Reader Responce in Classrooms

I'm responding to Brian's post under subobjectivity. He said that one of the important parts of literature was looking at different interpretations. We should focus on "why each person has a different interpretation, and what are the social causes behind these subjective readings? We could certainly learn much more about our own cultures by 'interpreting' the interpretation." I think this is a valid way of going about reading and discussing literature. Yes, the text loses some of its importance, but if texts are supposed to affect readers, we should be looking at how and why people respond to things differently.
I don't think we deal with reader responce in classes at all. This could be to avoid all of the problems that go along with reader responce, like the ever present problem of whether all interpretations are valid. Is it ok to not really ever tackle this in class rooms or are we losing something by not talking about our gut feelings about the text and how the text affects us now?

Inquiry

Upon research for an aspect of my paper, I became curious as to what other people would say about the properties of a text. For a text to exist, it must have certain/specific properties. What would you deem the properties or characteristics of a text that make it a text? (And I mean this in the simplest form--text, not Text v text) Would it just be the common elements of literature, such as plot, setting, themes, etc? Or is there something else that makes a text a text? The only reason I have not offered my answer is that I am still not quite sure, although I do think that some of the elements of literature play a part in characterizing a piece of writing as a text.