of the critic is described as “modest,” focusing on assessing whether a literary work “has succeeded or failed.” Critics offer only “negative help” to practicing artists, as literature is “not written by formula,” and thus, the critic has no formula to offer. The critic’s function is not to prescribe but to provide feedback that might inform, but not dictate, artistic creation.
Distinction Between Literary Criticism and Other Analyses:
Literary criticism is distinct from other types of analysis, such as reducing a work “to its causes” or estimating “its effects.” While acknowledging that a literary work “mirrors the past” and “may influence the future,” formalist criticism focuses on the work itself rather than its external influences or consequences. Good literature is considered “more than effective rhetoric applied to true ideas,” and thus, literary criticism must go beyond simply evaluating rhetoric or philosophical content.
Misunderstandings and Objections:
Formalist criticism often faces the criticism that it “cuts loose” the work from its author and audience, making the analysis seem “bloodless and hollow.” However, the formalist critic argues that distinctions between the work and its external context are “necessary and useful and indeed inevitable” for effective criticism. By focusing on the “structure of the thing composed,” formalist critics maintain that they are not denying the humanity of the author or the reader but are instead striving for a more precise and objective understanding of the literary work itself.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
A critical approach that focuses on the text itself, emphasizing its structure, language, and literary devices, rather than external factors like authorial intent or historical context.
Close Reading
A detailed analysis of a text to uncover its meaning and significance.
Unity
The harmonious integration of various elements within a literary work to create a cohesive whole.
Form and Content
The inseparable relationship between the structure of a literary work and its meaning.
Figurative language used to create deeper layers of meaning in a text.
Concrete and Particular
A focus on specific details and images to convey universal ideas.
Moral Problem
The central ethical or philosophical issue explored in a literary work.
Ideal Reader
A hypothetical reader who can fully appreciate the complexities and nuances of a text.
Sincerity
The authenticity of an author’s emotions and intentions, often mistakenly used as a measure of literary value.
Document
A literary work as a historical record, reflecting the time and culture in which it was created.
Contribution of “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks to Literary Theory/Theories
Pioneering Close Reading: Brooks significantly advanced the critical method of close reading, emphasizing the intrinsic analysis of a text.
Form as the Core of Meaning: His insistence on the inseparability of form and content redefined the understanding of literary meaning.
Autonomy of the Literary Work: Brooks contributed to establishing the literary text as an independent entity, distinct from its author and reader.
Rejection of Extrinsic Criticism: He challenged the dominance of biographical, historical, and sociological approaches, advocating for a focus on the text itself.
Foundational Role in New Criticism: Brooks’ essay was instrumental in shaping the New Critical movement, a significant force in twentieth-century literary criticism.
Enduring Influence: His ideas continue to be a cornerstone of literary analysis, informing contemporary critical discourse.
Clarification of Critical Boundaries: Brooks delineated the scope of literary criticism, distinguishing it from other modes of inquiry.
Redefining the Critic’s Role: His conception of the critic as an objective analyst has had a lasting impact on critical practice.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
Literary Work
Formalist Critique
“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare
Focus on the unity of the play, where the internal conflict of Hamlet is reflected in the structure. The formalist critic would examine how soliloquies, plot developments, and symbols like Yorick’s skull contribute to the overarching theme of death and indecision. The critic would avoid speculation on Shakespeare’s personal life or the historical context of Elizabethan England.
“Moby-Dick” by Herman Melville
A formalist critique would analyze the novel’s intricate structure, particularly the use of symbolism and recurring motifs (such as the white whale) to explore themes of obsession, fate, and the human condition. The formalist critic would focus on how these elements create a cohesive narrative, rather than Melville’s intentions or readers’ interpretations.
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot
Emphasis would be placed on the poem’s fragmented form and how its structure reflects the theme of cultural disintegration. The use of literary allusions, shifting voices, and symbolism would be analyzed as part of the poem’s unity. The formalist critic would avoid delving into Eliot’s personal experiences or the poem’s reception history.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen
The formalist approach would focus on the novel’s use of irony, dialogue, and character development to build its thematic unity around issues of class, marriage, and morality. The critic would examine how Austen’s precise use of language and narrative techniques contribute to the novel’s form, without exploring Austen’s biography or societal impacts.
Criticism Against “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
Neglect of Historical and Social Context: Critics argue that formalism’s emphasis on the text in isolation ignores the crucial influence of historical and social factors on literary production and interpretation.
Authorial Intent Dismissed: Formalism’s disregard for authorial intent is seen as limiting, as understanding the author’s purpose can enrich interpretation.
Reader Response Overlooked: By focusing solely on the text, formalism fails to account for the diverse and subjective experiences of readers.
Limited Scope of Analysis: Critics contend that formalism’s narrow focus on textual elements restricts the range of critical inquiry and interpretation.
Elitism and Impracticality: Some argue that formalism’s emphasis on complex analysis makes it inaccessible to a wider audience, rendering it elitist and impractical.
Overemphasis on Unity and Coherence: Critics point out that not all literary works strive for perfect unity, and formalism’s insistence on coherence can overlook the value of fragmentation and ambiguity.
Ahistorical Approach: Formalism’s neglect of historical context can lead to a distorted understanding of literary works and their significance.
Ignoring the Political and Ideological: By focusing on formal elements, formalism often overlooks the political and ideological dimensions of literature.
Suggested Readings: “The Formalist Critic” by Cleanth Brooks
“The primary concern of criticism is with the problem of unity – the kind of whole which the literary work forms or fails to form, and the relation of the various parts to each other in building up this whole.”
This statement emphasizes the core concern of formalist criticism: understanding how the different elements of a literary work come together to create a unified whole.
“In a successful work, form and content cannot be separated.”
This quote underlines the fundamental belief of formalism that the structure and meaning of a literary work are inextricably linked.
“Literature is not a surrogate for religion.”
Brooks here distinguishes literature from other forms of expression, particularly religious ones, emphasizing that literature has its own unique function and purpose.
“The formalist critic is concerned primarily with the work itself.”
This statement clearly defines the focus of formalist criticism: the literary text as an independent object of study.
“The intensity of his reaction has critical significance only in proportion as we have already learned to trust him as a reader.”
This quote reveals Brooks’ skepticism towards subjective responses to literature, arguing that critical judgment should be based on rigorous analysis, not personal taste.
“Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards, first published in the year 1932 as part of the collection “Principles of Literary Criticism,” holds significant importance in both literature and literary theory.
Introduction: “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
“Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards, first published in the year 1932 as part of the collection “Principles of Literary Criticism,” holds significant importance in both literature and literary theory. In this essay, Richards explores the interplay between language, emotion, and cognition, delineating how poetry harnesses emotive language to evoke responses beyond the factual or scientific realm. His analysis provides a foundational understanding of how poetry operates on psychological and emotional levels, challenging readers and critics to reconsider the ways in which they interact with literary texts. Richards’ emphasis on the emotive versus the cognitive functions of language in poetry has profoundly influenced subsequent literary criticism, encouraging a deeper appreciation for the subjective and experiential aspects of reading and interpreting poetry. This work remains a critical piece in the study of literature, offering insights into the complex dynamics between a poem’s structural elements and its broader impacts on the reader’s beliefs and emotions.
Summary of “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
Emotive vs. Scientific Use of Language
Historical Origin: Initially, all language was emotive; its scientific application developed later and became perceived as the norm due to its users often reflecting on language while employing it scientifically.
Primary Use: Most language continues to be emotive, even though scientific use has gained prominence.
Function and Nature of Poetry
Emotive Focus: Poetry is described as the supreme form of emotive language, differentiating statements that invoke attitudes from those that communicate scientific truths.
Influence on Attitudes: Rather than conveying factual information, poetic statements primarily stimulate emotional and psychological responses.
Critical Misunderstanding
Common Misinterpretation: Readers often misinterpret poetic truthfulness or falsity, believing it affects the poem’s value, whereas the actual value lies in the evoked response regardless of the factual accuracy.
Impact of Misunderstanding: The misinterpretation leads to a misuse of poetry, diminishing its potential impact and causing stagnation in critical studies.
Interplay of Beliefs and Poetry
Influence of Beliefs: Beliefs, whether true or not, can temporarily enhance certain attitudes but are not crucial to the emotional experience poetry aims to produce.
Role of Reference and Belief: Poetry often uses references not for factual correctness but to foster a conducive emotional environment for the reader.
Perversion of Poetry Through Intellectualization
Substitution by Intellectual Formula: Poetic works are sometimes reduced to intellectual constructs, which can undermine the emotive and experiential aspect that defines poetry.
Harm of Over-Intellectualization: Overemphasis on factual or intellectual content in poetry can diminish its emotional and artistic integrity.
Distinguishing Between Scientific and Emotive Beliefs
Definition and Differences: Scientific beliefs involve a readiness to act based on the truthfulness of information, whereas emotive beliefs are more about the readiness to feel in response to poetic or dramatic contexts.
Relevance in Art: In artistic contexts, particularly in poetry and drama, emotive beliefs are more prevalent and crucial for the depth of experience.
Consequences of Mixing Knowledge with Emotion
Risks of Misalignment: Confusing knowledge-based and emotive beliefs can lead to a misalignment of emotional responses and factual understanding, weakening the overall experience.
Necessity of Distinct Separation: A clear distinction between emotive and scientific contexts in understanding poetry is essential for preserving the integrity of emotional responses.
Societal and Psychological Implications
Cultural Shifts: The evolution from emotive to scientific perspectives in language reflects broader societal shifts and has profound implications on cultural and psychological levels.
Impact on Human Behavior: Misunderstandings and misalignments in the interpretation of poetry and art can influence broader human endeavors and societal attitudes.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
Literary Device/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Emotive Language
Language used to evoke emotions rather than to convey information or factual correctness. Richards notes, “It is the supreme form of emotive language.”
Scientific vs. Emotive Use of Language
Distinguishes between language used for factual, scientific purposes and language used to evoke emotional responses. Richards argues that the latter was the original use of language.
Subordination of Reference to Attitude
The idea that in poetry, the reference (or factual content) is less important than the attitude or emotional response it evokes in the reader. “For all that matters in either case is acceptance, that is to say, the initiation and development of the further response.”
Vagueness of Reference
The concept that poetic references often lack precise, verifiable scientific truth and instead focus on being emotionally resonant or evocative. “References as they occur in poetry are rarely susceptible of scientific truth or falsity.”
Indiscernibility of Fancy and Knowledge
Discusses the blurring lines between imagination (fancy) and factual knowledge in poetic expressions, which often leads to a twilight of understanding where both are indistinguishable.
Misuse of Poetry
Criticizes the common misunderstanding of poetry’s purpose, highlighting that assessing its truth or falsity is a misuse and overlooks the emotional and psychological impacts. “The people who say ‘How True!’… are misusing his work.”
Critical Emotive Utterances
Refers to critical statements about poetry that are emotive rather than analytical, shaping attitudes rather than providing objective critiques. “And the same is true of those critical but emotive utterances about poetry which gave rise to this discussion.”
Objectless Beliefs
Beliefs formed not based on direct references or facts but as a result of the emotional interplay and artistic manipulation in poetry, leading to emotive responses disconnected from factual bases.
Revelation Doctrines
Discusses the tendency in criticism to ascribe a false sense of revelation or profound truth to poetic works based on subjective emotional responses rather than objective truths. “One perversion…is in fact responsible for Revelation Doctrines.”
Contribution of “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards to Literary Theory/Theories
Establishment of Emotive Language Theory:
Comprehensive Comments: Richards emphasizes that poetry primarily uses language emotively rather than cognitively, stating, “It is the supreme form of emotive language.” This perspective challenges traditional views that prioritize factual accuracy in literary works, urging a reevaluation of how emotional responses are elicited through poetic expressions.
Differentiation Between Emotive and Scientific Uses of Language:
Comprehensive Comments: He clarifies the distinction between the scientific and emotive uses of language, explaining, “Originally all language was emotive; its scientific use is a later development.” This differentiation underpins much of contemporary literary theory, which often investigates the emotional versus the rational elements of texts.
Influence on Reader Response Theory:
Comprehensive Comments: Richards contributes to the foundation of Reader Response Theory by illustrating how a poem’s impact is less about its literal truth and more about the response it invokes in readers. He asserts, “For all that matters in either case is acceptance, that is to say, the initiation and development of the further response.” This idea foregrounds the reader’s engagement with the text, prioritizing personal interpretation over objective analysis.
Critique of Over-Intellectualization in Poetry:
Comprehensive Comments: By critiquing the over-intellectualization of poetry, Richards warns against the dangers of basing emotional responses on intellectual constructs rather than genuine emotive engagement, noting, “This substitution of an intellectual formula for the poem or work of art is of course most easily observed in the case of religion, where the temptation is greatest.” This critique has influenced theories that favor a more nuanced approach to interpreting literary texts, recognizing the complexity of human emotional and intellectual interactions.
Implications for Literary Criticism:
Comprehensive Comments: Richards’ work challenges critics to reconsider their approaches, especially concerning the validity and relevance of critical analysis. He argues that much literary criticism fails to appreciate the emotive power of poetry, suggesting, “Too much inferior poetry has been poured out as criticism, too much sack and too little bread.” This call for a reevaluation of critical methods has encouraged a broader, more inclusive approach to literary studies.
Examination of the Psychological Effects of Poetry:
Comprehensive Comments: Richards delves into the psychological impact of poetry on the reader, exploring how beliefs and attitudes are influenced by poetic expressions. He discusses the concept of ‘objectless beliefs,’ which are significant in shaping the psychological states induced by poetry, stating, “It is often held that recent generations suffer more from nervous strain…the strain imposed by the vain attempt to orient the mind by belief of the scientific kind alone.” This examination contributes to an understanding of literature’s deep and varied effects on human psychology.
Examples of Critiques Through “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
Richards might critique this poem for its deep emotional resonance which surpasses factual or scientific interpretation. He would likely appreciate how Keats uses the emotive power of language to evoke a profound sense of escapism and melancholy, embodying his idea that, “Poetry is the supreme form of emotive language.”
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot
In Richards’ view, Eliot’s work exemplifies the complexity of references and beliefs interwoven into poetry. He would discuss how the poem’s obscure allusions and fragmented structure challenge the reader’s emotive and intellectual responses, reflecting his thought that, “No one can understand such utterances about poetry…without distinguishing the making of a statement from the incitement or expression of an attitude.”
“Song of Myself” by Walt Whitman
Richards might analyze how Whitman’s expansive, inclusive lyrical style invites readers to engage emotionally rather than seek factual correctness. This approach aligns with Richards’ assertion that, “The emotions and attitudes resulting from a statement used emotively need not be directed towards anything to which the statement refers.” Whitman’s work would be seen as an illustration of poetry that transcends scientific validation to touch upon universal truths through emotive expression.
Through Richards’ perspective, Plath’s poem could be critiqued for its intense emotive language that powerfully conveys personal trauma and complex emotional states. He would likely focus on how the poem uses emotive expressions to provoke a response that is not dependent on the veracity of the references but on the emotional impact, illustrating his idea that, “Only references which are brought into certain highly complex and very special combinations, so as to correspond to the ways in which things actually hang together, can be either true or false, and most references in poetry are not knit together in this way.”
Criticism Against “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
Overemphasis on Emotive Language
Neglect of cognitive elements: Critics argue that Richards oversimplifies poetry by reducing it solely to emotive language, ignoring the cognitive and intellectual dimensions.
Underestimation of meaning: By focusing excessively on emotional response, Richards is accused of downplaying the importance of meaning and understanding in poetic interpretation.
Reductionist View of Belief
Oversimplified dichotomy: Critics contend that Richards’ distinction between scientific and emotive belief is overly simplistic and fails to account for the complex interplay between the two.
Ignoring the role of belief in meaning-making: Richards’ emphasis on the emotional impact of poetry leads to a neglect of the role of belief in constructing meaning.
Neglect of Context and Historical Factors
Ahistorical approach: Critics argue that Richards’ analysis is ahistorical, failing to consider the historical and cultural contexts in which poetry is produced and received.
Ignoring the social and political dimensions: By focusing primarily on the individual reader’s response, Richards overlooks the social and political implications of poetry.
Overreliance on Psychological Explanation
Reduction of poetry to psychology: Critics contend that Richards’ attempt to explain poetic experience through psychology reduces poetry to a mere stimulus-response mechanism.
Ignoring the aesthetic dimension: By prioritizing psychological factors, Richards is accused of neglecting the aesthetic qualities and formal elements of poetry.
Ambiguous and Overly Broad Concepts
Vague terminology: Critics argue that Richards’ use of terms like “belief,” “attitude,” and “emotion” is often ambiguous and lacks precise definition.
Overgeneralization: Richards’ claims about the nature of poetry are seen as overly broad and applicable to a wide range of literary works, leading to a lack of specificity.
Implications for Poetic Practice
Negative impact on poetic creation: Some critics argue that Richards’ theory could lead to a focus on emotional manipulation rather than genuine poetic expression.
Limited critical framework: Richards’ approach is seen as providing a limited framework for analyzing and evaluating poetry, as it neglects important aspects such as form, language, and intertextuality.
Suggested Readings: “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards
Cohn, Jan. “The Theory of Poetic Value in I. A. Richards’ ‘Principles of Literary Criticism’ and Shelley’s ‘A Defence of Poetry.’” Keats-Shelley Journal, vol. 21/22, 1972, pp. 95–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30212743. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
Brooks, Cleanth. “I. A. Richards and ‘Practical Criticism.’” The Sewanee Review, vol. 89, no. 4, 1981, pp. 586–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27543909. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
Winterowd, W. Ross. “I. A. Richards, Literary Theory, and Romantic Composition.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1992, pp. 59–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465880. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
Brown, Stuart C. “I. A. Richards’ New Rhetoric: Multiplicity, Instrument, and Metaphor.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 1992, pp. 218–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465482. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
Shafer, Robert E. “The Practical Criticism of I. A. Richards and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Reading, vol. 14, no. 2, 1970, pp. 101–08. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40012942. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024.
Representative Quotations from “Poetry and Beliefs” by I. A. Richards with Explanation
Richards refers to poetry as the highest expression of emotive language, which prioritizes emotional response over factual or logical clarity. This underscores the primary function of poetry—to evoke feelings and attitudes, rather than to convey information or argue rationally.
“Only references which are brought into certain highly complex and very special combinations… can be either true or false, and most references in poetry are not knit together in this way.”
This quote emphasizes the notion that poetic references typically do not adhere to the standards of factual truth or falsehood because they are not intended to be verifiable but are designed to enhance the emotive and aesthetic experience of the poem.
“The people who say ‘How True!’ at intervals while reading Shakespeare are misusing his work.”
Richards critiques readers who seek factual accuracy or literal truths in poetry, arguing that this approach misses the essence of poetic expression, which is to invoke a deeper, emotional, or contemplative response rather than to confirm empirical truths.
“No one can understand such utterances about poetry… without distinguishing the making of a statement from the incitement or expression of an attitude.”
Here, Richards points out the necessity of distinguishing between literal statements and the emotional or attitudinal effects intended by poetic language. Understanding poetry requires recognizing its primary function to affect the reader’s emotions and thoughts, rather than to state facts.
“Too much inferior poetry has been poured out as criticism, too much sack and too little bread.”
Richards laments the quality of much poetic criticism, suggesting that it is often as emotively charged and unsubstantial as bad poetry. This metaphor criticizes literary criticism that fails to offer substantive insights, instead indulging in the same stylistic excesses as the texts it critiques.
“But it is easy, by what seems only a slight change of approach, to make the initial step an act of faith, and to make the whole response dependent upon a belief as to a matter of fact.”
This quote warns of the danger in poetry and criticism of turning emotive responses into rigid dogmas or beliefs, which can distort the intended artistic experience. It highlights the subtle but significant shift that can lead to misinterpretations and misuse of poetic works by overly literal readings.
“Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky, first published in 1936 in the collection Structure, Sign and Function, holds immense significance in literature and literary theory.
Introduction: “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
“Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky, first published in 1936 in the collection Structure, Sign and Function, holds immense significance in literature and literary theory. This seminal work introduced the concept of the aesthetic function as a social phenomenon, arguing that art and literature are not isolated expressions but are deeply intertwined with the social fabric. Mukarovsky’s exploration of how aesthetic norms and values are shaped by and, in turn, influence society laid the groundwork for subsequent studies in sociology of art, cultural studies, and literary theory.
Summary of “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
· Literary Work’s Dependence on Literary Environment:
Medvedev and Bakhtin argue that a literary work is inherently part of the “literary environment,” which is the collective body of socially active literary works of a given epoch. They state, “The individual literary work is a dependent and therefore actually inseparable element of the literary environment” (p. 26). This environment directly influences the work, making it inseparable from the socio-cultural and ideological context of its time.
· Complex System of Interconnections:
The authors describe a “complex system of interconnections and mutual influences” within literature, where each element is defined within multiple, interrelated unities (p. 27). They assert that literature cannot be understood outside the context of the ideological and socioeconomic environment, as “the ideological environment in its totality and in each of its elements is likewise a dependent element of the socioeconomic environment” (p. 27). This interconnectedness emphasizes the need to study literature as part of a larger socio-cultural system.
· Dialectical Approach to Literary History:
Medvedev and Bakhtin advocate for a dialectical approach in literary history, where the study of a literary work must account for its place within the broader ideological and socioeconomic context. They emphasize, “The work cannot be understood outside the unity of literature,” and this unity itself “cannot be studied outside the unified socioeconomic laws of development” (p. 28). This dialectical method is crucial for understanding the dynamic interactions that shape literary works.
· Literary Individuality within Social Context:
While literature interacts with various domains of socio-economic life, it does not lose its individuality. The authors argue, “In fact, its individuality can only be completely discovered and defined in this process of interaction” (p. 30). This statement highlights that the unique characteristics of a literary work are best understood when analyzed within its broader social and ideological context.
· Rejection of Isolated Literary Systems:
Medvedev and Bakhtin reject the idea of viewing literature as a closed, independent system, asserting that “The notion of closed and independent cultural systems is completely inadmissible” (p. 31). They argue that literature is always in interaction with other cultural and social systems, and studying it in isolation would result in an incomplete understanding of its role and significance.
· Sociological Poetics and Literary History:
The authors introduce the concept of sociological poetics as essential for a comprehensive understanding of literary history. They state, “Literary history essentially presupposes the answers sociological poetics provides to the problems which have been set” (p. 32). This approach involves analyzing the structure of literary works—such as genre, style, and theme—in relation to their ideological and social contexts.
· Critique of Formalism:
Medvedev and Bakhtin critique the formalist approach to literature, which isolates literary works from their social context. They argue, “For if literature is a social phenomenon, then the formal method, which ignores and denies this, is first of all inadequate to literature itself” (p. 34). They believe that formalism fails to capture the true nature of literature by neglecting its social and ideological dimensions.
The authors stress the importance of Marxist criticism in countering the formalist approach. They claim that Marxism “cannot leave the work of the formalists without exhaustive critical analysis” (p. 34). This analysis is necessary because formalism’s neglect of the social nature of literature leads to “false interpretations and definitions” (p. 34). Marxist literary scholarship, therefore, seeks to incorporate social and ideological context into the study of literature to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
Term
Definition
Explanation
Fictionality
The quality of being fictional.
While literature often uses elements of reality, its primary function is not to convey factual information but to create aesthetic experiences.
Poetic Act
The creative process of constructing a literary work.
The author’s creation of fictional elements is not considered lying but a form of artistic expression.
Indirect (Figurative) Tie
The connection between a literary work and reality that is not direct or literal.
A literary work can evoke real-life experiences, emotions, and situations without explicitly describing them.
Material Relationship
The connection between a literary work and the reader’s world.
A strong literary work can engage the reader on multiple levels, connecting with their personal experiences and values.
Extra-aesthetic Values
Values that exist beyond the aesthetic realm, such as social, moral, and political values.
Literary works often carry implicit or explicit values that resonate with readers.
Aesthetic Value
The value derived from the artistic qualities of a work.
While important, aesthetic value is not isolated but interacts with other values within the work.
Mutual Tension
The conflict or contrast between the values within a literary work and the values of the society in which it is created.
This tension can lead to social commentary and critical reflection.
Contribution of “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky to Literary Theory/Theories
Aesthetic Function as a Structural Element:
Mukarovsky argues that the aesthetic function is integral to the structure of art, not just an addition or an attribute. This function elevates the artistic sign beyond simple communication, imbuing it with a deeper, more complex relationship with reality.
Artistic Sign and Indirect Realities:
The artistic sign does not directly represent reality but acts as a mediator to connect with various indirect realities. This connection is crucial for the audience to engage with art on a personal and social level, enhancing the interpretive richness of the artwork.
Social Construct of Artistic Interpretation:
Interpretation of art is not purely individualistic but deeply rooted in social constructs. Mukarovsky posits that every artistic interpretation is influenced by the social context, making art a social fact, contrary to the notion of subjective isolation.
Dynamic Relationship Between Art and Reality:
Art creates a dynamic interaction between its own content and the broader societal values. This interaction is not merely reflective but actively engages with and potentially transforms societal norms and values.
The Role of Aesthetic Values in Social Dynamics:
Aesthetic values are not static; they participate actively in the social dialogue, challenging and potentially altering societal values. Art’s autonomy allows it to experiment with these values, proposing new configurations and adaptations.
Negation of Concrete Reality in Art:
Art serves as a dialectical negation of concrete reality, allowing for a more profound exploration of themes and concepts that extend beyond the immediate and tangible. This negation is essential for the transformative power of art.
Form and Content Integration:
Mukarovsky challenges the traditional separation of form and content in art. He argues that all elements of a work of art are interdependent and contribute to its overall meaning and impact, blurring the lines between form and content.
Extra-Aesthetic Values in Art:
Art is seen as a repository of extra-aesthetic values. These values transcend the immediate aesthetic experience and engage with broader life values, influencing the viewer’s perception of reality and their position within it.
Transformative Potential of Art:
The transformative potential of art lies in its ability to reorder and redefine value systems within a society. Art’s engagement with life values facilitates a critical examination and potential transformation of these values, contributing to societal evolution.
Art as a Social Agent:
Art functions as a significant social agent, capable of influencing and reflecting societal changes and tensions. Its autonomy and aesthetic function enable it to engage deeply with societal dynamics, making it a powerful tool in the social arena.
Examples of Critiques Through “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
Literary Work
Critique Using Mukarovsky’s Framework
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Mukarovsky’s theory highlights the novel’s aesthetic function as it engages with moral and ethical dilemmas, not just as themes, but as part of the structural design of the narrative. The novel mediates complex realities, influencing the reader’s perception of justice and morality beyond the text.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Through Mukarovsky’s lens, the aesthetic function of this novel transcends its plot, creating a symbolic landscape that critiques the American Dream. The social norms and values of the 1920s are not only depicted but interrogated, challenging the reader’s understanding of success and happiness.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
This work can be critiqued using Mukarovsky’s ideas on the social construction of interpretation. The racial injustices and moral complexities presented in the novel activate a dialogue with the reader’s societal context, questioning enduring social norms and values about race and justice.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett
Applying Mukarovsky, the play’s minimalist form and content integrate to challenge traditional narrative expectations, reflecting existential themes that resonate with the viewer’s personal and collective existential queries, thus transforming viewer attitudes towards meaning and time.
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Morrison’s novel can be analyzed through Mukarovsky’s perspective on extra-aesthetic values. The narrative structure intertwines with historical and emotional realities of slavery, pushing the reader to reevaluate the historical memory and its impact on contemporary values and identities.
Criticism Against “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
Mukarovsky’s theory tends to overemphasize the role of social factors in shaping aesthetic experience, potentially neglecting the autonomy of the individual and the power of the artwork itself.
It risks reducing the complexity of artistic creation and reception to a mere reflection of social structures.
Limited Account of Individual Experience
While acknowledging the influence of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory may not fully account for the unique and personal experiences of individual readers or viewers.
It might overlook the subjective and emotional dimensions of aesthetic response.
Difficulty in Defining “Aesthetic Value”
Despite its centrality to the theory, the concept of “aesthetic value” remains somewhat elusive and difficult to precisely define.
The relationship between aesthetic value and extra-aesthetic values is not always clearly articulated.
Oversimplification of Form and Content
Mukarovsky’s rejection of the traditional form-content distinction might be seen as an oversimplification of the complex relationship between these elements in a work of art.
It could potentially lead to a neglect of the formal qualities of art.
Neglect of Historical and Cultural Variation
While recognizing the role of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory might not adequately account for the historical and cultural specificity of aesthetic experiences.
It risks generalizations that may not hold true across different times and places.
Potential for Reductionism
By focusing on the social determinants of aesthetic experience, there is a risk of reducing art to a mere instrument of social ideology or propaganda.
This could limit the potential for art to challenge and transform social norms.
Suggested Readings: “Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky
Bürger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Translated by Michael Shaw, University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
“The aesthetic function is not merely an added ornament but the very foundation of what makes a work of art.”
This quote emphasizes that the aesthetic function is intrinsic to art, defining its nature rather than being just an embellishment. It shapes how art communicates and interacts with its audience, forming the core of its impact.
“Artistic signs are dialectically negated reality; they do not simply mirror reality but transform it into something else.”
Mukarovsky suggests that art does not replicate reality straightforwardly but reconstructs it, offering new interpretations and perspectives. This transformation is a critical process where art becomes a medium for deeper understanding and reflection.
“The social fact of art lies in its collective interpretation; it is never solely an individual encounter.”
This statement underlines the communal aspect of art interpretation. Art exists within a social context and its meanings are shaped by collective experiences and social dynamics, not just by individual perceptions.
“Each element of a work of art, whether content or form, is charged with a network of social values and norms.”
Here, Mukarovsky highlights that every component of an artwork—its form and content—is imbued with societal values and norms. These elements are not neutral but are active participants in the dialogue between art and society.
“The indirect relationship between art and reality is its strength, allowing art to comment on reality from a unique vantage point.”
This quotation points out that art’s strength lies in its indirect approach to reality, enabling it to provide commentary and critique from a distinct perspective that can offer insightful and transformative views.
“Art is a social agent; it has the power to influence and reshape societal values through its aesthetic function.”
Mukarovsky casts art as an active social agent with the power to influence and reshape societal norms and values. Through its aesthetic function, art engages with and can alter the social fabric, highlighting its critical role in cultural dynamics.
“Manners, Morals, and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling, first appeared in 1948 in The Kenyon Review, has since become a cornerstone in literary criticism.
Introduction: “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
“Manners, Morals, and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling, first appeared in 1948 in The Kenyon Review, has since become a cornerstone in literary criticism, offering profound insights into the novel’s role in exploring the complexities of human behavior. Trilling’s exploration of the interplay between social conventions (manners) and ethical principles (morals) within the narrative form has had a lasting impact on discussions of realism, morality, and the novel’s capacity to illuminate the human condition.
Summary of “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
· Complex Understanding of “Manners”:
Trilling defines “manners” not merely as social etiquettes but as a broader cultural hum of implications, hinting at unexpressed values and norms. He articulates this as “the whole evanescent context in which its explicit statements are made” which includes everything from slang and humor to the gestures of daily life.
· Significance of the Unexpressed in Historical Context:
The essay highlights the charm and melancholy of the past, suggesting that historical literature often misses the ‘buzz’ of implications, leaving a tranquil yet incomplete picture. Trilling writes, “Somewhere below all the explicit statements that a people makes through its art, religion, architecture, legislation, there is a dim mental region of intention.”
· Literature’s Inquiry into Reality and Appearance:
Trilling discusses literature’s obsession with the dichotomy between reality and appearance, using classical examples like Oedipus and Othello to illustrate how literature explores the tension between what seems and what is. He emphasizes, “All literature tends to be concerned with the question of reality—I mean quite simply the old opposition between reality and appearance.”
· Social Critique through the Novel:
The novel serves as a medium for social critique by capturing and reflecting the dynamics of social classes and manners. Trilling observes that novels historically have grappled with these themes, often revealing deep societal truths through their narratives.
· American Literature’s Detachment from Social Reality:
Unlike European novels, American literature, according to Trilling, often eschews deep social exploration. He mentions American authors who diverged from exploring social realities, noting, “American writers of genius have not turned their minds to society.”
· Contemporary American Literature and Its Shortcomings:
Modern American novels fail to adequately capture the complexities of contemporary society, often focusing on superficial narratives rather than profound social dynamics. Trilling argues that this superficial focus misses the potential richness of the American social landscape.
· Criticism of Snobbery and Class Dynamics:
Trilling critiques the novel’s fixation on class and snobbery, emphasizing how these elements often overshadow deeper social insights. He argues that snobbery in literature reflects a preoccupation with status rather than meaningful social function.
· The Novel as a Medium for Moral and Cultural Education:
The essay champions the novel as a tool for moral reflection and cultural education, arguing that it engages readers with ethical dilemmas and societal roles, prompting introspection about personal and collective morals.
· Potential of the Novel for Social Reflection and Change:
Trilling concludes by highlighting the novel’s role in fostering a moral imagination and understanding of human motives, which is crucial for effective societal reform and empathy. He stresses, “It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the free play of the moral imagination.”
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
· Expanding the Understanding of “Manners” in Literature:
Trilling redefines “manners” beyond mere social etiquette to encompass the implicit cultural norms and values that shape societal interactions. He articulates this broader understanding by identifying manners as the “culture’s hum and buzz of implication,” encompassing all unexpressed or partially expressed societal values that influence behavior.
· Emphasis on the Implicit Over the Explicit:
Trilling highlights the importance of what is not explicitly stated in literature, arguing that the unspoken or subtly implied elements often carry more weight in understanding a culture’s moral and ethical landscape. This contributes to literary theory by stressing the role of subtext and the implicit meanings that underpin the explicit narratives.
· Exploration of Reality versus Appearance:
The essay extensively discusses the literary preoccupation with the conflict between reality and appearance, drawing on examples from classic literature like Oedipus and Othello. Trilling’s discussion contributes to literary theory by framing this conflict as central to understanding characters and plots, influencing how reality is constructed and perceived in literary contexts.
· Novel as a Social Document:
Trilling argues that the novel serves as a critical reflection of societal norms and values, effectively making it a social document that offers insights into the manners and morals of the time. This view contributes to literary theory by supporting the idea that literature serves as a historical and sociological resource, reflecting and critiquing societal structures.
· Critical Examination of American Literature’s Social Engagement:
Trilling critiques American literature for its lack of engagement with deep social realities, contrasting it with European literature’s rich exploration of class and societal dynamics. This contributes to literary theory by challenging American literary criticism to reconsider the depth and scope of its social engagement.
· The Novel’s Role in Moral Education:
The essay positions the novel as a tool for moral education, suggesting that it engages readers with moral dilemmas and societal roles, encouraging introspection and ethical consideration. This perspective enriches literary theory by underscoring the ethical responsibilities of literature and its potential to influence readers’ moral considerations.
· Implications for Modern Literary Criticism and Social Responsibility:
Trilling calls for a modern literary criticism that acknowledges the novel’s potential to reflect and reform societal morals and manners. This challenges existing literary theories to incorporate a more robust consideration of literature’s role in shaping and critiquing societal norms, emphasizing the ethical implications of literary production and criticism.
Examples of Critiques Through “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
Literary Work
Manners
Morals
Trilling’s Critique
Pride and Prejudice
Reflects societal hierarchies and power dynamics; used to expose moral complexities
Characters navigate societal expectations while maintaining personal integrity
Austen effectively uses manners to illuminate moral dilemmas.
The Great Gatsby
Superficiality and moral decay masked by opulent manners; critique of American Dream
Exploration of idealism, disillusionment, and the American Dream
Fitzgerald employs manners to expose the emptiness of material wealth and the distortion of values.
Beloved
Fractured manners and cultural norms of African Americans post-slavery; reveal psychological and societal scars
Challenges traditional notions of morality; explores ethical dilemmas in an oppressive society
Morrison uses manners to illuminate the impact of historical trauma on individuals and communities.
1984
Rigid social control and manipulation of language; tool for suppressing individuality
Raises questions about truth, power, and resistance
Orwell employs manners to critique totalitarian regimes and the dangers of unchecked authority.
Criticism Against “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
Overemphasis on Traditional Narrative Forms: Critics argue that Trilling places too much importance on traditional novelistic forms and their exploration of manners and morals, potentially disregarding other literary forms and modern experimental narratives that may not fit into his framework.
Idealization of European Literature: Trilling’s apparent preference for European literature’s depth and complexity might be seen as an idealization, possibly overlooking the unique cultural and social contributions of American literature beyond its European counterparts.
Narrow Definition of American Literature: Some critics might find that Trilling’s characterization of American literature as lacking in social texture is overly broad and dismissive of the varied and rich contributions of American writers who deeply engage with social issues.
Elitist Perspective: Trilling’s focus on literature as a medium for moral and cultural education can be criticized as elitist, suggesting a top-down approach to culture that values high literature as a moral guide for the masses.
Neglect of Non-Western Literatures: By focusing primarily on Western literary traditions, Trilling may be criticized for not acknowledging the rich literary and cultural traditions outside the Western canon that also explore complex social and moral issues.
Underestimation of Audience Engagement: His view might underestimate the ability of readers to engage with complex social issues in literature without the traditional narrative structures he champions.
Potential Misinterpretation of Historical Context: Critics might argue that Trilling imposes contemporary moral and cultural interpretations on historical literature, potentially distorting the original contexts and meanings of those works.
Suggested Readings: “Manners, Morals and the Novel” by Lionel Trilling
“What I understand by manners, then, is a culture’s hum and buzz of implication.”
Trilling expands the definition of “manners” beyond mere social etiquette to encompass the broader, often unspoken cultural norms that subtly influence behavior and social dynamics.
“The right way to begin to deal with such a subject is to gather together as much of its detail as we possibly can.”
Emphasizes the importance of comprehensively understanding cultural nuances to fully grasp the societal implications of literature.
“All literature tends to be concerned with the question of reality—I mean quite simply the old opposition between reality and appearance.”
Trilling highlights a central theme in literary analysis, the distinction between what things are and what they seem to be, which is a recurrent exploration in literature.
“The novel, then, is a perpetual quest for reality, the field of its research being always the social world.”
Defines the novel’s primary function as exploring and reflecting the social realities of its time, thereby acting as a tool for societal reflection and critique.
“It is the peculiar vice not of aristocratic societies…but of bourgeois democratic societies.”
Discusses snobbery as a distinctive feature of modern democratic societies, contrasting it with the class pride of aristocratic systems, thus critiquing contemporary social structures.
“We make public demands for love, for we know that broad social feeling should be infused with warmth…”
Criticizes the superficial engagement with societal issues, arguing that true engagement requires a deeper, more genuine emotional investment.
“The very people who talk most about class and its evils think that Fitzgerald was bedazzled and Hemingway right.”
Challenges the simplistic and often hypocritical views of social class held by literary critics and readers, urging a more nuanced understanding.
“For our time the most effective agent of the moral imagination has been the novel of the last two hundred years.”
Trilling asserts the novel’s unique power in shaping moral and ethical sensibilities, emphasizing its role in the development of individual and collective moral consciousness.
“Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky, first appeared in the 1917 collection A Theory of Prose, introduces the concept of “defamiliarization,” arguing that art’s primary function is to disrupt habitual perception and force viewers or readers to see the world anew.
Introduction: “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
“Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky, first appeared in the 1917 collection A Theory of Prose, introduces the concept of “defamiliarization,” arguing that art’s primary function is to disrupt habitual perception and force viewers or readers to see the world anew. Shklovsky’s ideas had a profound impact on literary theory, inspiring movements like Russian Formalism and influencing subsequent critical and artistic endeavors. His emphasis on form and technique over content shifted the focus of literary analysis, laying the groundwork for a more formalist approach to understanding and appreciating literature.
Summary of “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
· Art as a Way of Thinking:
The article begins by discussing the concept that “art is thinking in images,” a notion influenced by Potebnya, who believed that without imagery, there is no art, particularly no poetry.
Potebnya equates poetry with imagery, leading to the theory that “Imagery equals symbolism.”
· Distinction Between Poetic and Prosaic Imagery:
The article emphasizes the distinction between the language of poetry and prose, pointing out that imagery can serve both practical (prosaic) and poetic purposes.
Poetic imagery is described as a device to create strong impressions, used alongside other poetic techniques like hyperbole, repetition, and parallelism.
· Habitualization and Art’s Role:
The article explains how habitual perception becomes automatic, diminishing our conscious experience of life.
Art’s purpose is to counter this by making us feel things anew, “making the stone stony” through techniques that make objects unfamiliar, thereby prolonging the process of perception.
· Defamiliarization Technique:
The concept of “defamiliarization,” a key technique in art, is highlighted as a way to make familiar objects and actions seem strange, thus disrupting habitual perception.
Tolstoy’s work is cited as an example, where he avoids naming familiar objects directly, instead describing them in a way that makes them seem new or strange.
· Application of Defamiliarization:
Defamiliarization is found in various literary forms, such as in the description of sexual acts or objects not called by their proper names, which creates a unique perception and disrupts the automatic recognition of these acts or objects.
· Poetic Language and Perception:
The article concludes by stressing that poetic language is designed to remove automatism from perception, slowing down the process and thereby creating a more profound and satisfying experience.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
Term
Definition
Defamiliarization
A technique used to make the familiar unfamiliar, forcing the reader to perceive the world in a new way.
Automatism of Perception
The habitual and unconscious way of perceiving the world.
The use of similar grammatical structures or sounds to create a sense of balance and rhythm.
Psychological Parallelism
A form of parallelism that creates a sense of disharmony within a harmonious context.
Contribution of “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of Defamiliarization (Ostranenie): Shklovsky introduced the concept of “defamiliarization,” arguing that art’s purpose is to make the familiar strange, thereby renewing our perception of everyday objects and experiences. This concept became a cornerstone of Russian Formalism and influenced subsequent literary theories.
Focus on the Form of the Text: Shklovsky emphasized the importance of the form of a text over its content. He argued that literature’s uniqueness lies in its formal devices and techniques, which distinguish it from ordinary language and communication.
Art as a Technique Rather Than an Expression: Shklovsky shifted the focus from the notion of art as an expression of the author’s emotions to art as a craft or technique. He posited that the effectiveness of a literary work depends on its ability to disrupt habitual perception through innovative techniques.
Impact on Russian Formalism: “Art as Technique” became foundational to Russian Formalism, a movement that analyzed literary texts by focusing on their formal elements rather than their historical or biographical context. Shklovsky’s ideas influenced scholars like Roman Jakobson and others in the Formalist movement.
Influence on Structuralism and Beyond: Shklovsky’s emphasis on the formal aspects of literature anticipated the development of Structuralism and later post-structuralist theories, which continued to explore the relationship between language, form, and meaning.
Rejection of Symbolism and Psychologism: Shklovsky challenged Symbolism and Psychologism by arguing that literature should not be reduced to a reflection of the author’s psyche or symbolic meanings. Instead, it should be analyzed based on its formal construction and techniques.
Examples of Critiques Through “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
Literary Work
Author
Defamiliarization Techniques
Critique through Shklovsky
Ulysses
James Joyce
Stream of consciousness, fragmentation, wordplay, mythologization
Joyce masterfully employs defamiliarization to disrupt linear narrative and force readers to actively engage with the text, prolonging perception and creating a “vision” of Dublin.
In Search of Lost Time
Marcel Proust
Remembrance, introspection, time dilation
Proust’s exploration of memory and time, using techniques like flashbacks and detailed sensory descriptions, defamiliarizes the concept of time, offering a new perspective on human experience.
Metamorphosis
Franz Kafka
Absurdity, alienation, grotesque imagery
Kafka’s transformation of Gregor Samsa into a cockroach is a stark example of defamiliarization, forcing readers to confront the unfamiliar and question the nature of humanity.
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Magical realism, nonlinear narrative, cyclical time
Marquez’s blend of magical and realistic elements disrupts conventional storytelling, creating a unique perspective on history and family. The novel’s cyclical structure also challenges linear time perception.
Criticism Against “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
Overemphasis on Form Over Content: Critics argue that Shklovsky’s focus on form and technique downplays the importance of content and meaning in literature. By privileging how something is said over what is said, the richness of thematic exploration and the emotional resonance of a text can be diminished.
Neglect of Historical and Social Context: Shklovsky’s approach, rooted in Russian Formalism, largely ignores the historical and social contexts in which literary works are produced. Critics suggest that understanding the context is crucial for fully appreciating a text’s significance and impact.
Reduction of Literature to Technique: Shklovsky’s concept of “defamiliarization” and the emphasis on literary devices may reduce the complexity of literature to mere technical manipulation. This perspective can overlook the multifaceted nature of literature, including its ethical, philosophical, and political dimensions.
Limited Application Beyond Russian Formalism: While Shklovsky’s ideas were influential within Russian Formalism, some critics argue that his theories have limited applicability outside this specific theoretical framework. The emphasis on form and technique may not resonate with or fully explain other literary traditions and movements.
Potential for Elitism: The focus on defamiliarization and the sophisticated manipulation of form could be seen as creating a barrier between literature and a general audience. This can lead to an elitist view of art, where only those with specialized knowledge can appreciate the “true” value of a literary work.
Inadequate Consideration of Reader Response: Shklovsky’s theories do not account for the reader’s role in interpreting and experiencing a text. Critics argue that this oversight fails to acknowledge the active engagement of readers in making meaning, which is central to many modern literary theories.
Suggested Readings: “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky
Lemon, Lee T., and Marion J. Reis, eds. Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Erlich, Victor. Russian Formalism. Yale University Press, 1965.
Eagleton, Terry. Theory of Literature. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
Gunn, Daniel P. “Making Art Strange: A Commentary on Defamiliarization.” The Georgia Review, vol. 38, no. 1, 1984, pp. 25–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41398624. Accessed 11 Aug. 2024.
McManmon, John J. “Formalism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Text.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 40, no. 1, 1990, pp. 57–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44311872. Accessed 11 Aug. 2024.
Bogdanov, Alexei. “Ostranenie, Kenosis, and Dialogue: The Metaphysics of Formalism According to Shklovsky.” The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, 2005, pp. 48–62. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20058220. Accessed 11 Aug. 2024.
Representative Quotations from “Art as Technique” by Victor Shklovsky with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known.”
Shklovsky argues that art’s role is to make us see the world anew by disrupting our automatic, habitual perceptions. This aligns with his concept of “defamiliarization,” where art makes the familiar strange and forces us to reconsider our everyday experiences.
“Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important.”
This statement emphasizes Shklovsky’s belief that the value of art lies not in the object or content itself, but in the way art allows us to experience it differently. The technique used to present the object is what matters, not the object per se.
“The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar,’ to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception.”
Shklovsky is advocating for a technique in literature that slows down the process of perception, making readers more aware of the text’s form and structure. This difficulty forces readers to engage more deeply with the work, rather than passively consuming it.
“Automatization eats things, clothes, furniture, your wife, and the fear of war.”
Here, Shklovsky is critiquing how habitual perception (“automatization”) causes people to overlook the true nature of things, making them invisible in a sense. Art counters this by breaking through automatization and renewing our awareness.
“The process of ‘algebrization,’ the over-automatization of an object, permits the greatest economy of perceptive effort.”
Shklovsky suggests that over time, our perception of objects and experiences becomes simplified and formulaic (algebrized), reducing the effort needed to understand them. Art disrupts this process by complicating perception, requiring more effort and attention.
“Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva, first appeared in 1969 in the collection Sémeiotihé, is pivotal in the development of literature and literary theory.
Introduction: “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
“Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva, first appeared in 1969 in the collection Sémeiotihé, is pivotal in the development of literature and literary theory. It introduced the concept of intertextuality, revolutionizing how we understand the relationship between texts and their contexts. Kristeva’s exploration of language, dialogue, and the novel laid the groundwork for poststructuralist and feminist literary criticism, challenging traditional notions of authorship, meaning, and the literary canon.
Summary of “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
Introduction to Kristeva’s Work on Bakhtin
Summary: Julia Kristeva’s essay was pivotal in introducing Mikhail Bakhtin’s ideas to Western audiences. Kristeva, along with Tzvetan Todorov, was one of the first to present Bakhtin’s concepts, which deeply influenced her own linguistic and psycho-linguistic theories.
Reference: The essay highlights how Kristeva’s interaction with Bakhtin’s texts influenced her work, particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is evident in her adoption of Bakhtinian concepts such as “dialogism” and “carnivalism,” which she later developed into her own ideas, like “intertextuality” (Kristeva, 1969).
Structuralism vs. Post-Structuralism
Summary: The essay sits at the intersection of traditional structuralism and an early form of post-structuralism. Kristeva explores the limits of structuralist categories, showing how they often break down under the pressure of more subversive, carnival-like elements of language that Bakhtin described.
Reference: Kristeva contrasts the structuralist desire for scientific objectivity with Bakhtin’s celebration of the “irreverent, mocking and subversive tradition of carnival and Menippean satire,” positioning her work in a transitional phase between these intellectual movements (Kristeva, 1969).
Speaking Subject and Intertextuality
Summary: Kristeva emphasizes the importance of the speaking subject in linguistic analysis, which she derives from Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism. This focus leads to her development of “intertextuality,” the idea that texts are in constant dialogue with one another.
Reference: Kristeva interprets Bakhtin’s notion of dialogism as an “open-ended play” between the text of the subject and the text of the addressee, which is foundational to her concept of intertextuality. This idea is central to her later works, such as “Revolution in Poetic Language” (Kristeva, 1969).
Carnivalesque Discourse
Summary: The essay explores Bakhtin’s concept of carnivalism, where language becomes a space of subversion, breaking through the restrictions imposed by official codes. This idea profoundly influences Kristeva’s analysis of modernist discourse.
Reference: Kristeva discusses how Bakhtin viewed carnivalesque discourse as not only breaking linguistic codes but also serving as a form of social and political protest. She links this to her own exploration of how texts “meet, contradict and relativize each other” (Kristeva, 1969).
Word as a Mediator
Summary: Kristeva highlights Bakhtin’s idea that the word in a text is not a static point of meaning but an intersection of different textual surfaces. The word acts as a mediator, connecting literary structures to broader historical and social contexts.
Reference: The word’s role as a “minimal structural unit” situates the text within history and society, which are seen as “texts read by the writer” who rewrites them. This concept transforms linear history into a synchronic space where the writer transgresses abstractions (Kristeva, 1969).
Dialogism and Ambivalence
Summary: Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism, where all language is inherently dialogic, is central to understanding the ambivalence in narrative structures. Kristeva explores how even seemingly monologic texts contain dialogic elements.
Reference: Kristeva describes how Bakhtin’s ideas blur the lines between monologue and dialogue, revealing that even monologic discourse can have dialogic elements. This leads to a deeper understanding of the “ambivalence of writing,” which is crucial in the polyphonic novel (Kristeva, 1969).
Impact on Narrative Structure
Summary: The essay outlines Bakhtin’s influence on narrative analysis, particularly in how he sees the novel as a space for dialogic and ambivalent interactions rather than linear, monologic representations of reality.
Reference: Bakhtin’s view of the novel as a “polyphonic” space, where multiple voices interact and conflict, contrasts with the monologic nature of epic and realist narratives. This concept is foundational to Kristeva’s analysis of modern literary forms (Kristeva, 1969).
Critique of Monologic Discourse
Summary: Kristeva critiques the dominance of monologic discourse in epic and realist narratives, arguing that such forms suppress the multiplicity of voices and perspectives that characterize more dialogic, carnivalesque structures.
Reference: Monologic discourse, as described by Kristeva, is associated with the “rule of 1” (God or absolute authority) and is dominant in epic and realist genres. In contrast, the carnivalesque and polyphonic novel disrupt these hierarchies, allowing for a more dynamic interplay of voices (Kristeva, 1969).
Reevaluation of the Novel’s Structure
Summary: Kristeva reevaluates the novel’s structure through Bakhtin’s lens, suggesting that the novel is a space where traditional binaries and hierarchies are disrupted. This leads to the emergence of new narrative forms that reflect a more complex, dialogic reality.
Reference: Kristeva concludes that the novel, particularly the polyphonic novel, rejects the linearity and causality of Aristotelian logic, instead embracing a “logic of analogy and non-exclusive opposition.” This transformation is seen as a key development in modern literary thought (Kristeva, 1969).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
The concept that all texts are inherently connected to other texts, creating a network of meaning and influence.
Semiotic
The study of signs and symbols, exploring how meaning is created through language and other cultural systems.
Symbolic
One of two poles of language in Kristeva’s theory, representing the ordered, structured aspect of language.
Semiotic
The other pole of language, representing the pre-linguistic, chaotic, and poetic aspect of language.
Genette
While not explicitly defined by Kristeva in this essay, Genette’s work on narrative is implicitly engaged with in terms of its focus on textual analysis and the structure of the novel.
Bakhtin
Kristeva’s work is heavily influenced by Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism, which emphasizes the multiplicity of voices within a text.
Subject
A complex and multifaceted concept in Kristeva’s work, often referring to the constructed identity of the individual within language and discourse.
The system of beliefs and values that shape a society and its individuals, often implicitly present in texts.
Contribution of “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of Bakhtin to Western Thought: Kristeva was instrumental in bringing Mikhail Bakhtin’s ideas to Western literary theory, particularly his concepts of dialogism, carnivalism, and the polyphonic novel.
Development of Intertextuality: Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality, which posits that texts are in constant dialogue with each other, was a groundbreaking addition to literary theory, reshaping how texts are analyzed in relation to one another.
Shift from Structuralism to Post-Structuralism: The essay marks a significant shift in literary theory from structuralist approaches, which emphasize static, scientific objectivity, to post-structuralism, which embraces the fluid, subversive, and dynamic nature of language.
Reconceptualization of the Speaking Subject: Kristeva emphasized the importance of the speaking subject in linguistic and literary analysis, moving away from viewing language as an abstract system and toward understanding it as a dynamic interaction between speaker and listener.
Dialogism and Polyphony in Narrative: Kristeva expanded Bakhtin’s idea of dialogism, applying it to literary texts to explore how multiple voices and perspectives can coexist and interact within a single narrative, leading to the concept of polyphony in literature.
Critique of Monologic Discourse: The essay critiques the dominance of monologic discourse in traditional literary forms like the epic and realist novel, advocating instead for the recognition of more complex, dialogic forms of narrative that reflect the multiplicity of voices and perspectives.
Carnivalesque as a Subversive Force in Literature: Kristeva highlighted the importance of carnivalesque elements in literature, where language and narrative structure break away from established norms, challenging social and political hierarchies.
Influence on Modern Literary Criticism: By incorporating concepts such as the semiotic, the symbolic, and the chora, Kristeva’s essay laid the groundwork for future explorations of how language, subjectivity, and society intersect in literature.
Expansion of Semiotics: Kristeva’s work expanded the field of literary semiotics by introducing new ways of understanding how meaning is generated in texts, especially through the interplay of different signifying structures and cultural contexts.
Examples of Critiques Through “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
Literary Work
Critique Through Kristeva’s “Word, Dialogue, and Novel”
Key Concepts Applied
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov
The novel can be analyzed through Bakhtinian dialogism, as interpreted by Kristeva, where multiple voices and conflicting perspectives coexist and interact, creating a polyphonic structure.
Dialogism, Polyphony, Intertextuality
James Joyce’s Ulysses
Joyce’s use of stream-of-consciousness and his complex narrative structure exemplify Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality, where the text becomes a mosaic of quotations and references to other works.
Intertextuality, Polyphony, Carnivalesque
Franz Kafka’s The Trial
Kafka’s narrative reflects the ambivalence and dialogic nature of language that Kristeva emphasizes, with the protagonist caught in a web of contradictory and ambiguous legal and social structures.
Ambivalence, Dialogism, Carnivalesque
Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy
The novel’s fragmented structure and self-referential narrative can be critiqued through Kristeva’s ideas of carnivalism and the subversion of traditional narrative forms, creating a dialogic interaction.
Carnivalesque, Dialogism, Subversion of Monologic Discourse
Criticism Against “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
Complexity and Accessibility: One of the primary criticisms of Kristeva’s “Word, Dialogue, and Novel” is its dense and complex language, which can make the text difficult to access for readers who are not already familiar with advanced literary theory. The essay’s heavy reliance on specialized terminology and abstract concepts may alienate those who are new to the field.
Overemphasis on Bakhtin: Some critics argue that Kristeva’s work overly emphasizes Mikhail Bakhtin’s ideas, to the point where her own original contributions might be overshadowed. While Kristeva introduces important concepts like intertextuality, her work is often seen as more of a commentary or extension of Bakhtin’s theories rather than a groundbreaking development on its own.
Ambiguity and Lack of Clarity: Kristeva’s writing is often critiqued for its ambiguity and lack of clear definitions, particularly regarding key concepts like the “semiotic” and “symbolic.” This can lead to difficulties in understanding how these ideas are practically applied within literary analysis, leaving readers to interpret her ideas in various, sometimes conflicting, ways.
Limited Practical Application: While Kristeva’s theoretical insights are profound, some critics argue that her ideas lack practical applicability in everyday literary analysis. The abstract nature of her theories, particularly the concepts of dialogism and intertextuality, can be challenging to apply to specific texts in a straightforward manner, limiting their usefulness for literary critics and scholars.
Feminist Critique: From a feminist perspective, some scholars critique Kristeva for not fully integrating gender analysis into her theories, despite her later work focusing on feminist issues. In “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” the absence of an explicit focus on gender and the power dynamics within language and literature can be seen as a significant oversight, especially given the potential for her concepts to explore these areas.
Suggested Readings: “Word, Dialogue and Novel” by Julia Kristeva
Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, University of Texas Press, 1981.
“Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.”
This quotation introduces the concept of intertextuality, which suggests that every text is inherently connected to and influenced by other texts, reflecting a network of references and transformations.
“The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least double.”
Kristeva argues that intertextuality shifts the focus from the relationship between individual subjects to the relationship between texts, where meaning is always layered and multi-dimensional.
“The word as minimal textual unit thus turns out to occupy the status of mediator, linking structural models to cultural (historical) environment…”
Here, Kristeva emphasizes the role of the word as a dynamic mediator in texts, connecting linguistic structures with broader cultural and historical contexts.
“Dialogue can be monological, and what is called monologue can be dialogical.”
This quotation reflects Kristeva’s interpretation of Bakhtin’s dialogism, highlighting the complexity of language where even a seemingly singular voice can contain multiple perspectives and dialogues.
“The polyphonic novel becomes ‘unreadable’…and interior to language.”
Kristeva notes how modern polyphonic novels, such as those by Joyce or Kafka, push the boundaries of readability by becoming deeply self-referential and focused on the inner workings of language itself.
“Carnivalesque discourse breaks through the laws of a language censored by grammar and semantics and, at the same time, is a social and political protest.”
This quotation illustrates Kristeva’s application of Bakhtin’s idea of carnivalism, where subversive language challenges established norms and serves as a form of resistance against social and political systems.
“The novel incorporating carnivalesque structure is called polyphonic.”
Kristeva explains that novels using carnivalesque elements, which allow multiple voices and perspectives, are considered polyphonic, meaning they embrace a plurality of dialogues and meanings.
“The word within the space of texts…is oriented towards an anterior or synchronic literary corpus.”
This statement underlines the idea that words in a text are always in dialogue with past and contemporary literary works, reinforcing the interconnectedness of all textual production.
“Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva first appeared in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society translated by Alice Jardine and Harry Blake.
Introduction: “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
“Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva first appeared in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society translated by Alice Jardine and Harry Blake. This seminal article introduced the concept of “women’s time,” a radical departure from the linear, patriarchal conception of temporality. Kristeva’s exploration of maternity, language, and the symbolic order challenged traditional feminist frameworks, offering a complex and nuanced understanding of women’s experiences. Her work significantly contributed to the development of feminist theory and literary criticism by foregrounding the body, desire, and the unconscious, thus expanding the scope of critical inquiry and paving the way for subsequent feminist thinkers.
Summary of “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
Cyclical vs. Linear Time: Kristeva contrasts the traditional association of women with cyclical time, rooted in nature and biological rhythms, against the male-dominated linear historical timeline. She describes cyclical time as “the eternal return of biological rhythm” which is “linked to female subjectivity,” whereas linear time is associated with “time as project, teleology, linear and prospective unfolding” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 16). This distinction reflects the tension between the repetitive, nurturing roles traditionally assigned to women and the forward-moving historical roles often associated with men.
Generations of Feminism: Kristeva identifies two distinct generations of feminism. The first generation focused on achieving equality within the framework of linear time, striving for “equal pay for equal work” and “political demands of women” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 18). This generation was rooted in the sociopolitical life of nations and sought inclusion in history and societal progress. In contrast, the second generation, emerging post-1968, rejected this linearity, instead emphasizing “the specificity of female psychology and its symbolic realizations” and exploring female identity outside traditional historical narratives (Kristeva, 1981, p. 19).
The Role of Symbolic Order: Kristeva discusses the exclusion of women from the symbolic order, which encompasses language, social norms, and identity formation. She argues that “women have been left out of the sociosymbolic contract” and have historically struggled to find a place within it (Kristeva, 1981, p. 24). This exclusion has led women to develop a unique relationship with language, where they often find themselves at odds with the structures that define identity and meaning in society. Kristeva notes, “women are attempting a revolt which they see as liberation but which society as a whole understands as murder” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 25).
Motherhood and Maternity: Kristeva highlights the dual nature of motherhood, viewing it as both a source of identity and a challenge to self-identity. She describes pregnancy as “the radical ordeal of the splitting of the subject,” where a woman experiences “separation and coexistence of the self and of another” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 31). Motherhood, therefore, becomes a complex experience that challenges traditional notions of identity, involving both a fantasy of “narcissistic completeness” and the reality of “love for another” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 31). This experience, she argues, complicates the role of women within the symbolic order.
Terrorism and Power: Kristeva explores the radicalization of women, particularly their involvement in terrorist activities, as a response to their exclusion from traditional power structures. She argues that “women are more vulnerable within the symbolic order, more fragile when they suffer within it, more virulent when they protect themselves from it” (Kristeva, 1981, p. 29). This vulnerability, combined with a deep-seated frustration, can lead to extreme actions, reflecting the intense psychological and social pressures faced by women who feel alienated from the symbolic order.
Creation and Writing: Kristeva emphasizes the importance of artistic and literary creation as a means for women to express their unique experiences and challenge societal norms. She suggests that women’s writing offers a way to articulate “the unsaid, the uncanny” aspects of their lives, providing “a space of fantasy and pleasure” outside the constraints of everyday language (Kristeva, 1981, p. 32). This creative expression is seen as a critical tool for exploring and asserting female subjectivity, breaking away from the traditional symbolic order that has historically marginalized women’s voices.
The Future of Feminism: Kristeva envisions a third generation of feminism that transcends the binary opposition of male and female and embraces a more fluid understanding of identity. She argues for “the demassification of the problematic of difference,” advocating for a perspective that de-dramatizes the conflict between the sexes (Kristeva, 1981, p. 34). This new feminism, she suggests, should focus on “the interiorization of the founding separation of the sociosymbolic contract,” allowing for a deeper exploration of individual identities and the dissolution of rigid gender distinctions (Kristeva, 1981, p. 34). This approach, she believes, could lead to a more flexible and inclusive understanding of identity and difference.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
Term
Definition
Example
Symbolic Denominator
Cultural and religious memory forged by the interweaving of history and geography
The shared historical and religious experiences that define a particular social group, like European countries.
Supranational Socio-Cultural Ensemble
A social grouping that transcends national borders and is defined by shared cultural and historical experiences
Europe as a social group with a shared history and cultural memory.
Cursive Time (Nietzsche)
Linear time, time as a progression
The historical timeline of events.
Monumental Time (Nietzsche)
Cyclical or eternal time
The time associated with nature and repetition, like the seasons.
Diagonal Relationship
Connection between social categories across national borders
The connection between “young people in Europe” and “young people in North America” based on their shared age group.
Maternal Space (Plato)
A formless, pre-symbolic space associated with the feminine
The experience of being nurtured and cared for by a mother.
A concept of time that is not limited to a specific European context
A feminist approach to time that considers experiences beyond European history.
Contribution of “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of the Concept of Female Time: Kristeva introduces the idea of “female time,” contrasting it with the traditionally masculine concept of linear, historical time. This distinction between cyclical (associated with natural and biological rhythms) and linear time challenges conventional narratives and highlights the unique temporality of female subjectivity, influencing feminist literary theory’s approach to time and narrative structures (Kristeva, 1981, p. 16).
Exploration of the Symbolic Order and Women’s Exclusion: Kristeva’s discussion of the symbolic order—language, social norms, and structures that define identity—highlights the exclusion of women from these foundational aspects of culture. She emphasizes the struggle of women to find their place within this order, contributing to theories that explore the intersection of language, gender, and power, particularly within psychoanalytic and feminist literary theory (Kristeva, 1981, p. 24).
Development of the Semiotic and Symbolic Distinction: Kristeva builds on her earlier work by further distinguishing between the “semiotic” (associated with the pre-Oedipal, bodily drives, and rhythms) and the “symbolic” (associated with language, social norms, and law). This distinction has been crucial in literary theory, particularly in feminist and psychoanalytic approaches that analyze texts through the lens of how these two modalities interact and conflict within language and narrative (Kristeva, 1981, p. 16-17).
Critique of Linear Historical Narratives: By challenging the linear, teleological narratives that dominate Western thought, Kristeva’s work contributes to poststructuralist literary theory. Her critique aligns with broader poststructuralist challenges to grand narratives and stable identities, offering a framework for reading literature that accounts for fragmented, cyclical, and non-linear experiences of time and identity (Kristeva, 1981, p. 18).
Influence on Feminist Literary Criticism: Kristeva’s emphasis on the specificity of female subjectivity and her exploration of how women have been marginalized within the symbolic order have had a significant impact on feminist literary criticism. Her work has encouraged a deeper exploration of women’s experiences, identities, and voices within literature, advocating for a rethinking of how gender shapes narrative and language (Kristeva, 1981, p. 19-20).
Introduction of the Concept of “Women’s Writing” (Écriture Féminine): Although Kristeva herself does not fully align with the concept, her exploration of the unique ways women engage with language and the symbolic order contributes to the broader theoretical development of “écriture féminine.” This concept, which emphasizes writing from the female body and experience, has become a key aspect of feminist literary theory (Kristeva, 1981, p. 32).
Interrogation of Identity and Difference: Kristeva’s exploration of identity, particularly the fluid and fragmented nature of female identity, contributes to theories of subjectivity in literary studies. Her work challenges fixed notions of identity, advocating for a view of the self as dynamic and constituted through difference, which has influenced both feminist and poststructuralist theories of the subject (Kristeva, 1981, p. 34).
Examples of Critiques Through “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
Literary Work
Critique
Kristeva Concept
Their Eyes Were Watching God (Zora Neale Hurston)
Janie’s journey of self-discovery is a complex interplay between cyclical time and linear time. She marries multiple times, and each marriage teaches her something new about herself and what she desires. This cyclical pattern reflects Janie’s search for personal growth and fulfillment. However, it also contrasts with the linear time expectations of society, which pressures women to settle down with one man and prioritize domesticity. Ultimately, Janie rejects these constraints and finds fulfillment on her own terms, defying the societal norm of linear time.
Cyclical Time
Jane Eyre (Charlotte Brontë)
Jane Eyre’s life is a constant negotiation between linear time and her own desires. She is constantly pushed towards marriage and domesticity, which represent the societal expectations of her time. However, Jane also has strong desires for independence and intellectual fulfillment, which are not aligned with these linear expectations. The novel explores how Jane grapples with these conflicting forces throughout her life. For instance, she rebels against the harsh conditions at Lowood Institution and seeks educational opportunities at Thornfield Hall. Even when she finds love with Mr. Rochester, she refuses to be his mistress and prioritizes her own sense of self-worth. Through her choices, Jane asserts her agency and challenges the linear expectations placed upon her.
Linear Time
One Hundred Years of Solitude (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)
One Hundred Years of Solitude depicts two contrasting temporalities. The village of Macondo exists in a cyclical and mythical time, where magical realism and repetitive events blur the lines of conventional time. This cyclical time is reflected in the repetitive naming schemes used throughout the generations of the Buendía family, as well as the recurring episodes of insomnia and plague that strike the village. This cyclical existence is disrupted by the arrival of external forces, such as colonialism and modernization, which represent linear time. These external forces disrupt the established way of life in Macondo and introduce a sense of progress and change. The novel explores the tension between these two contrasting temporalities and the impact of modernization on traditional ways of life.
Maternal Space (subverted)
Beloved (Toni Morrison)
Sethe’s experience in Beloved disrupts both linear time and conventional motherhood. The embodied memory of slavery haunts her present, constantly pulling her back into the past. Sethe is haunted by the ghost of her deceased daughter, Beloved, who represents the physical and emotional trauma of slavery. These memories disrupt Sethe’s sense of linear time and prevent her from moving forward. Furthermore, Sethe’s act of infanticide subverts the traditional role of motherhood. She kills her daughter, Beloved, in an attempt to protect her from the horrors of slavery. This act is a complex and controversial one, but it highlights the devastating impact of slavery on maternal bonds. Through these elements, the novel explores the lasting impact of trauma and the complexities of mothering in the face of violence.
Jouissance
Criticism Against “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
Ambiguity in the Concept of Female Time: Kristeva’s distinction between cyclical and linear time has been criticized for being overly ambiguous and essentialist. Critics argue that by associating women primarily with cyclical time, Kristeva risks reinforcing traditional gender stereotypes that tie women to nature and biology, potentially undermining feminist efforts to break free from these constraints.
Complexity and Accessibility: The essay’s theoretical density and complex language have been critiqued for making it inaccessible to a broader audience, including some feminist scholars and activists. Kristeva’s use of psychoanalytic and philosophical terminology can be seen as alienating, limiting the impact of her ideas on feminist theory and practice.
Essentialism in Linking Women to the Semiotic: Kristeva’s association of women with the semiotic (pre-Oedipal, bodily drives) has been criticized for being essentialist, suggesting an inherent connection between women and certain modes of expression. Critics argue that this risks biologizing female identity and reducing women to their bodies and reproductive roles, which contradicts feminist efforts to challenge such reductive views.
Lack of Practical Application: Some critics argue that Kristeva’s theories in “Women’s Time” are overly abstract and lack clear practical applications for feminist activism. While her ideas are influential in academic circles, they may not provide concrete strategies for addressing real-world issues faced by women, limiting their relevance to the broader feminist movement.
Detachment from Political Feminism: Kristeva’s emphasis on the symbolic and psychoanalytic dimensions of gender has been seen by some as a detachment from the political struggles central to feminism. Critics argue that her focus on theoretical explorations of subjectivity and language may divert attention from pressing social and political issues like inequality, discrimination, and violence against women.
Inconsistent Stance on Feminism: Kristeva’s relationship with feminism has been perceived as ambivalent, leading to criticism from within the feminist community. While she addresses feminist issues, her critique of certain feminist movements and her alignment with psychoanalytic frameworks that have been critiqued as patriarchal create tension with more politically engaged forms of feminism.
Potential for Reinforcing Binary Oppositions: Despite Kristeva’s intention to critique and move beyond binary oppositions (such as male/female, linear/cyclical), some critics argue that her work may inadvertently reinforce these binaries. By framing women in opposition to men in terms of time and symbolic order, Kristeva’s analysis may perpetuate the very dichotomies she seeks to deconstruct.
Suggested Readings: “Women’s Time” by Julia Kristeva
“As for time, female subjectivity would seem to provide a specific measure that essentially retains repetition and eternity from among the multiple modalities of time known through the history of civilizations.”
Kristeva suggests that women’s experience of time is distinct, characterized by cyclical repetition and a sense of eternity, in contrast to the linear progression of time associated with male-dominated history and culture.
Kristeva discusses the concept of “female time” as part of her broader argument about the unique temporal experience associated with women, which challenges traditional notions of historical time.
“One is reminded of the various myths of resurrection which, in all religious beliefs, perpetuate the vestiges of an anterior or concomitant maternal cult.”
Kristeva connects the concept of cyclical time to myths of resurrection, highlighting how these narratives often have roots in maternal or female-centered religious traditions.
This quotation reflects Kristeva’s argument about the symbolic and cultural significance of women’s cyclical experience of time, linking it to religious and mythological traditions.
“If it is true that a female sensibility emerged a century ago, the chances are great that by introducing its own notion of time, this sensibility is not in agreement with the idea of an ‘eternal Europe’ and perhaps not even with that of a ‘modern Europe.'”
Kristeva argues that the emergence of a distinctly female sensibility challenges traditional European concepts of time and history, suggesting that women’s experiences introduce a new temporal framework.
This statement is part of Kristeva’s critique of European modernity and its linear, historical narratives, proposing that female experiences offer an alternative temporality.
“What I mean is the demassification of the problematic of difference, which would permit, in a first phase, an apparent de-dramatization of the ‘fight to the death’ between rival groups and thus between the sexes.”
Kristeva advocates for a move beyond rigid binary oppositions, such as male versus female, proposing a more nuanced understanding of identity and difference that reduces conflict.
This reflects Kristeva’s vision for a future feminism that transcends the traditional gender binaries, contributing to a more fluid and complex understanding of identity.
“Pregnancy seems to be experienced as the radical ordeal of the splitting of the subject: redoubling up of the body, separation and coexistence of the self and of an other.”
Kristeva describes pregnancy as a profound experience that disrupts traditional notions of identity, as the self is split and must coexist with another being.
This quotation is from Kristeva’s exploration of motherhood and how it challenges conventional understandings of selfhood, emphasizing the unique psychological and physical experience of pregnancy.
“The analytic situation indeed shows that it is the penis which ends up becoming the major referent in this operation of separation and of the assignment of meaning to the lack or to the desire which constitutes the subject.”
Kristeva critiques the psychoanalytic focus on the phallus as central to identity formation, highlighting how this symbolic structure marginalizes women.
This reflects Kristeva’s engagement with psychoanalytic theory, particularly in challenging the dominance of the phallus in the symbolic order and its implications for gender identity.
“Women are attempting a revolt which they see as liberation but which society as a whole understands as murder.”
Kristeva discusses how women’s efforts to challenge the symbolic order are often perceived as dangerous or destructive, reflecting societal fears of change.
This quotation captures the tension between women’s attempts to assert their identities and the societal backlash that interprets these efforts as a threat to the established order.
“The new generation of women sees that its major social concern has become the sociosymbolic contract, this sacrificial contract.”
Kristeva identifies the symbolic order, or “sociosymbolic contract,” as the central issue for contemporary women, suggesting that this contract is based on exclusion and sacrifice.
This is part of Kristeva’s analysis of how women relate to the symbolic structures that define society, focusing on the challenges women face in navigating and potentially transforming these structures.
“The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1974 as La Révolution du langage poétique in France.
Introduction: “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
“The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1974 as La Révolution du langage poétique in France. Translated into English by Margaret Waller and Leon S. Roudiez in 1980, the essay stands as a cornerstone of contemporary literary theory. Kristeva’s groundbreaking work challenges traditional notions of language, introducing concepts like the semiotic and symbolic to illuminate the complex interplay between the unconscious and linguistic structures. This seminal text has significantly influenced fields such as psychoanalysis, feminism, and cultural studies, inspiring countless scholars to explore the revolutionary potential of language and its capacity to disrupt and transform societal norms.
Summary of “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
Signifying Process and Linguistic Theories:
Modern linguistic theories view language primarily as a formal system, focusing on syntax and mathematics. This perspective treats language as a set of discrete, finite elements, often ignoring the external or non-linguistic factors that influence meaning. Semiotics, however, seeks to address these external influences by examining signifying practices like art, poetry, and myth, which cannot be fully explained by formal linguistics.
Two Trends in Linguistic Research:
First Trend: This trend challenges the traditional notion of the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified by exploring signifying systems where this relationship is “motivated” by the unconscious. It connects linguistic signs to psychosomatic processes, such as in psychoanalysis, linking language to the body’s drives and instinctual functions.
Second Trend: This trend incorporates a layer of semiosis into formal linguistic theory, introducing concepts like the subject of enunciation. This approach connects language to broader semantic, logical, and intersubjective structures, thus integrating elements traditionally relegated to semantics or pragmatics into the core of linguistic theory.
The Semiotic and the Symbolic:
Language consists of two intertwined modalities: the semiotic and the symbolic. The semiotic relates to pre-linguistic, drive-based processes, while the symbolic involves structured, syntactic language that allows for communication and meaning-making. The interaction between these two modalities is crucial for generating different forms of discourse, such as poetry, narrative, and theory.
The Semiotic Chora:
The semiotic chora is a pre-symbolic, psychosomatic space where drives and their articulations are regulated by social and biological factors. This space is foundational for the development of the subject and the acquisition of language, functioning as a site where the body’s energies are organized before being transformed into structured language.
The Thetic Phase:
The thetic phase marks a critical rupture in the signifying process, enabling the subject to establish identity by separating from objects and making propositions. This phase is essential for the formation of language and meaning, as it allows the subject to move from a pre-linguistic state to one where they can articulate thoughts and engage in symbolic exchanges.
The Mirror Stage and Castration:
The mirror stage and the discovery of castration are pivotal moments in the subject’s development. The mirror stage allows the child to perceive their image as separate, leading to the formation of the ego and the recognition of objects. Castration, on the other hand, finalizes the subject’s entry into the symbolic order, detaching them from the mother and establishing the symbolic function as a guiding structure for desire and language.
Frege’s Notion of Signification:
Frege’s concept of Bedeutung (signification) emphasizes the role of the thetic function in the formation of meaning. This function allows the subject to distinguish and denote objects within language, linking the act of enunciation to the creation of meaning. The thetic phase is thus foundational for both linguistic structure and the subject’s ability to signify.
Mimesis and the Thetic:
Mimesis in literature involves constructing objects according to verisimilitude rather than strict truth, positioning them within the symbolic order while simultaneously drawing on the semiotic. Poetic language, particularly modern poetry, challenges the thetic function by integrating semiotic elements, thereby subverting established meanings and denotations, and putting the subject in a state of flux.
The Unstable Symbolic and Fetishism:
The symbolic order, though necessary for meaning-making, is constantly disrupted by the semiotic, leading to creative transformations in signifying practices. Fetishism represents a specific displacement of the thetic phase onto instinctual drives, where objects take on symbolic significance that substitutes for the symbolic order under threat. This process is especially relevant in poetic language, which often destabilizes the symbolic to reveal deeper, pre-symbolic truths.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
Term/Concept
Explanation
Semiotic (Chora)
Refers to the pre-linguistic, drive-based, and psychosomatic stage of the signifying process. It is a space of fluid, mobile energies that precedes the symbolic order.
Symbolic
The structured, syntactic, and social aspect of language that allows for communication, meaning-making, and the construction of identity within a linguistic framework.
Thetic Phase
A crucial moment of rupture in the signifying process that establishes the subject’s identity and the possibility of making propositions; it is the entry into the symbolic.
Traditional linguistic terms; the signifier is the form of a word or expression, while the signified is the concept it represents. Kristeva examines their relationship within the semiotic and symbolic.
Mirror Stage
A concept borrowed from Lacan, where the child recognizes their reflection as an image, leading to the formation of the ego and entry into the symbolic order.
Castration
In psychoanalytic terms, this refers to the symbolic moment when the child recognizes the difference between the sexes, leading to a detachment from the mother and entry into the symbolic order.
Enunciation
The act of expressing or stating something within language; in Kristeva’s work, it is tied to the subject’s emergence and the thetic function in signification.
Mimesis
The imitation of reality in art and literature; in Kristeva’s work, it refers to the construction of objects within the symbolic that are influenced by the semiotic.
A psychoanalytic concept where an object takes on symbolic significance, often displacing the symbolic order onto the drives; in literature, it relates to symbolic substitution.
A psychoanalytic symbol of power and authority within the symbolic order; in Kristeva’s work, it represents the totalizing function of signifieds produced by the signifier.
Metaphor/Metonymy
Figures of speech; metaphor involves substitution based on similarity, while metonymy involves substitution based on association. Kristeva relates these to semiotic processes.
Displacement and Condensation
Psychoanalytic processes described by Freud; displacement involves shifting emotional significance from one object to another, while condensation merges multiple ideas or images into one. These processes are central to the semiotic.
Intertextuality
The relationship between texts; Kristeva sees all signifying practices as interconnected, where one text or signifying system influences another.
Transposition
The process of transferring meaning or elements from one signifying system to another, often involving a shift in the thetic position.
Death Drive
A psychoanalytic concept where the drive towards self-destruction or a return to a pre-symbolic state disrupts the symbolic order.
Negative Dialectics
A philosophical method that rejects synthesis and closure, instead emphasizing contradiction and non-identity. Kristeva applies this to the tension between semiotic and symbolic.
Contribution of “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of the Semiotic and Symbolic Modes:
Kristeva introduces the concept of the semiotic and the symbolic as two modalities of the signifying process, which significantly expands the understanding of language and its function in literary theory. The semiotic relates to pre-linguistic drives and bodily rhythms, while the symbolic pertains to structured, syntactic language that governs meaning-making (Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 93).
Reconceptualization of the Subject in Language:
Kristeva redefines the role of the subject in linguistic theory by introducing the idea of the subject in process, which is constantly oscillating between the semiotic and symbolic modes. This challenges the traditional notion of a stable, unified subject in literary and linguistic theory (Kristeva, p. 92).
The Thetic Phase as a Foundational Concept:
The thetic phase is presented as a crucial moment in the development of the subject and the entry into language. This concept contributes to literary theory by explaining how meaning is produced through a rupture that enables the subject to make propositions and engage in symbolic exchanges (Kristeva, p. 98-100).
Expansion of Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism:
By integrating Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis with semiotics, Kristeva expands psychoanalytic literary criticism. She emphasizes the role of the unconscious, drives, and pre-Oedipal stages in the formation of language and meaning, offering a more dynamic model for interpreting texts (Kristeva, p. 95).
Influence on Feminist Literary Theory:
Kristeva’s exploration of the semiotic as a space associated with maternal, pre-Oedipal drives has significantly influenced feminist literary theory. She challenges phallocentric structures by highlighting the importance of the maternal and the semiotic in the creation of meaning (Kristeva, p. 104).
Introduction of Intertextuality and Transposition:
Kristeva contributes to the concept of intertextuality by arguing that all texts are interconnected within a web of signifying practices. She further introduces transposition as a process where elements of one signifying system are transferred to another, which reshapes understanding of how texts interact and influence each other (Kristeva, p. 112).
Critique of Structuralism and Formalism:
Kristeva critiques the limitations of structuralism and formalism by arguing that they overlook the dynamic and fluid aspects of language represented by the semiotic. Her work advocates for a more comprehensive approach that includes both the structured and unstructured elements of language (Kristeva, p. 91).
Revolutionizing the Concept of Poetic Language:
Kristeva redefines poetic language as a site of resistance to the symbolic order, where the semiotic disrupts established meanings and structures. This challenges traditional literary criticism to consider the subversive potential of poetic language (Kristeva, p. 111).
Integration of Literary Theory with Social Revolution:
Kristeva links the signifying process in literature with broader social and political revolutions, suggesting that the transformation of language in poetic practices reflects and can influence social change. This aligns literary theory with socio-political activism (Kristeva, p. 113).
Examples of Critiques Through “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
James Joyce’s “Ulysses”:
Critique Through the Semiotic and Symbolic: In Ulysses, Joyce’s use of stream-of-consciousness technique can be analyzed through Kristeva’s framework of the semiotic and symbolic. The fluid, fragmented nature of the narrative, especially in the “Penelope” episode, reflects the semiotic chora—an expression of bodily drives, pre-linguistic rhythms, and maternal influences. The symbolic, represented by the structured, syntactic elements of language, is constantly disrupted by these semiotic intrusions, challenging the reader’s expectations of coherent narrative structure and stable meaning.
Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”:
Critique Through the Thetic Phase: Woolf’s To the Lighthouse can be critiqued through Kristeva’s concept of the thetic phase, particularly in relation to the novel’s exploration of subjectivity and identity. The characters’ internal monologues, which often blur the line between self and other, illustrate the struggle of maintaining a stable subject position within the symbolic order. The novel’s fragmented structure and shifting perspectives demonstrate how the thetic rupture is both a necessary condition for and a challenge to coherent identity formation.
Sylvia Plath’s “Ariel”:
Critique Through the Role of the Semiotic in Poetic Language: Plath’s Ariel can be critiqued using Kristeva’s ideas on poetic language as a site where the semiotic disrupts the symbolic. The intense, visceral imagery and rhythmic, almost incantatory quality of Plath’s poems reflect a semiotic energy that challenges conventional meaning. The poems can be seen as expressions of a pre-Oedipal, maternal space that resists the symbolic order’s attempts to impose fixed identities and meanings, thus illustrating the subversive potential of poetic language as Kristeva describes it.
Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”:
Critique Through the Concept of Mimesis: Waiting for Godot can be critiqued through Kristeva’s notion of mimesis, particularly her idea that mimesis in modern literature disrupts the symbolic order by undermining traditional notions of representation and meaning. Beckett’s play, with its repetitive, cyclical structure and lack of conventional plot or resolution, resists the symbolic’s drive toward closure and meaning-making. The characters’ dialogues, which often verge on the absurd, can be seen as mimetic constructions that highlight the inadequacy of language to fully capture or represent reality, thus echoing Kristeva’s critique of the limitations of the symbolic and the importance of the semiotic.
Criticism Against “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
Obscurity and Complexity of Language:
Kristeva’s writing in “The Revolution in Poetic Language” is often criticized for being overly complex and obscure. Her dense theoretical jargon and intricate syntax can make the text difficult to understand, even for those familiar with psychoanalytic and linguistic theory. This has led some critics to argue that her work is inaccessible to a broader audience.
Some critics have pointed out that Kristeva’s key concepts, such as the semiotic and the symbolic, are not always clearly defined or consistently applied throughout the text. The ambiguity surrounding these terms can make it challenging to grasp their precise meanings and implications, leading to potential misinterpretations.
Overemphasis on Psychoanalytic Theory:
Kristeva’s heavy reliance on Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis has been criticized for being reductionist, particularly in her analysis of language and subjectivity. Critics argue that her emphasis on psychoanalytic concepts, such as the Oedipus complex and the death drive, may overlook other important factors in the development of language and identity, such as cultural, social, and historical influences.
Limited Engagement with Feminist Concerns:
Although Kristeva is often associated with feminist theory, some feminists have criticized “The Revolution in Poetic Language” for its limited engagement with feminist concerns. Critics argue that Kristeva’s focus on psychoanalytic theory and her complex theoretical framework do not adequately address the material and social conditions affecting women’s lives, and may even reinforce patriarchal structures by focusing on the symbolic order and the phallus.
Detachment from Practical Application:
Kristeva’s work has been criticized for its detachment from practical literary analysis. While her theories are intellectually stimulating, they are often seen as too abstract to be applied directly to the analysis of specific texts or to have practical implications for literary criticism or pedagogy.
Elitism in Theoretical Approach:
Some critics have accused Kristeva of elitism in her theoretical approach, arguing that her work caters primarily to a narrow academic audience well-versed in psychoanalytic and linguistic theory. This has led to concerns that her ideas, while innovative, may have limited relevance or applicability outside of specialized academic circles.
Insufficient Empirical Evidence:
Kristeva’s theories, particularly her discussions on the semiotic chora and the thetic phase, have been critiqued for lacking empirical evidence. Critics argue that her ideas are highly speculative and not sufficiently supported by empirical research or data, which weakens their validity and applicability.
Suggested Readings: “The Revolution in Poetic Language” by Julia Kristeva
“Language is a strictly ‘formal’ object—one that involves syntax or mathematicization.”
This highlights Kristeva’s assertion that traditional linguistic theories often view language in a purely formal, structural sense, focusing on rules and syntax while neglecting the subject’s role in meaning-making.
“The symbolic is the domain of positions and propositions, the space in which the subject is constructed through language.”
This quote illustrates the symbolic aspect of language, where structured, rule-governed discourse forms the subject’s identity and positions within society.
“The semiotic is articulated by flows and marks that are non-signifying and do not posit a signified object for a subject.”
Kristeva describes the semiotic as a pre-linguistic realm driven by bodily energies and rhythms, distinct from the symbolic’s fixed meanings.
“The chora is a modality of signifiance in which the linguistic sign is not yet articulated as the absence of an object and as the distinction between real and symbolic.”
The chora represents a pre-linguistic, maternal space where the subject is formed through bodily drives and rhythms, before the establishment of language and symbolic meaning.
“The thetic phase marks a crucial transition where the subject breaks away from the undifferentiated semiotic and enters the realm of structured language and symbolic representation.”
This quotation emphasizes the thetic phase as a pivotal moment in the development of the subject, where they move from the pre-linguistic semiotic to the structured world of the symbolic.
“From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1980 as part of her seminal work, Desire in Language.
Introduction: “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
“From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1980 as part of her seminal work, Desire in Language. Initially written in French, the essay was later translated into English, solidifying its impact on international intellectual circles. This groundbreaking piece significantly contributed to literary theory and criticism by exploring the complex interplay between the subject and language. Kristeva delves deep into the formation of identity, challenging traditional notions of subjectivity and offering a profound understanding of the psychological and linguistic processes that shape the self
Summary of “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
The Subject and Language
Language as a Foundation for the Subject: Kristeva posits that “every language theory is predicated upon a conception of the subject” (Kristeva, p. 125). This fundamental interrelation between language and the subject underscores the essay’s exploration.
Evolution of the Subject in Linguistic Theory: Kristeva traces the evolution of the subject’s position in linguistic theory, from the historical subject in philology to the transcendental ego in phenomenology (Kristeva, p. 126).
Transcendence and the Subject: The essay highlights how conceptions of meaning and the subject often lead to a notion of transcendence, frequently linked to religious or ideological constructs (Kristeva, p. 125).
Poetic Language and the Subject
Destabilization of the Subject: Kristeva argues that poetic language “is an unsettling process-when not an outright destruction-of the identity of meaning and speaking subject” (Kristeva, p. 125).
Poetic Language as a Catalyst for Social Change: She connects poetic language to moments of social and institutional crisis, suggesting its role in societal transformation (Kristeva, p. 125).
The Subject in Extremis: The essay explores the extreme positions the subject can occupy within poetic language, ranging from psychosis to complicity with totalitarianism (Kristeva, p. 125).
Linguistic Theory and the Subject
Crisis at the Core of Language: Kristeva proposes that a comprehensive linguistic theory must account for the inherent crises of meaning and the subject within the signifying function (Kristeva, p. 125).
Beyond Phenomenological Limitations: She critiques phenomenological approaches for their inability to fully capture the complexities of language and the subject, advocating for a more nuanced understanding (Kristeva, p. 132).
Heterogeneity as a Theoretical Imperative: The essay introduces the concept of heterogeneity, arguing that a theory of language must acknowledge the coexistence of diverse and often contradictory elements within the signifying process (Kristeva, p. 133).
The Semiotic and Symbolic
Semiotic as Pre-linguistic: Kristeva distinguishes between the semiotic, a pre-linguistic domain of rhythms and intonations, and the symbolic, the realm of meaning and signification (Kristeva, p. 133).
Poetic Language as a Semiotic-Symbolic Hybrid: She characterizes poetic language as a dynamic interplay between the semiotic and the symbolic, with the semiotic often taking precedence (Kristeva, p. 134).
The Questionable Subject: The subject within poetic language is described as a “questionable subject-in-process,” shaped by the complex interaction between the semiotic and the symbolic (Kristeva, p. 135).
Conclusion
The Undecidability of Language: Kristeva emphasizes the undecidable nature of language, challenging traditional notions of meaning and the subject (Kristeva, p. 135).
Beyond Phenomenological Constraints: She calls for a theoretical framework that transcends phenomenological limitations to account for the complexities of language and the subject (Kristeva, p. 132).
The Subject in Flux: The essay concludes by positioning the subject as a dynamic and multifaceted entity, shaped by the interplay of various linguistic and psychological forces (Kristeva, p. 136).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
Literary Term
Definition
Subject
The position of the speaker or knower within a language system.
Signifying Function
The process by which meaning is generated through language.
Transcendence
The act of surpassing the ordinary or physical and entering a higher spiritual state.
Poetic Language
Language that uses figurative language, sound devices, and other creative elements to evoke emotions and ideas.
The coexistence of diverse and often contradictory elements within a system.
Undecidability
The lack of a single, fixed meaning for a word or concept.
Contribution of “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva to Literary Theory/Theories
Subjectivity and Language: Kristeva’s work emphasizes the inseparability of subjectivity and language in literary theory. She argues that every language theory is grounded in a conception of the subject, either acknowledging, implying, or denying it. This concept is crucial in understanding how language constructs and deconstructs identity within literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
Poetic Language and the Semiotic: Kristeva introduces the idea of the semiotic as a dimension of language that operates beneath and alongside the symbolic. The semiotic is associated with pre-linguistic drives, rhythms, and maternal connections, which challenge and disrupt traditional signification and meaning in literature. This concept has been influential in feminist and psychoanalytic literary theories (Kristeva, 1975).
Interrelation of Language, Meaning, and the Subject: Kristeva’s essay contributes to the understanding of the dynamic interplay between language, meaning, and the subject in literary texts. She argues that poetic language, by destabilizing meaning and subjectivity, reveals the inherent crises and contradictions within linguistic structures, offering a new lens for analyzing literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
Linguistic Revolution and Structuralism: By critiquing structural linguistics and its tendency to eliminate the subject, Kristeva contributes to post-structuralist literary theory. She asserts that the subject of enunciation remains crucial even in structuralist frameworks, challenging the reduction of language to mere structures and encouraging a more nuanced analysis of literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
Critique of Philological and Historical Subjectivity: Kristeva’s work critiques the philological and historical approaches to language that dominate traditional literary theory. She argues that these approaches, while useful, fail to account for the complexities of signification and subjectivity, particularly in the context of modern and postmodern literature (Kristeva, 1975).
Transcendence and Literary Meaning: Kristeva explores the idea that literary meaning often seeks a form of transcendence, whether through religious or ideological frameworks. Her analysis highlights how literature can both uphold and subvert these frameworks, contributing to discussions on the role of ideology and theology in literary interpretation (Kristeva, 1975).
The Subject-in-Process: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” has been influential in literary theory, particularly in psychoanalytic and feminist circles. This concept challenges the notion of a stable, coherent subject in literature, instead proposing a subject constantly in flux, shaped by language, desire, and social structures (Kristeva, 1975).
Psychosis, Fetishism, and Literature: By linking psychosis and fetishism with the extremes of poetic language, Kristeva provides a framework for understanding how literature can both reflect and resist social and symbolic constraints. This contribution is significant in the analysis of avant-garde and experimental literature, where these themes are prevalent (Kristeva, 1975).
Heterogeneity in Language: Kristeva’s identification of heterogeneity within language—where multiple, often conflicting forces operate simultaneously—has had a profound impact on deconstructive and postmodern literary theories. Her work encourages the exploration of the multiplicity and fragmentation inherent in literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
Examples of Critiques Through “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
· James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake
Kristeva’s Lens: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” and the semiotic aspects of language can be used to critique Finnegans Wake. The novel’s linguistic experimentation, characterized by puns, portmanteau words, and fractured syntax, exemplifies the semiotic disruption of traditional meaning and the fluid, unstable nature of subjectivity. Joyce’s text defies the symbolic order of language, creating a text that is as much about the breakdown of meaning as it is about its construction. This aligns with Kristeva’s view that poetic language destabilizes the identity of both meaning and the speaking subject, revealing the crises within the linguistic and social structures (Kristeva, 1975).
· Antonin Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty
Kristeva’s Lens: Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty can be critiqued through Kristeva’s exploration of the semiotic and the role of poetic language in unsettling the symbolic order. Artaud’s theater seeks to bypass the constraints of traditional language and reach a pre-linguistic, visceral form of communication that resonates with Kristeva’s semiotic. The emphasis on physicality, screams, and non-verbal expression in Artaud’s work reflects the semiotic drives that Kristeva discusses—those that precede and disrupt structured meaning, challenging the stability of the speaking subject and social conventions (Kristeva, 1975).
· Samuel Beckett’s Not I
Kristeva’s Lens: Not I can be analyzed through the lens of Kristeva’s theories on the instability of the subject and the fragmentation of language. The monologue in Not I, delivered at a rapid pace by a disembodied mouth, reflects a subjectivity in crisis, echoing Kristeva’s notion of the subject-in-process. The play’s fragmented, elliptical language destabilizes meaning, aligning with Kristeva’s view of poetic language as a site where the symbolic is both affirmed and disrupted. The character’s struggle with articulation and identity mirrors Kristeva’s ideas about the tension between the semiotic (instinctual, pre-linguistic drives) and the symbolic (structured language and meaning) (Kristeva, 1975).
· Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Journey to the End of the Night
Kristeva’s Lens: Céline’s use of a colloquial, fragmented narrative style in Journey to the End of the Night can be critiqued through Kristeva’s ideas about the semiotic and the breakdown of the symbolic order. Céline’s narrative is marked by an intense emotional rhythm and frequent use of ellipses, which Kristeva might interpret as the intrusion of semiotic drives into the symbolic order of the text. This disruption reflects the instability of the speaking subject and challenges the traditional coherence of narrative and meaning. Céline’s exploration of themes like war, suffering, and existential despair resonates with Kristeva’s analysis of how poetic language can expose the crises of meaning and subjectivity (Kristeva, 1975).
Criticism Against “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
Complexity and Accessibility: Kristeva’s writing in “From One Identity to Another” is often criticized for being highly abstract and difficult to understand. The dense theoretical language and complex concepts make the essay less accessible to a broader audience, limiting its impact outside of academic circles.
Overemphasis on the Semiotic: Some critics argue that Kristeva places too much emphasis on the semiotic aspect of language, potentially neglecting the importance of the symbolic in maintaining social and linguistic coherence. This focus may lead to an underestimation of the stability and functionality that the symbolic order provides in communication and society.
Lack of Empirical Support: Kristeva’s arguments are often seen as more philosophical and speculative rather than empirically grounded. Critics point out that her theories, while intellectually stimulating, lack concrete evidence or examples to support the claims made about language, subjectivity, and the semiotic.
Potential Neglect of Historical Context: Kristeva’s theoretical approach has been criticized for not adequately considering the historical and cultural contexts of the texts she discusses. By focusing on abstract linguistic and psychoanalytic theories, Kristeva may overlook the specific social and political conditions that influence literary production and interpretation.
Ambiguity in Defining the Subject: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” is seen by some as too ambiguous and fluid, making it challenging to apply consistently in literary analysis. The idea that the subject is always in flux can lead to interpretative challenges and potentially undermine the stability needed for coherent critical discourse.
Criticism from Structuralists and Post-Structuralists: Structuralists may criticize Kristeva for moving away from the focus on structures and systems in language, while post-structuralists might find her retention of certain structural elements, like the transcendental ego, as inconsistent with a fully deconstructive approach.
Feminist Critiques: While Kristeva is often associated with feminist theory, some feminist critics argue that her work, including “From One Identity to Another,” does not adequately address issues of gender and power. Her focus on linguistic theory and psychoanalysis might be seen as abstracting from the material realities of women’s lives and struggles.
Tension Between Theory and Practice: There is a critique that Kristeva’s work, including this essay, creates a tension between theory and practical literary analysis. The highly theoretical nature of her ideas can make it difficult to apply them directly to literary texts in a way that yields clear, practical insights.
Suggested Readings: “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
Representative Quotations from “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva with Explanation
“Every language theory is predicated upon a conception of the subject that it explicitly posits, implies, or tries to deny.”
Explanation: This quotation encapsulates Kristeva’s central thesis that language and subjectivity are deeply intertwined. She argues that any theory of language inevitably involves a notion of the subject, whether acknowledged or not. This idea challenges traditional linguistic theories that might seek to detach language from its human, subjective origins.
“Poetic language… is an unsettling process—when not an outright destruction—of the identity of meaning and speaking subject.”
Explanation: Here, Kristeva highlights the disruptive power of poetic language. She suggests that poetic language challenges and even destroys the stable identities of meaning and the speaking subject, leading to a fluid, dynamic interaction between language and subjectivity. This idea is central to her analysis of how literature operates on the fringes of linguistic and social norms.
“Meaning, identified either within the unity or the multiplicity of subject, structure, or theory, necessarily guarantees a certain transcendence, if not a theology.”
Explanation: Kristeva critiques the tendency in linguistic and philosophical theories to treat meaning as a transcendent, almost theological concept. She argues that this approach imposes limitations on our understanding of language and subjectivity, as it often ignores the complex, material processes through which meaning is actually produced.
“The subject is henceforth the operating thetic consciousness positing correlatively the transcendental Being and ego.”
Explanation: This quotation reflects Kristeva’s engagement with phenomenology, particularly the work of Husserl. She discusses how the subject, in linguistic terms, is constituted through acts of consciousness that position both the self and the objects of meaning. This insight is crucial for understanding how Kristeva rethinks the relationship between language, meaning, and the subject.
“Poetic language, the only language that uses up transcendence and theology to sustain itself; poetic language, knowingly the enemy of religion…”
Explanation: Kristeva emphasizes the subversive potential of poetic language, suggesting that it operates in opposition to religious or transcendent concepts. By doing so, poetic language exposes and challenges the ideological underpinnings of traditional meaning structures, making it a powerful tool for critique and transformation.
“Consequently, it is a means of overriding this constraint. And if in so doing it sometimes falls in with deeds brought about by the same rationality… poetic language is also there to forestall such translations into action.”
Explanation: Kristeva acknowledges the potential dangers of poetic language, such as its alignment with irrational or destructive impulses. However, she also argues that poetic language can serve as a safeguard against the extremes of rationality by offering a space for reflection and resistance before these impulses manifest in harmful ways.
“This kind of heterogeneous economy and its questionable subject-in-process thus calls for a linguistics other than the one descended from the phenomenological heavens…”
Explanation: In this quotation, Kristeva critiques traditional linguistics, which she sees as overly influenced by phenomenological and transcendental ideas. She calls for a new approach to linguistics that can account for the complex, dynamic processes of subjectivity and language, particularly as they are expressed in poetic and experimental forms of writing.
