“The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

“The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich was first published in 1975 within the collection Readings and Feelings. This work significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory by challenging traditional notions of objective interpretation. Bleich’s argument, which emphasized the primacy of the reader’s subjective experience in shaping meaning, marked a significant departure from the dominant critical approaches of the time.

Summary of “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

1. Reaction Against Impressionism and New Criticism’s Aims: The New Criticism arose as a response to the unsystematic nature of ‘Impressionism,’ seeking to establish a more rigorous intellectual foundation for aesthetic discussions. The movement aimed to ensure that discussions about literature were recognized as genuine knowledge rather than mere personal observations. As stated, “The aim was to present aesthetic discussions so that they would be more intellectually informative and less easily dismissible.”
2. The Nature of Interpretive Knowledge: Interpretive knowledge in literature is distinct from the formulaic knowledge found in the physical sciences. It is shaped by the interpreter’s uncontrolled experiences and is inherently subjective. “Interpretive knowledge is neither deduced nor inferred from a controlled experience… Rather, it is constructed from the uncontrolled experience of the interpreter.”
3. The Illusion of Objectivity in Criticism: Critics often maintain the appearance of objectivity in their interpretations, though they recognize the subjective nature of their work. This recognition allows for the coexistence of multiple interpretations, known as critical pluralism. “The assumption of objectivity is almost a game played by critics… most critics will admit to the fallacy in this ritual, and they will point out that they believe in critical pluralism.”
4. Psychoanalysis and the Subjectivity of Rationality: The essay links the subjective nature of interpretive knowledge to Freud’s later epistemological views, which recognized that even rationality is not purely objective. “The most important epistemological contribution of psychoanalysis is precisely the spectacular demonstration that rationality is itself a subjective phenomenon.”
5. The Observer’s Role in Interpretation: In both human and physical sciences, the observer’s presence influences the interpretation, making it impossible to fully separate the observer from what is being observed. “The observer is always part of what is being observed… detailed knowledge of the mind is likewise not possible without taking into account the effects of observing one’s own mind.”
6. The Symbolic Nature of Literary Objects: Literary works are not merely physical objects; they are symbolic and their meaning is entirely dependent on the perception and interpretation of individuals or communities. “A symbolic object is wholly dependent on a perceiver for its existence… An object becomes a symbol only by being rendered so by a perceiver.”
7. The Fallacy of Objectivity in New Criticism: The New Criticism’s main flaw lies in its assumption that literary works, as symbolic objects, can be treated as objective entities. “The fallacy of the New Criticism is its assumption that a symbolic object is an ‘objective’ object.”
8. The Role of Community in Defining Truth:The truth in literary interpretation is determined by the community’s consensus, not by any objective standard. “The test of truth in critical interpretation is its social viability… interpretations accepted as ‘true’ achieve this status because they reflect an area of common subjective value.”
9. Interdependence of Literary Study and Self-Knowledge: The study of literature is inherently linked to the study of the individuals involved in its interpretation. Literary interpretation and self-knowledge are thus part of a unified intellectual endeavor. “The study of art and the study of ourselves are ultimately a single enterprise.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

Term/Concept	Explanation	Quotation
New Criticism	A literary movement that aimed to present aesthetic discussions in a more intellectually rigorous manner, reacting against the unsystematic approach of Impressionism.	“The aim was to present aesthetic discussions so that they would be more intellectually informative and less easily dismissible.”
Interpretive Knowledge	The understanding that knowledge in literature is constructed from the subjective experiences of the interpreter, distinct from the formulaic knowledge of the physical sciences.	“Interpretive knowledge is neither deduced nor inferred from a controlled experience… Rather, it is constructed from the uncontrolled experience of the interpreter.”
Critical Pluralism	The belief that multiple interpretations of a literary work can coexist, reflecting the subjective nature of interpretive knowledge.	“Most critics will admit to the fallacy in this ritual, and they will point out that they believe in critical pluralism.”
Subjectivity	The notion that interpretive knowledge is a product of individual perception and values, and not an objective truth.	“The assumption of objectivity is almost a game played by critics… it is the motivated construction of someone’s mind.”
Freudian Epistemology	The idea, drawn from Freud’s later work, that even rationality and knowledge are subjective, challenging the earlier Newtonian, objectivist perspective.	“The most important epistemological contribution of psychoanalysis is precisely the spectacular demonstration that rationality is itself a subjective phenomenon.”
Involved Observer	The principle that the observer is always part of what is being observed, influencing the interpretation and knowledge gained, particularly in the context of literary analysis.	“The observer is always part of what is being observed… detailed knowledge of the mind is likewise not possible without taking into account the effects of observing one’s own mind.”
Symbolic Object	The concept that literary works are symbolic rather than purely physical objects, dependent on the perceiver for their existence and meaning.	“A symbolic object is wholly dependent on a perceiver for its existence… An object becomes a symbol only by being rendered so by a perceiver.”
Fallacy of Objectivity	The critique of New Criticism’s assumption that literary works, as symbolic objects, can be treated as objective entities, ignoring the subjective nature of interpretation.	“The fallacy of the New Criticism is its assumption that a symbolic object is an ‘objective’ object.”
Social Viability	The idea that the truth of literary interpretations is determined by their acceptance within a community, rather than by any objective standard.	“The test of truth in critical interpretation is its social viability… interpretations accepted as ‘true’ achieve this status because they reflect an area of common subjective value.”
Literary Transaction	The interaction between the reader and the text, where the meaning of the literary work is created through the reader’s interpretation, influenced by personal and social factors.	“For the author, the work of literature is a response to his life experience. For the reader, the interpretation is the response to his reading experience.”
Unified Intellectual Endeavor	The notion that the study of literature is intertwined with the study of the individuals involved in its interpretation, suggesting that literary interpretation and self-knowledge are part of a single intellectual pursuit.	“The study of art and the study of ourselves are ultimately a single enterprise.”

Contribution of “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

Literary Work	Critique
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	A reader’s interpretation of Hamlet’s indecision might be influenced by their own experiences with grief, loss, or uncertainty. Bleich’s theory suggests that Hamlet’s meaning is not solely contained within the text, but is also shaped by the reader’s subjective responses, such as their own emotional journey through loss and the search for meaning.
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	A reader’s understanding of the novel’s exploration of trauma and healing might be deeply affected by their own experiences with violence or loss. Bleich’s theory would emphasize how these personal experiences can influence the reader’s emotional response to the text, leading to unique interpretations of the characters and themes.
Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway	A reader’s perception of Mrs. Dalloway’s character and the novel’s stream-of-consciousness narrative might be influenced by their own experiences with mental health or feelings of isolation. Bleich’s theory would highlight how these subjective factors can shape the reader’s understanding of the text, leading to different interpretations of Mrs. Dalloway’s inner life and the novel’s exploration of consciousness.
James Joyce’s Ulysses	A reader’s engagement with the novel’s complex language and experimental structure might vary greatly depending on their familiarity with literary techniques and their willingness to invest time and effort in the text. Bleich’s theory would suggest that the novel’s meaning is co-created by the reader and the text, and that the reader’s subjective experience, including their literary background and personal preferences, plays a crucial role in their interpretation.

Criticism Against “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

• Overemphasis on Subjectivity: Critics may argue that Bleich’s focus on the subjective nature of interpretation undermines the possibility of any objective or universal understanding of literature, potentially leading to relativism where all interpretations are equally valid, regardless of their rigor or insight.
• Neglect of Authorial Intent: By emphasizing the reader’s role in creating meaning, Bleich’s perspective might be criticized for downplaying the importance of the author’s intentions and the context in which a work was created, which can be crucial for understanding the text’s meaning and significance.
• Challenges to Critical Standards: Some may argue that Bleich’s rejection of objective standards in literary criticism could lead to a weakening of critical standards, making it difficult to evaluate the quality or validity of different interpretations in a meaningful way.
• Potential for Interpretive Anarchy: The acceptance of multiple, potentially conflicting interpretations without a clear framework for evaluating them could lead to what some critics might describe as “interpretive anarchy,” where the coherence and value of literary criticism are diminished.
• Risk of Oversimplification: Bleich’s distinction between interpretive knowledge and scientific knowledge might be seen as an oversimplification, ignoring the ways in which interpretation in both literature and science can involve complex reasoning, evidence, and argumentation.
• Limited Practical Application: The highly theoretical nature of Bleich’s arguments may be criticized for offering limited practical guidance for literary critics and educators, who need concrete methods for evaluating and discussing literary works.
• Dismissal of New Criticism’s Contributions: Bleich’s critique of New Criticism might be seen as too dismissive, overlooking the valuable contributions that New Criticism made to literary analysis, such as the focus on close reading and the text itself, which have been foundational to modern literary studies.

 Suggested Readings: “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich

1. Bleich, David. Subjective Criticism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
2. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
3. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
4. Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
5. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Aspen, no. 5-6, 1967.
6. Holland, Norman N. 5 Readers Reading. Yale University Press, 1975.
7. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Continuum, 1975.
8. Rosenblatt, Louise M. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Southern Illinois University Press, 1978.

Representative Quotations from “The Subjective Character Of Critical Interpretation” by David Bleich with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The aim was to present aesthetic discussions so that they would be more intellectually informative and less easily dismissible.”	Bleich explains the New Criticism’s goal to transform aesthetic discussions into intellectually rigorous debates, moving away from unsystematic approaches like Impressionism.
“Interpretive knowledge is neither deduced nor inferred from a controlled experience. Rather, it is constructed from the uncontrolled experience of the interpreter.”	This highlights the subjective nature of literary interpretation, where knowledge is formed through the personal and uncontrolled experiences of the interpreter, unlike the controlled processes in the sciences.
“The assumption of objectivity is almost a game played by critics, a necessary ritual to help maintain the faith that if criticism presents its knowledge in the same form as the exact sciences, it will have the same authority.”	Bleich criticizes the assumption of objectivity in literary criticism, suggesting that it is more of a ritualistic pretense rather than a true reflection of the interpretive process, which is inherently subjective.
“Rationality is itself a subjective phenomenon.”	This statement, linked to Freudian psychoanalysis, underlines the idea that even rationality is not purely objective, further supporting the argument that literary interpretation is inherently subjective.
“The observer is always part of what is being observed.”	Bleich adopts a modern scientific attitude, asserting that the observer’s influence is inescapable in both human and physical sciences, which complicates any claims of objective knowledge, including in literary criticism.
“A symbolic object is wholly dependent on a perceiver for its existence.”	This emphasizes that literary works, as symbolic objects, do not exist independently of their readers or interpreters; their meaning is created by the interaction between the text and its audience.
“The fallacy of the New Criticism is its assumption that a symbolic object is an ‘objective’ object.”	Bleich points out the main flaw of New Criticism, which is its mistaken belief that literary texts, being symbolic objects, can be treated as if they have objective, inherent meanings.
“The truth of literature has no meaning independent of the truth about the reader.”	Bleich argues that the meaning of a literary work is intrinsically linked to the reader’s interpretation, making it a subjective truth rather than an objective one.
“The test of truth in critical interpretation is its social viability.”	This statement suggests that the validity of an interpretation is determined by its acceptance within a community, rather than by any objective criteria, aligning with the idea of interpretive knowledge being socially constructed.
“The study of art and the study of ourselves are ultimately a single enterprise.”	Bleich concludes by stating that literary criticism and self-knowledge are intertwined, reinforcing the idea that understanding literature is deeply connected to understanding the individuals engaged in its interpretation.