Transition from Literary Criticism to Literary Theory

Literature has always been talked about extensively through the ages in various contexts. However, one of the most widely discussed context is the idea if literature is a unifying force and unifies people all around the globe by transcending the notions such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, nationalism, social class, etc. However, a critical analysis of this idea reveals that literature has been wrongly presented as a unifying, universal force. The idea that literature is apolitical, universal and connects humanity is false. This idea has been promoted in different ages of literature and was upheld by various types of criticisms. The essay shall unleash how literature was promoted as universal and apolitical during different ages and by various schools of criticism, where actually it was serving to uphold the power structures, resulting in the need of Literary Theory to deal with the flaws of literature.

The idea of treating literature as universal and apolitical was found in the tenants of Liberal Humanism. It suggested that gender, race and class apparently may make us look different, but we all have universal human nature defined on the grounds of morality (Barry 21). It says that if literature was political, it would be a source of propaganda. Therefore, literature is apolitical and is not an ideological tool. These ideas of Liberal Humanism regarding literature had been the latent concepts promoted by the literature during different ages.

The industrial revolution of Romantic Era brought mass production, surplus and consumer culture. “A crassly philistine Utilitarianism” (Eagleton 17) was seen as the ruling ideology of the industrial bourgeois class.  However, this revolution imprinted this age with some dark impressions including capitalism, alienation, individualism, fragmentation of society, loss of humanity, greed, etc.  During this age, the valuable writings, such as philosophy, history, poems, etc. were included in literature (Eagleton 15). The Romantics saw literature (poetry) as an individual genius; as a special talent that the writer possesses in order to remove the alienation of society and to restore the human aspects. However, the writings and imagination that reflected the values and taste of a certain social class were considered true literature. This aesthetical concept of literature was apolitical and universal since it emphasized on the individuality of the masses but did not bring to light the evils of capitalism and class distinction. It suggested escapism and empty nostalgia instead of focusing the influence of capitalism. Therefore, it again promoted literature as “ideological” (Eagleton 19).

The shift from Romantic to Victorian Age is marked by the scientific advancements, full blown industrial revolution and religious scepticism. The post-war society brought forth the bourgeoisie as the new class in possession of money. This gave rise to the need of civilizing this class for which literature was used.  Moreover, English studies were bought into prominence owing to “the failure of religion” (Eagleton 20). The unquestioned trust and belief on religion shattered primarily because of scientific discoveries, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, as well as the social change. Therefore, English had three main purposes to serve: delight, instruct, saving souls and healing the State (Eagleton 20), and the idea of nationalism was promoted. Arnold suggested to find such literature in “Hellenism” (Bertens 3), which meant that the Greek literature was appropriate to teach the new rich bourgeois class adequate culture. However, it again resulted in upholding the power structures since the Hellenistic literature was not discernible by the common masses. Moreover, the idea of Nationalism again pushed people to show national unity which meant no retaliation against the power structures. It was suggested that “Literature helps to promote sympathy and fellow feeling among all classes” (Eagleton 20), which again was an apolitical concept. As for Arnold, he also included only English and American literature in the canon (Bertens 12) resulting in the exclusion of literature of the marginalized groups. For Bretens, Arnold is an elitist snob. Therefore, the Victorian age again presented literature as apolitical and universal, and ignored the exploitations of capitalism in the society.

Further, in the Modern era, the society faced identity crises owing to the war between Britain and Germany. Having its roots in Germany, the Great Britain was now having bitter terms with the country of its roots. This provoked the British people to rewrite their history, carefully eliminating any Germanic associations, and thus shaking the sense of identity of the masses (Eagleton 26). To read literature was to get connected with one’s own individual being. During this time, a popular magazine Scrutiny appeared on the scene with the noise of battling against capitalism by making its adherents go to schools and universities. However, the only change it really brought into the society was “education” (Eagleton 29). However, it was only a little population of society that could actually afford to attend universities. Moreover, the literature it prescribed was also Hellenistic which was hardly discernible by the masses. Therefore, “the Scrutiny case was inseparably elitist” (Eagleton 30). In this way, the literature of Modern age also remained apolitical.

The school of thoughts that upheld literature as universal and apolitical were the result of the attitude towards literature in different ages. As discussed in the beginning, Liberal Humanism served as an umbrella, under which other schools of thought rooted, such as Historical Criticism, Practical Criticism and New Criticism. All these forms of criticisms remained apolitical and universal in the end. Liberal Humanism promoted that literature is “timeless and connects humanity” (Barry 20). It presents literature as a mirror of universal human nature which form universal human values, making it apolitical. Focusing the moral aspects of literature, Liberal Humanism ignored its political aspects. Historical criticism did more or less the same. It focused on the biographical aspects of the writer and spirit of age (Tyson 136) in order to derive meaning from the text, ignoring the political and individual aspects that may influence the literature.

Practical Criticism and New Criticism were rooted in Liberal Humanism. Practical Criticism meant “a method which spurned belle-lettristic waffle” (Eagleton 37) and said that the greatness of a literary text can be evaluated if it is divorced from its cultural and historical contexts. New Criticism also focused on the “text itself” (Tyson 136), and emphasized on the formal elements of the text which contribute in creating complexity as well as conflicts in the text.  However, its end product of resolution of these conflicts by giving a universal moral theme which resolves the conflicts created by the literary devices. This approach again treated literature as apolitical and universal, instead of highlighting the social unrest and deterioration caused by capitalism.

All these factors contributed to the need of an approach which deals with these flaws of literature. As a result, Literary Theory was born, which focuses on problematizing the idea and unleashing the latent intentions of a literary text. Theory involves reflexivity, which involves thinking on how identities are created and philosophies are generated (Barry 31). It suggests that reality is only a construct that is constructed using language. According to Jonathan Culler, theory involves complex relations and is not easily confirmed or disproved (Culler 3). It is an unbounded group of texts that includes everything in the globe and encompasses every field in it. It disputes the common sense, universal meanings and ideas and dismantle the structures that rule these ideas. It calls to question the notions or aspects that might be ignored or taken for granted otherwise (Culler 5). The concepts of Foucault and Derrida about the identity as a social construct and about language as a tool of creating binaries, respectively, are among the examples that reveal the political nature of theory.

The backhand purpose of pacifying the masses through literature has promoted literature as an apolitical and universal element. In every age, literature, in one way or the other, has been used to uphold the power structures in the society in order to ensure the rule of the elites and the capitalists. Criticism during this time; be it Historical Criticism, Practical Criticism or New Criticism, promoted the idea of universal morality. To deal with these flaws of literature, Literary Theory stepped in an acknowledged the political concerns of the society. The shift from Literary Criticism to literary Theory thus brought forth the political and autonomous aspects of literature.

_______________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.       Tyson, Louis, 1950- Critical theory today : a user‑friendly guide, Taylor & Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

2.      Bertens, Hans, Literary Theory: The Basics, Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

3.       Barry,Peter, V.(Ed) 1995, 2002 Beginning theory An introduction to literary and cultural theory

4.      Culler, Jonathan, Literary Theory: A very short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York.

5.      Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory: An Introduction (criticism) 1983