Beginner's Guide to Using Literary Theory - by Drew Shaw
There was a time when Practical Criticism or ‘close reading’ was thought sufficient for any type of literary analysis. To some extent this is still the case: as John Eppel states in the accompanying glossary, close reading remains a requirement in ‘A’ Level curricula such as that of the Cambridge examining board. When presented with a poem, students may have to comment on meaning, metre, rhythm, rhyme, form, diction, imagery, tone or figures of speech (simile, metaphor, alliteration, personification, symbolism, paradox, etc.) When presented with a play or prose text, students could be asked to summarise plots, identify themes, and comment on setting, characterisation, and point out literary devices such as symbolism. On the one hand, it is as important as ever to deploy close reading tools such as those mentioned above. On the other hand, it is now impossible to ignore an ever-expanding field of literary and cultural ‘theory’ which challenges the very premises of Practical Criticism. What follows is a brief overview of ‘theory’, how it arrived, and how it might be put to use in studies of English literature at A-Level and first year of University, when it is often introduced for the first time.
Practical Criticism and Liberal Humanism
Practical Criticism, pervasive in the English-speaking world from the 1930s to the 1970s and also known as New Criticism in America, came under fire especially in the 1980s and 1990s from a growing new field of critical theory. Cambridge professor I A Richards, who authored Practical Criticism in 1929, had asserted history and context were unimportant and all that mattered were ‘the words on the page’ (Barry, 2009: 15). Such was this belief that he famously gave his students just a page with the words of a poem on it, no other information. Fellow Cambridge practical critic, F R Leavis, also a giant in the field and known for his moralistic stance, refused to ‘spell out the principles on which he operated’ when challenged by the critic Rene Wellek (Barry 2009: 16). To a large extent he was let off the hook and for many years Practical Criticism remained unchallenged at schools and universities in the English-speaking world, but this lack of transparency on principles and dismissal of context set it on a collision course with emergent critical theory which started to expose it as neither neutral nor objective, but the product of ‘liberal humanism’ (a hidden but pervasive ideology in Western liberal democracy). Liberal humanism, it is claimed, valorises white, middle-class, male-centred attitudes and the capitalist status quo of modern western societies. Literary and cultural theorists of other ideological persuasions (Marxist, feminist, poststructuralist, postmodernist, and later postcolonial) found common cause in connecting Practical Criticism with liberal humanism, and attacking the premises of both as objectionable.
Psychoanalysis and Marxism, two highly influential theories emerging at the beginning of the twentieth century, had already made their mark. For many, the link between the two may not be obvious, and indeed they pursued very different directions, but it was Freud, the father of modern psychoanalysis, who said ‘The motive of human society is in the last resort an economic one,’ (quoted in Eagleton 2008: 131), and this echoes a central Marxist idea which is that there is an underlying economic base, most often resulting in exploitation, in every society. ‘What has dominated human history to date is the need to labour,’ as Terry Eagleton explains, ‘and for Freud that harsh necessity means that we must repress some of our tendencies to pleasure and gratification’ (131). Hence psychoanalysis uncovers the mechanisms of internal repression to make the unconscious conscious, to release repressed emotions and experiences. On the other hand, Marxism, it can be argued, seeks to expose (and change) external structures which are socio-economic and which lead to the hardship and repression of human beings in the first instance.
Psychoanalytic Theory and Criticism
Sigmund Freud, who pioneered the analysis of dreams and fantasies and explored the unconscious, was a keen reader of literature, and said in 1928 that, ‘The poets and philosophers before me discovered the unconscious. What I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied.’ Freud read Shakespeare’s Hamlet as a near-perfect example of his theory of the Oedipus complex. This theory, named for the tragic hero from the ancient Greek play, Oedipus Rex (who mistakenly kills his own father - not knowing it - then marries his own mother - also not knowing it) is that every young boy subconsciously wants to kill his father in order to be his mother’s exclusive lover. Although according to Freud this unconscious fantasy ordinarily resolves itself harmlessly, it can be at the core of unresolved psychic disturbance in many instances. Regarding Hamlet, Freud wrote ‘It could scarcely be a chance that this neurotic creation of the poet should have come to grief, like his numberless fellows in the real world, over the Oedipus complex.’ (Gay 1995:38). Franco Zeffirelli’s film version of the play, starring Mel Gibson as Hamlet and Glenn Close as Gertrude, dramatises this Freudian interpretation so that it is hard to miss, and it earned applause as well as consternation from Shakespeare critics divided on the degree to which we should accept the application of psychoanalysis.
Since Freud, psychoanalytic theory has taken other directions. Jacques Lacan - greatly influenced poststructuralism (a movement we will later discuss) - extended Freud’s theories to a schematics of language, introducing concepts like ‘The Law of the Father’, ‘The Other’ and ‘Jouissance’ (see Hill’s Lacan for Beginners, 1997). Lacanian theory is also now used in the analysis of literature. In the meantime, Carl Jung, who fell out with Freud, developed the concept of the ‘collective unconscious’ which is ‘a pre-conscious memory shared by humankind,’ as John Eppel explains, highly relevant to critics such as Northrop Frye who insightfully wrote about myths and archetypes in Fearful Symmetry (1947) and An Anatomy of Criticism (1957). In a postcolonial context, Franz Fanon mined psychoanalysis to write his classic Black Skin, White Masks; and Dambudzo Marechera, impressed by Fanon, similarly investigates inner-worlds and subconscious realities from a Zimbabwean perspective in The House of Hunger (1978) and Black Sunlight (1980). One of Marechera’s stories in The House of Hunger collection, for example, is titled ‘Black Skin, What Mask.’
How to begin using psychoanalytic criticism is a question many students ask, and it is suggested that Freud is the obvious starting point. Posed with a question such as ‘What factors account for the tragedy in King Lear?’, a student might read Freud’s essay ‘Theme of the Three Caskets’ (also applicable to The Merchant of Venice) and discuss Lear’s tragic rewarding of daughters Goneril and Regan, while banishing Cordelia as he divides up his kingdom. Goneril and Regan, despite earning their father’s praise, we recall, turn against him, while Regan comes back to fight for her father. Freud says Lear’s choices concern ‘the three inevitable relations that a man has with a woman’ (quoted in Gay 1995: 522), and finds these also in Greek mythology (where in the Judgement of Paris there is a contest of the three most beautiful goddesses), in Roman mythology in Apuleius’s story of Psyche, and in Grimm’s Fairy Tales (where Cinderella is the youngest and fairest of three sisters with whom she must compete). These and other psychoanalytical discussions of literature can be found in The Freud Reader by Peter Gay (1995) and collections of Freud’s work are available online and in libraries.
There is no reason why Freudian psychoanalytic criticism cannot be used alongside close readings of character, theme, plot, symbolism or use of language - the tenets of Practical Criticism. What is important is properly fulfilling any task that is set, discussing it with your teacher or lecturer if possible, and answering the question precisely.
Materialist and Marxist Theory and Criticism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not get time to write at length about literature, but their many apostles did and these include Georg Lukacs, Bertolt Brecht, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Louis Althusser, Antonio Gramsci, Pierre Macherey, Raymond Williams, Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson. The field of Marxist criticism is diverse with numerous factions and disagreements. However, what Marxists agree on is the idea that human beings are the product of their social and economic environment. Marx described economic conditions as the base or infrastructure (and this includes technology, industry and workplace organisation). He argued this powerfully effects the superstructure (his term for society, culture and ideas - including imaginative literature). Marx said ‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.’ In other words, according to Marx, our ability to think for ourselves is always shaped by the material conditions of our lives.
Generally, a Marxist approach requires a materialist, historical view of literature, one which considers the context which gives rise to it. For Marx, all ‘modes of thought, including literary creativity, are ideological and products of social and economic existence’ (Carter 2006: 55). One quickly perceives how Marxist thought inevitably clashes with Practical or New Criticism which declare history and context largely irrelevant to the study of literature.
You do not have to be a Marxist in order to do a Marxist reading of literature, and in fact many prefer to call it a materialist approach. Nevertheless, the application of Marxist or materialist critical theory generally requires familiarity with some of the theories of Marxism and significant background research (often autobiographical and historical) to establish context. Posed with the question, ‘What factors account for tragedy in Shakespeare’s King Lear?’, a Marxist reading might seek to locate the play in its precise historical context. This is what Michael Ryan does in Literary Theory: a Practical Introduction, where he compares the fictional King Lear with the real-life monarch James I, who ruled England in 1606 when the play was first performed. Only the year before, Guy Fawkes had attempted to blow up the houses of parliament, and it was a time of significant discontent and instability. James I had been King of Scotland, and he now succeeded Elizabeth I, uniting the crowns of England, Ireland and Scotland. However, not everyone agreed with the arrangement, nor could he automatically rely on old friends and allies. ‘The parallels with Lear scarcely need underscoring,’ argues Ryan: ‘It is a play about rebellion against a king that hinges on a denial of hospitality’ (2010: 162). Ryan therefore relates the play to the politics and society of that moment. A Marxist reading could also note, in King Lear, the inevitable disintegration of feudalism and see Lear as a predictable but tragic casualty. (The feudal system in England definitively came to an end with the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660 - a half century later - marking the move from a land-based to a money-based economy).
One can see how it could be possible to blend a materialist/ Marxist critical approach with another, such as a close reading, drawing attention to the actual historical context of King Lear while nevertheless also engaging in practical criticism (analysing plots and subplots, themes, characterisation, symbolism, and language). While attention to historical context could shed light on Lear’s dilemmas (i.e. being challenged, like James I, by rebellion on several fronts, being at the apex of an exhausted feudalistic system, soon to come crashing), it is nonetheless important, to read and analyse the actual text carefully. A materialist or Marxist approach requires research and referencing skills that are ordinarily taught at first-year university, and it is important to stick to the essay or examination question at hand, to answer it precisely, not to go off on a tangent, however tempting that may be.
Feminist Theory and Criticism
Feminist criticism has also made its mark in literary studies, sometimes aligning itself with Psychoanalysis or Marxism, at other times distinguishing itself as a distinct mode of critical enquiry. Rather than being a unified set of theories, Feminist criticism can be seen as a broad forum of debate. It can be divided into two ‘waves’. The First Wave was spawned by the struggle for women’s rights and female suffrage. Virginia Woolf, who wrote A Room with a View (1927) and Three Guineas (1938), challenged social and economic inequalities and asserted, like many who would follow, that sex is biological, but gender is socially constructed (Carter 2006: 92). In 1949, the French intellectual Simone de Beauvoir, published her ground-breaking book The Second Sex where she also stressed a crucial difference between sex and gender and wrote ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.’ The book exposes patriarchal ideology and challenges the systemic ‘Other-ing’ of females throughout human history. Taking issue with Freud’s male-dominated gender model in classic psychoanalysis, she nevertheless recognised aspects of psychoanalytic theory as possibly useful. Analysing the portrayal of women in the novels of DH Lawrence, she challenged the notion of ‘phallic pride’ and perceived sexist depictions of female characters, which was to resonate with other feminist critics in later years.
The Second Wave of feminist critical theory grew out the social change movements of the 1960s (the women’s liberation movement, civil rights movement, student movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, gay rights movement and environmental movement). These started in America and spread throughout the Western world and beyond. One author considered a precursor to Second Wave feminism was Doris Lessing, who grew up in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) then moved to Britain. Lessing’s The Grass is Singing (1950) was an anti-colonial critique which also scrutinised prescribed gender roles.The Golden Notebook (1962) - considered a feminist landmark - focuses on a divorced South African female author exploring a fragmented existence in post-war London. In its narration and characterisation, it broke the mould of what was considered proper for women at the time, and its candid discussion of female sexuality proved shocking though liberating for many. Ironically, Lessing rejected the idea that her book was anything unusual or that she was a feminist icon.
In the United States, Kate Millet argued in Sexual Politics (1969) that women are oppressed by an all-pervasive patriarchal ideology, treating females as subordinate and inferior. Like Virginia Woolf and Simone de Beauvoir she stresses the difference between sex (which is biological) and gender (which is socially constructed). Her confident critiques of DH Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer proved controversial, yet energised feminist literary criticism. She did not unfortunately analyse any female writers such as Virginia Woolf or Doris Lessing (and this oversight gave rise, later, to ‘gynocriticsm’ - the study of female writers - as a corrective). Millet also dismissed Freud and psychoanalytic theory as patriarchal and misogynist, particularly his theories of penis envy, female narcissism and female masochism, but her readings have since been discredited by other feminist critics such as Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose (Moi, 2002: 28). Juliet Mitchell’s pathbreaking Psychoanalysis and Feminism followed in 1974.
Anglo-American feminist criticism was further developed by Elaine Showalter who published A Literature of their Own in 1977, giving a history of women writers and introducing ‘gynocriticism’ (a term explained in John Eppel’s glossary). Sandra Glibert and Susan Guber later published The Woman in the Attic in 1979, identifying patriarchal dominance and exploring female stereotypes such as the ‘angel’ and the ‘monster’ in literature. Later, bell hooks challenged feminist criticism to also consider the intersectionality of race, sex and class in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (1984).
In the meantime French feminism diverged from Anglo-American feminism, accepting rather than rejecting psychoanalysis from the start. It also drew on the poststructuralist theories of Jacques Derrida, which took longer to make their mark in the Anglo-American academy. Prominent critics Julia Kristeva and Helen Cixous adopted and adapted Lacanian concepts and his pre-Oedipal ‘imaginary’ stage is important to the theories of both. While Kristeva advocates an anarchic liberation, Cixous encourages a specifically female form of writing. Luce Irigaray, on the other hand, took issue Freud’s view of women and ‘penis envy’ and celebrates instead a female eroticism distinct from that of males, embracing an ‘otherness.’ (Carter 2006: 96-98).
In Zimbabwe, Rudo Gaidzanwa launched feminist critical enquiry in 1985 with her book titled Images of Women in Zimbabwean Literature. Critical of stereotypes, this echoed similar titles popular in the United States in the early 1970s. In 1988, Tsitsi Dangarembga’s novel Nervous Conditions quickly made its mark with its poignant critique of colonial and post-colonial patriarchy, and it was acclaimed as an example of a new African feminism. Negotiating the Postcolonial: Emerging Perspectives on Tsitsi Dangarembga (2002) is a collection of critical essays, many from a feminist perspective. Yvonne Vera’s fiction, penned from 1992 to 2003, is notably different from Dangarembga’s in that it experiments with anti-realist forms, but it too has received praise in feminist circles. A number of critical publications exist on her work, such as Sign and Taboo: Perspectives on the Poetic Fiction of Yvonne Vera (2003). The critical anthologies on Dangarembga and Vera provide examples of feminist criticism in a post-colonial African context.
Other Critical Theories
Other theories of literature are Russian Formalism, Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and Postcolonial Theory, Queer Theory, Masculinity Theory, and Ecocriticism. Usually one would encounter these in an English Studies or Comparative Literature programme at University. However, critical theory is gradually arriving in A-Level syllabuses, so there is the possibility - for some students - to begin using it with guidance and in agreement with their teachers. In addition, John Eppel’s accompanying glossary contains useful explanations of Gynocriticism, Modernism, New Criticism, New Historicism, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Practical Criticism, Realism, Reception theory, Socialist Realism and Structuralism - all of which are essential to our overall understanding of critical theory.
Conclusion
To conclude, we have briefly reviewed Practical Criticism and New Criticism, which at one time predominated in English literary studies. We have noted their association with ‘liberal humanism’ and the critiques of this. We have briefly explored the use of other critical theories such as Psychoanalysis, Marxism and Feminism, and it has been suggested that these sometimes overlap, that there is the possibility to blend theoretical insights (Marxist feminism or psychoanalytic feminism for example) as well as to continue with traditional critical practices. One could for example, take a Marxist, feminist or psychoanalytic approach while still using the techniques of close reading.
My advice, always, is to allow critical perspectives to emerge from careful readings of the text, rather than rushing to impose theoretical interpretations. There can be a temptation to concentrate only on context, to slot works of literature into a theoretical scheme rather than judge them on their own merit. The most convincing critical analyses, in my view, are those which engage carefully with the text as well as the context. This brief introduction has attempted to show that the choice of a critical approach to literature need not be a zero sum game: it is quite possible, even advisable, to combine tried and tested traditional critical approaches (which tend to stress the text) with theoretical insights from perhaps Marxism, Psychoanalysis or Feminism (which tend to stress the context). What matters, in the final analysis, is a well-structured, well-argued, well-referenced answer to a question, paying sufficient attention to the primary work of literature.
(There will be more on appropriate academic essay writing structure to follow.)
Reading List
Adams, Rachel and David Savran, eds. 2002. The Masculinity Studies Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Barry, Peter. 2009. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory (3rd Edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Carter, David. 2006. Literary Theory. Harpenden: Pocket Essentials.
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. 1997. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Desai, Gaurav, and Supriya Nair. 2005. Postcolonialisms: An Anthology of Cultural Theory and Criticism. Oxford: Berg.
Eagleton, Terry. 1976. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen.
——. 2008. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks (Trans. Charles Lam Markmann). London: Pluto Press.
Gay, Peter, ed. 1995. The Freud Reader. London: Vintage Books.
Hill. Philip. 1997. Lacan for Beginners. London: Writers and Readers Publishing.
Johnson, Christopher. 1998. Derrida: the Scene of Writing. London: Phoenix.
McLeod, John. 2000. Beginning Postcolonialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Moi, Toril. 2002. Sexual/Textual Politics. London: Routledge.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan, eds. 2004. Literary Theory: An Anthology (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ryan, Michael. 2007. Literary Theory: a Practical Introduction (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, L E W. 1961. A Short Course on Poetry. London: Methuen.
https://natureofwriting.com/courses/writing-about-literature/lessons/marxist-literary-theory/