10/8/07
Decisions, decisions
A subject that keeps coming up, but we never really discuss is how sometimes literary theories come into conflict with each other. Individually, the theories all make sense, but when viewed together, some things just don't work. How do we reconcile these differences? Should we make some sort of hierarchy of theory? Should we view each theory in a vacuum?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I do find it frustrating that some of the different theories that we have learned about do not appear to fit together. In response to Sylvi's first question, I don't think that the differences between these theories can be reconciled.
The working definition of literary theory that we learned at the beginning of the semester regards literary theory as "a set of principles that apply to/explain a substantial number of literary texts." Perhaps this is far-fetched, but if we were to attempt to reconcile the differences between the various literary theories, would they not have to apply to all texts? To further complicate the matter, a theory is essentially a generally accepted hypothesis that can be frequently tested. Because a theories are technically not "fixed," I think differences will continue to emerge between them as time goes on, which will ultimately make reconciliation a futile effort to say the least.
The idea of a hierarchy is intriguing, but what theory or idea would be at the top of this hierarchy?
I agree with Marcus in the sense that I don't think differences can be reconciled. But to extend this even further, I don't think the difference SHOULD be reconciled. We should view each theory in a vacuum. Most theories are developed by critics who see the existing theories as lacking in certain areas or overmphasizing other areas, and thus they develop their own perspective off of the others' perceived inadequecies.
This concept of a hierarchy is intriguing. Perhaps if there were a hierarchy of theory, the theory that includes the most influence from other theories should be at the top, and then it would go down from most inclusive (or pluralist) to most narrow in thought.
I agree that attempting to reconcile all the differences in literary theory would be a futile effort. However, I don't think we can or should view theory in a vaccum. The perceptions of the creators of new theory are influenced by pre-existing theories, even if it is only believing that the previous theory is inadequate.
Also, if you create the hierarchy begining with theories which have been influenced the most by other theories, don't you run the risk of creating a chronological list instead of a hierarchy? I'm not sure that a hierarchy for theory is possible. It seems as though we would run into the same problems as when we were attempting to make one for interpretations --that the hierarchy can only remain objective up to a point.
An interesting question. Historically, I think, this kind of heirarchizing does tend to happen, but usually not in comprehensive ways. One theorist may borrow from another theoretical school or two, and the centrality of their core interests will constitute a kind of ranking, but other schools just drop off the map. Or a theorist may define his or her theories against another theoretical school, but again other schools drop off the map, and one could argue that this is not really a form of ranking theories, more like a form of taking one theory out of play. There are of course people like Barry and Richter who discuss all the theories, but usually they're not doing so as theorists; they're doing so as historians and interpreters of theory.
As for whether the different theories should be treated as if in a vacuum: personally, I think it's a good to let the different theories duke it out. Its's the best way I can think of to clarify one's own beliefs. But I have mixed feelings about how possible it is to mix theories productively. On the one hand, it seems to me arrogant to assert any position at the expense of all others. On the other hand, as I tried to explain when we were talking about the Schwarz article, people all too commonly try to take a smorgasbord approach to theories that have drastically different assumptions and that are therefore ultimately irreconcilable.
Ultimately, I suppose, we all believe what we believe, and those kinds of ad hoc "that seems right but this seems bogus" evaluations form a kind of heirarchy. But for most of us, one or two have a way of hogging center stage.
Wes
I agree with Dr. Chapman that it seems arrogant to "assert any position at the expense of all others." while i feel like there logically should be a hierarchy of theories, i have no idea which theory would be placed at the top and which at the bottom. i mean, there are ones that i feel are more logical and applicable than others, but who am i to deem a theory valid or invalid?
i feel that almost every interpretation of a work (or a Text...) is valid because readers are free to interpret as they please, and because texts may speak to different people in different ways because of things they've experienced in their lives. therefore, it seems only logical that different people will accept and apply different theories in different ways. yes, I think that marxism is a lot of crap, but does that mean it belongs at the bottom of a hierarchy of theory? i don't think that's my call to make.
Post a Comment