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
Tekhnik Menyembuhkan Ayam Aduan Yang Terkena Lumpuh Klik Di Sini
ReplyDeleteAgen Sabung Ayam Online Terbaik Dan Juga Terpercaya http://www.bakarayam.co
Informasi Terlengkap Mengenai Sabung Ayam
https://ayambakar33033.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/lebih-dari-satu-ciri-memaparkan-ayam-bangkok-aduan-super-yg-menakutkan/
https://bakarayam33033.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/teknik-dalam-menjaga-ayam-toraja-lumpuh-serta-keram-serta-dikit-info-permainan-paramisi/
Mr. Cd. Gaming | Dr. MD
ReplyDeleteOur team members, including Dr. MD, work together to create an inclusive and 화성 출장샵 innovative casino culture that reflects the 영주 출장안마 passion and energy 김천 출장마사지 of our Who owns and 양산 출장샵 operates Mr. Cd Gaming?Who 전라북도 출장샵 owns and operates Mr. Cd Gaming?