Introduction: “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
“The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin also used in (College Composition and Communication, 2005), examines the varied responses to reader-response theory within the field of composition studies. She discusses the theory’s initial appeal as a way to focus on the reader’s active role in interpreting texts, as well as the subsequent critiques that challenged its emphasis on subjectivity and its potential to neglect the importance of the text itself. Harkin highlights the ongoing debate about the appropriate balance between reader-centered and text-centered approaches to literary analysis, and she calls for continued dialogue and exploration of different perspectives within the field.
Summary of “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
- Introduction to the Reception of Reader-Response Theory Patricia Harkin explores the historical development and reception of reader-response theory within English studies, framing it as part of two intertwined movements: the elitist theory boom of the 1970s and the populist political movements of the 1960s and 1970s. This dual origin led to its conflicted reception as an intellectual framework. The theory, popular in the 1980s among compositionists, began losing its academic prominence due to its association with pedagogy rather than high theory. “If the theory boom was to remain elitist, it had to deauthorize reader-response” (Harkin, 2005, p. 411).
- Key Figures and Theoretical Contributions Harkin outlines the contributions of key figures in reader-response theory, including Louise Rosenblatt, David Bleich, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish, and Norman Holland. These theorists offered varying explanations of the reading process, from Bleich’s emphasis on the subjectivity of reading to Iser’s phenomenological account of how readers encounter texts. “Rosenblatt’s distinction between efferent and aesthetic readings provides both students and teachers a useful way of discriminating kinds of reading activities” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
- Decline of Reader-Response Theory Despite its initial popularity, reader-response theory gradually faded from prominence in literary studies. Theories such as deconstruction, new historicism, and psychoanalysis, which were part of the theory boom, maintained their academic significance, whereas reader-response was relegated to composition studies. “The disappearance of reader-response theory, by comparison with ‘high theory,’ is consistent with and explicable by its having been part both of a liberatory political movement and of an elitist theory boom” (Harkin, 2005, p. 414).
- Populist vs. Elitist Divide Harkin discusses the role of reader-response theory in fostering populist academic practices by emphasizing the active role of readers in constructing meaning. However, the elitism of literary theory, which sought to maintain the exclusivity of intellectual discourse, contributed to the marginalization of reader-response approaches. “Reader-response in general (and Iser, Bleich, and Holland in particular) met only one criterion: they took the power of meaning-making away from the author but gave that power to any old reader” (Harkin, 2005, p. 416).
- Professionalization and Pedagogy The professionalization of composition studies led to a further decline in the explicit use of reader-response theory. Compositionists embraced the theory for its pedagogical value, particularly in teaching students how to read and write. However, as the field became more focused on writing rather than reading, the theory’s influence waned. “Reader-response theory was particularly amenable to the courses known as ‘lit/comp,’ where the emphasis was on writing but the writing topics were literary texts” (Harkin, 2005, p. 418).
- Conclusion: A Lost Opportunity Harkin laments the fading excitement that once surrounded reader-response theory. She argues that its potential to empower students as active readers has been overlooked in favor of more exclusionary and elitist academic approaches. “The thinkers who could help us most have faded from the discussion. Bleich, Holland, Iser, Rosenblatt, and even Fish told us not merely that readers make meaning but also how” (Harkin, 2005, p. 421).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
| Term/Concept | Definition | Explanation in the Context of the Essay |
| Reader-Response Theory | A theory that emphasizes the role of the reader in actively constructing meaning during the reading process. | Harkin discusses how reader-response theory argues that readers, not just authors, engage in the production of meaning in texts. It challenges the idea of a fixed or authorial meaning, promoting the idea that interpretation varies depending on individual readers. |
| Reception Theory | A broader inquiry into how specific groups of readers (e.g., by gender, class, culture) interpret texts. | Harkin distinguishes reader-response theory from reception theory, explaining that the latter examines how certain types of readers engage with texts. She cites Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance as an example of how a specific audience (women) responds to romance novels. |
| Phenomenology | A philosophical approach that focuses on how individuals experience and interpret the world. | Wolfgang Iser’s version of reader-response is grounded in phenomenology, focusing on the mental processes readers undergo when engaging with texts. Iser’s work on how readers fill in gaps in texts is an example of how phenomenology is applied to literary theory. |
| Aesthetic Reading | Reading for the experience or pleasure of engaging with the text, often with a focus on interpretation. | Harkin references Rosenblatt’s distinction between aesthetic and efferent reading, where aesthetic reading involves a deeper engagement with the text to generate personal meaning, as opposed to reading merely for information. |
| Efferent Reading | Reading to extract specific information from a text rather than for personal enjoyment or interpretation. | Efferent reading, as explained by Rosenblatt and highlighted by Harkin, contrasts with aesthetic reading, where the focus is on gathering data or learning facts, such as reading a manual or instructions, rather than interpreting literary themes. |
| Interpretive Communities | Groups of readers who share similar interpretive strategies based on common cultural, social, or educational backgrounds. | Stanley Fish’s concept of interpretive communities is discussed as part of reader-response theory, showing how certain groups of readers develop shared interpretations despite individual differences, because they follow similar cultural or academic reading practices. |
| Identity Theme | A term from Norman Holland’s work, referring to the narrative structure that shapes an individual’s interpretation of texts. | Holland’s theory suggests that readers interpret texts based on their psychological makeup, which is shaped by an “identity theme” – a recurring pattern in their responses to various life situations, including literature. Harkin cites this concept to explain why readers’ interpretations can vary so widely. |
| Deauthorization | The process of diminishing the influence or authority of a theory or idea, particularly in academic contexts. | Harkin argues that reader-response theory was deauthorized as it conflicted with the elitist nature of the theory boom in literary studies. She suggests that its populist roots contributed to its marginalization in favor of more “difficult” theories such as deconstruction or psychoanalysis. |
| Professionalization | The process by which an academic discipline becomes formalized and structured with its own specialized knowledge, practices, and hierarchy. | The essay describes how compositionists embraced reader-response theory but, in the process of professionalizing themselves, shifted their focus more toward writing than reading, ultimately leading to the decline of reader-response theory in composition studies. |
| Theory Boom | Refers to the period in the 1970s and 1980s when literary theory, particularly deconstruction, psychoanalysis, and Marxism, gained dominance. | Harkin contextualizes reader-response theory as part of the broader theory boom, but argues that while other theories remained influential, reader-response was deauthorized because it was seen as too populist and accessible. |
| Pedagogy | The method and practice of teaching, particularly in academic settings. | Reader-response theory’s association with pedagogy is seen by Harkin as one reason for its decline. She explains that literary studies often distanced itself from pedagogical concerns, while compositionists found reader-response useful for teaching students to read and write. |
| Textual Authority | The belief that the meaning of a text is determined by the author and should be uncovered by readers. | Reader-response theory challenges the traditional view of textual authority by shifting focus from the author’s intent to the reader’s role in creating meaning. This challenge to authorial intent is a key point of tension between reader-response and other literary theories. |
| Empowerment | The idea of giving students or readers the tools to take control of their own learning or interpretation processes. | Harkin discusses how reader-response theory was embraced by compositionists as an “empowering” approach, enabling students to engage more actively in interpreting texts, thereby democratizing the reading process and making it accessible to a wider audience. |
Contribution of “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Reader-Response Theory
- Clarification and Distinction: Harkin’s analysis distinguishes reader-response theory from other related theories, such as reception theory. She emphasizes that while reception theory examines the responses of specific groups of readers, reader-response theory attempts to generalize the cognitive processes involved in reading. “Reader-response theory, by contrast, is properly an effort to provide a generalized account of what happens when human beings engage in a process they call ‘reading'” (Harkin, 2005, p. 411).
- Populist Academic Roots: Harkin highlights how reader-response theory, despite its foundational insights into the role of the reader, was marginalized as part of a broader elitist turn in literary theory. The theory was deauthorized because of its populist nature, which gave interpretive power to ordinary readers. “If the theory boom was to remain elitist, it had to deauthorize reader-response” (Harkin, 2005, p. 414).
- Teachability: One of Harkin’s key contributions is her exploration of how reader-response theory became more associated with pedagogy than with “high theory.” It was viewed as overly teachable and therefore less prestigious in an academic context that prized complexity and exclusivity. “The extent to which a theory of reading is perceived to be teachable can help to explain how it can actually disappear from curricula” (Harkin, 2005, p. 417).
2. Reception Theory
- Contextualization within Reader-Response: Harkin provides a nuanced distinction between reception theory and reader-response theory, framing the former as concerned with the effects of texts on specific audiences (e.g., women or marginalized groups). She credits works like Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance as examples of reception theory. “Janice Radway’s Reading the Romance, which describes the uses to which certain women put certain kinds of romance novels, is an instance” (Harkin, 2005, p. 411).
- Marginalization in Literary Studies: Despite its focus on audience response, reception theory maintained a degree of relevance within cultural studies, while reader-response became increasingly sidelined in English departments. Harkin suggests that this marginalization is part of a broader trend in literary theory’s professionalization, where elitist academic practices pushed populist theories to the margins. “Reception study has been anything but marginal” (Harkin, 2005, p. 411), while reader-response theory has faded in prominence.
3. Phenomenological Literary Theory
- Wolfgang Iser’s Contributions: Harkin elaborates on how phenomenology, particularly Iser’s work, contributed to reader-response theory. Iser’s The Act of Reading and The Implied Reader provided a phenomenological account of how readers construct meaning while engaging with texts. Harkin notes that while Iser’s theories were influential, they were also absorbed into general pedagogical practices rather than being recognized as complex theoretical contributions. “Iser’s elaborate descriptions of the processes by which consciousness constructs meaning as readers encounter gaps and build consistencies in literary texts provided perhaps the most elaborate account of reading processes to emerge during the period” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
- Normalization and Decline: Iser’s phenomenological approach, while initially transformative, became so normalized in literary studies that it ceased to be a source of excitement or innovation. Harkin observes that by the time Iser’s work had been fully integrated into academic thought, it no longer held the revolutionary power it once did. “Today it’s fair to say that reader-response conceptions are simply assumed in virtually every aspect of our work” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412), but they are no longer exciting or cited frequently.
4. Psychoanalytic Literary Theory
- Norman Holland’s Identity Theme: Harkin acknowledges Holland’s contribution to psychoanalytic theory within the framework of reader-response. Holland’s idea that readers interpret texts through a personal “identity theme” provided insights into how psychological structures influence individual reading experiences. “Holland helps to explain why… readers read according to a tacit narrative (called an identity theme) that provides ‘a constancy that colors every phase of an individual’s life'” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
- Integration with Ego-Psychology: Holland’s use of psychoanalytic principles to explain the multiplicity of interpretations further enriched reader-response theory. His work emphasized how personal psychological narratives shape the reading process, providing a bridge between psychoanalytic theory and reader-response. “Holland’s work helps to explain the exuberant multiplicity among individual readings” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
5. Stanley Fish’s Interpretive Communities
- Influence on Reader-Response Theory: Stanley Fish’s concept of interpretive communities, while part of reader-response theory, introduced the idea that readers’ interpretations are shaped by shared cultural and institutional practices. This concept underscored how group dynamics, rather than individual subjectivity alone, influence reading practices. “Fish’s account of interpretive communities… helps to explain how groups of readers develop similar interpretations in spite of the differences that Holland uncovers” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
- Critical Reception: Harkin points out that while Fish’s work remains influential, the more populist aspects of reader-response theory, such as those proposed by Bleich and Holland, have not enjoyed the same sustained academic interest. “We rarely encounter a footnote to Iser. Fish and Bleich are frequently cited, of course, but those citations tend not to be from Is There a Text in This Class? or Readings and Feelings” (Harkin, 2005, p. 414).
6. Feminist Literary Theory
- Challenges to Reader-Response: Harkin discusses how feminist theorists, such as Judith Fetterley, critiqued the implicit assumptions of male-dominated reader-response theory. Fetterley argued that women readers resist masculinist readings by producing alternative interpretations. This feminist intervention broadened reader-response theory by highlighting gendered differences in reading practices. “Judith Fetterley claimed for women the power to refuse masculinist authorial intention by pointing out that the implied reader of Hemingway’s ‘Indian Camp’ would need to believe that a woman’s cries of pain in childbirth are ‘not important’” (Harkin, 2005, p. 413).
7. Cultural and Postcolonial Theories
- Cultural Influence on Reading: Harkin acknowledges how postcolonial and cultural studies have extended the premises of reader-response theory to include readings shaped by race, class, and colonial histories. These theories, particularly through works like Janice Radway’s, emphasize how marginalized groups engage with texts differently based on their social contexts. “The theory boom changed English studies in such a way as to allow for and celebrate idiosyncratic readings” (Harkin, 2005, p. 415).
Conclusion: Impact on Pedagogy and Professionalization
Harkin’s “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” contributes to the understanding of how certain literary theories, particularly reader-response, evolved within the larger context of academic professionalization. She emphasizes how its decline was tied to its populist roots and pedagogical applications, which contrasted with the elitist leanings of other literary theories that emphasized complexity and exclusivity.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
1. “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner (Critiqued through David Bleich’s Reader-Response Theory)
- Reader-Response Approach: Harkin references a conference where participants critiqued David Bleich’s radical reader-response theory, which suggests that all interpretations of a text, even highly subjective ones, are valid. One participant raised the example of Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily,” questioning whether Bleich’s theory would force academics to take a student’s personal reaction, like a comparison to their grandmother, as equally legitimate to any scholarly reading.
- Critique: Bleich’s theory is critiqued for offering no clear standard to determine which readings are more legitimate or useful, as it gives readers full control over meaning, even if the interpretation is idiosyncratic. “Several participants objected that Bleich’s reader-response theory would require us to listen as a sophomore opined that ‘A Rose for Emily’ reminded her of her grandmother” (Harkin, 2005, p. 416).
2. “Indian Camp” by Ernest Hemingway (Critiqued through Judith Fetterley’s Feminist Reader-Response Theory)
- Feminist Reader-Response Approach: Harkin references Judith Fetterley’s feminist critique of Hemingway’s “Indian Camp.” Fetterley argues that male-dominated narratives in literary works often construct an implied reader who is expected to accept the author’s masculinist assumptions. In the case of “Indian Camp,” Fetterley points out that the implied reader would need to see the female character’s cries of pain during childbirth as insignificant, which a feminist reader would resist.
- Critique: Fetterley critiques the implied male perspective in the story, arguing that women readers are forced to resist these interpretations, challenging the author’s assumptions. “Judith Fetterley claimed for women the power to refuse masculinist authorial intention by pointing out that the implied reader of Hemingway’s ‘Indian Camp’ would need to believe that a woman’s cries of pain in childbirth are ‘not important’” (Harkin, 2005, p. 413).
3. “After Apple-Picking” by Robert Frost (Critiqued through Louise Rosenblatt’s Reader-Response Theory)
- Aesthetic vs. Efferent Reading: Harkin uses Louise Rosenblatt’s distinction between aesthetic and efferent reading to critique how readers approach Robert Frost’s “After Apple-Picking.” Rosenblatt’s theory suggests that readers can interpret the poem either for the aesthetic experience (personal enjoyment and meaning-making) or for efferent purposes (gathering factual information). In “After Apple-Picking,” readers may debate whether Frost is exploring metaphysical uncertainty or simply describing apple-picking.
- Critique: Rosenblatt’s theory helps to explain how different readers approach the same text in different ways, depending on whether they focus on its deeper themes or literal content. “Is Robert Frost dealing with metaphysical uncertainty in ‘After Apple-Picking’ or is he just talking about picking apples?” (Harkin, 2005, p. 412).
4. “Reading the Romance” by Janice Radway (Critiqued through Reception Theory)
- Reception Theory Approach: Harkin highlights Janice Radway’s “Reading the Romance” as an example of reception theory, which explores how specific groups of readers (in this case, women) engage with a genre of texts (romance novels). Radway’s study investigates how these readers interpret the novels within their social and cultural context, focusing on the specific uses women make of these books.
- Critique: Harkin uses Radway’s work to distinguish reception theory from reader-response theory. While reception theory looks at particular demographics and their interactions with texts, reader-response theory aims to provide a more generalized account of how all readers interpret texts. “Radway’s Reading the Romance, which describes the uses to which certain women put certain kinds of romance novels, is an instance” (Harkin, 2005, p. 411).
Criticism Against “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
Lack of Depth in Theoretical Exploration
- Some critics might argue that Harkin’s essay provides only a surface-level exploration of the various strands of reader-response theory and its associated figures. The work may be seen as more historical in focus rather than offering a deep theoretical engagement with the ideas of Rosenblatt, Bleich, Iser, and Fish.
Overemphasis on Professionalization
- Harkin’s focus on the role of professionalization in the decline of reader-response theory could be criticized as overly simplistic. Critics might argue that other factors, such as the changing intellectual climate or shifts in pedagogical priorities, played a larger role in the marginalization of reader-response theory than the professionalization of English studies alone.
Binary Framing: Elitist vs. Populist
- The essay frames the academic discourse in binary terms of elitist (theory boom) vs. populist (reader-response), which might be viewed as a reductive portrayal of the complexity of theoretical debates during that period. Critics could argue that this oversimplifies the nuanced differences between various theories and how they were received in academic settings.
Insufficient Engagement with Modern Theories
- Harkin’s critique might be seen as too focused on the 1970s and 1980s, without adequate consideration of more recent developments in literary theory, such as digital humanities, ecocriticism, or critical race theory. This lack of engagement with newer theoretical frameworks may make the essay seem dated or less relevant to contemporary debates.
Nostalgic Tone
- Some readers may find the nostalgic tone of the essay problematic, as it tends to idealize the past excitement around reader-response theory. This sentimentality could detract from a more objective critique of why the theory fell out of favor and what value it still holds in today’s academic landscape.
Limited Global Perspective
- The essay is primarily focused on the United States and Western Europe, neglecting how reader-response theory might have evolved or been received in non-Western academic contexts. This could be seen as a limitation in addressing the global relevance of the theory.
Overemphasis on Pedagogy
- While Harkin acknowledges the pedagogical strengths of reader-response theory, some might argue that she overly emphasizes its use in teaching, at the expense of discussing its intellectual contributions to literary criticism more broadly. The essay could be seen as narrowing reader-response theory to a tool for classroom instruction rather than a significant theoretical paradigm in its own right.
Representative Quotations from “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “If the theory boom was to remain elitist, it had to deauthorize reader-response.” | Harkin argues that reader-response theory was marginalized because it was seen as too accessible and populist, conflicting with the elitist intellectual trends of the time, which sought to maintain exclusivity in academic theory. |
| “Reader-response theory, by contrast, is properly an effort to provide a generalized account of what happens when human beings engage in a process they call ‘reading.’” | This quotation highlights Harkin’s distinction between reader-response theory and reception theory, emphasizing that reader-response theory seeks to generalize how all readers engage with texts. |
| “Today it’s fair to say that reader-response conceptions are simply assumed in virtually every aspect of our work.” | Harkin notes that while reader-response theory has become normalized in academic practice, it has lost its revolutionary excitement and is no longer explicitly acknowledged in theoretical discussions. |
| “Bleich’s emphasis on the subjectivity of criticism, indeed of all reading, has become commonplace.” | Harkin points out how David Bleich’s ideas about the subjectivity of reading are now widely accepted, even though his contributions are not always directly cited in contemporary literary theory. |
| “The disappearance of reader-response theory, by comparison with ‘high theory,’ is consistent with and explicable by its having been part both of a liberatory political movement and of an elitist theory boom.” | Harkin explains that the decline of reader-response theory can be traced to its populist roots, which conflicted with the academic elitism that marked the theory boom of the 1970s and 1980s. |
| “Interpretive communities as ‘a set of practices that are defining of an enterprise and fill the consciousnesses of the enterprise’s members’ helps to explain how groups of readers develop similar interpretations.” | This quotation explains Stanley Fish’s concept of interpretive communities, which shows how shared practices and cultural norms shape how different groups of readers interpret texts. |
| “Judith Fetterley claimed for women the power to refuse masculinist authorial intention by pointing out that the implied reader of Hemingway’s ‘Indian Camp’ would need to believe that a woman’s cries of pain in childbirth are ‘not important.’” | Here, Harkin highlights Judith Fetterley’s feminist critique of reader-response theory, showing how women resist patriarchal assumptions in male-authored texts, especially in works like Hemingway’s “Indian Camp.” |
| “Rosenblatt’s distinction between efferent and aesthetic readings provides both students and teachers a useful way of discriminating kinds of reading activities.” | This quotation illustrates Louise Rosenblatt’s distinction between efferent reading (for information) and aesthetic reading (for personal experience), which is a central idea in reader-response theory. |
| “Reader-response theory was and is eminently teachable—and teachable in a way that was… ‘empowering.’” | Harkin emphasizes the pedagogical value of reader-response theory, which empowers students by making reading and meaning-making processes accessible and engaging. |
| “Fish’s title encodes two distinct fears: (1) fear of change and (2) fear of losing (or of failing to attain) professionalism.” | Harkin critiques Stanley Fish’s fear that reader-response theory could democratize interpretation, which could undermine the professionalization of literary studies and diminish its elitist status. |
Suggested Readings: “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin
Books
- Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
- Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
- Rosenblatt, Louise. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Southern Illinois University Press, 1978.
- Radway, Janice. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
- Holland, Norman. Five Readers Reading. Yale University Press, 1975.
Websites
- National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) – College Composition and Communication (Publisher of Harkin’s article)
- JSTOR – Access to academic articles, including Harkin’s “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory”