Modern Theories of Criticism: An Overview

[Note: This presentation and video recording are of Prof. Dilip Barad's session in the Refresher Course for College / University teachers. The Refresher Course was organised by UGC-HRDC, University of Mumbai.]

Modern Literary Theory and Criticism refers to the examination and interpretation of literature using various theoretical frameworks that emerged in the 20th century. This approach encompasses diverse schools of thought such as Marxist, Feminist, Psychoanalytic, and Deconstructionist theory that offer a critical lens to analyze literary texts and reveal their deeper meanings and societal impact. The purpose of this introduction is to provide a comprehensive overview of the key concepts, influential figures, and historical developments in Modern Literary Theory and Criticism, highlighting its significance and impact in the field of literary studies.

Literary criticism, the evaluation and interpretation of literature, is an important aspect of literary studies. Over the years, various theories of criticism have emerged, each offering a unique perspective on the reading and interpretation of literature. This presentation outlines some of the major theories of criticism, starting from Matthew Arnold’s “A Study of Poetry” (1888) and T.S. Eliot’s “Tradition and Individual Talent” (1919) to the latest theories of digital humanities.

The earliest theories of criticism include the works of I.A. Richards, who presented the practical criticism approach in his book “Practical Criticism” (1929). William Empson’s “Seven Types of Ambiguity” (1930) also played a significant role in the development of criticism. Later, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley introduced the concepts of intentional and affective fallacies in their work.

In the 1930s, Allen Tate introduced the theory of “tension” in poetry, which dealt with the extension (literal meaning) and intension (metaphorical meaning) of a text. Cleanth Brooks, in his works “The Language of Paradox, The Well Wrought Urn” (1947) and “Modern Poetry and the Tradition” (1939), focused on the language of paradox in poetry.

Archetypal criticism, which is concerned with the study of archetypes and symbols in literature, was developed by Maud Bodkin (1934) and Northrop Frye (1940-50). Frye’s theory of the mythos grid, which outlines the universal themes and patterns in literature, is an important contribution to the field of archetypal criticism.

In the latter half of the 20th century, structuralism and semiotics gave rise to stylistics, which deals with the study of style in literature. Deconstruction and poststructuralism, as propounded by Jacques Derrida, also had a major impact on the field of criticism. 

Eco-criticism, which looks at the relationship between literature and the environment, and eco-feminism, which critiques the patriarchal values embedded in society, also gained prominence.

Postcolonialism, which deals with the study of the cultural, political and economic effects of colonialism, was developed by thinkers like Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, and Homi Bhabha. In recent times, the focus has shifted to globalization and climate change, which has given rise to contemporary theories of cultural studies.

Digital Humanities, a field that uses technology to analyze and process literary texts, has also emerged as a significant area of study. The rise of generative literature, where texts are produced by computers, has raised new challenges for critics. The principles and processes of generative literature have been outlined by Jean-Pierre Balpe. The use of AI in digital humanities has raised questions about unconscious bias and the morality of robots, which require further study.

In conclusion, the field of criticism has undergone several transformations over the years, each adding to our understanding of literature. From the earliest works of Arnold and Eliot to the latest theories of digital humanities, the field has constantly evolved to keep pace with changing times. The new challenges posed by AI and the increasing influence of technology on the field only serve to emphasize the ongoing relevance of criticism in our rapidly changing world.

Presentation:

Video Recording of the Session:

Culture and Anarchy

Culture and Anarchy (1869)  - Matthew Arnold

Culture and Anarchy is a series of periodical essays by Matthew Arnold, first published in Cornhill Magazine 1867-68 and collected as a book in 1869. The preface was added in 1875.

Arnold's famous piece of writing on culture established his High Victorian cultural agenda which remained dominant in debate from the 1860s until the 1950s.

Matthew Arnold's "Culture and Anarchy" is a cultural and political critique written in 1869 that addresses the state of England's cultural and political systems during the time. The essay explores the idea of culture as a means of promoting order and unity in society, while contrasting it with the chaos and disorder caused by a lack of cultural values. Arnold argues that the lack of a strong cultural foundation in England was leading to social and political unrest and that the cultivation of a broader, more sophisticated culture was necessary for the country's progress and stability. The essay is considered a classic of cultural criticism and remains relevant to discussions of the role of culture and values in shaping society.

According to his view advanced in the book, "Culture [...] is a study of perfection". He further wrote that: "[Culture] seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere; to make all men live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light [...]".

His often quoted phrase "[culture is] the best which has been thought and said" comes from the Preface to Culture and Anarchy:

The whole scope of the essay is to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and, through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically.

The book contains most of the terms – culture, sweetness and light, Barbarian, Philistine, Hebraism, and many others – which are more associated with Arnold's work influence. (Wikipedia)

Culture and Anarchy, major work of criticism by Matthew Arnold, published in 1869. In it Arnold contrasts culture, which he defines as “the study of perfection,” with anarchy, the prevalent mood of England’s then new democracy, which lacks standards and a sense of direction. Arnold classified English society into the Barbarians (with their lofty spirit, serenity, and distinguished manners and their inaccessibility to ideas), the Philistines (the stronghold of religious nonconformity, with plenty of energy and morality but insufficient “sweetness and light”), and the Populace (still raw and blind). He saw in the Philistines the key to culture; they were the most influential segment of society; their strength was the nation’s strength, their crudeness its crudeness; it therefore was necessary to educate and humanize the Philistines. Arnold saw in the idea of “the State,” and not in any one class of society, the true organ and repository of the nation’s collective “best self.” No summary can do justice to Culture and Anarchy, however; it is written with an inward poise, a serene detachment, and an infusion of subtle humour that make it a masterpiece of ridicule as well as a searching analysis of Victorian society. The same is true of its unduly neglected sequel, Friendship’s Garland (1871). (Source:This article was most recently revised and updated by Kathleen Kuiper, Senior Editor.)

The published book on these essays in divided in following chapters:

Preface.

Preamble. What is Culture?

Chapter I.Sweetness and Light

Chapter II.Doing as One Likes - Anarchy

Chapter III.Barbarians, Philistines, Populace

Chapter IV.Hebraism and Hellenism

Chapter V.Porro Unum est Necessarium

Chapter VI.Our Liberal Practitioners

(Click on the chapter numbers to read it is details.)

INTRODUCTION

Culture and Anarchy is a controversial philosophical work written by the celebrated Victorian poet and critic Matthew Arnold. Composed during a time of unprecedented social and political change, the essay argues for a restructuring of England's social ideology. It reflects Arnold's passionate conviction that the uneducated English masses could be molded into conscientious individuals who strive for human perfection through the harmonious cultivation of all of their skills and talents. A crucial condition of Arnold's thesis is that a state-administered system of education must replace the ecclesiastical program which emphasized rigid individual moral conduct at the expense of free thinking and devotion to community. Much more than a mere treatise on the state of education in England, Culture and Anarchy is, in the words of J. Dover Wilson, “at once a masterpiece of vivacious prose, a great poet's great defence of poetry, a profoundly religious book, and the finest apology for education in the English language.”

Plot and Major Characters

Although Arnold does not create specific fictional characters to express his ideas in Culture and Anarchy, he does infuse his essays with a narrative persona that can best be described as a Socratic figure. This sagacious mentor serves as a thematic link between each of the chapters, underscoring the importance of self-knowledge in order to fully engage the concept of pursuing human perfection. This mentor also identifies and classifies three groups of people who comprise contemporary English society. The first group is the Barbarians, or the aristocratic segment of society who are so involved with their archaic traditions and gluttony that they have lost touch with the rest of society for which they were once responsible. The second group—for whom Arnold's persona reserves his most scornful criticism—is the Philistines, or the selfish and materialistic middle class who have been gulled into a torpid state of puritanical self-centeredness by nonconforming religious sects. The third group is the Populace, or the disenfranchised, poverty-stricken lower class who have been let down by the negligent Barbarians and greedy Philistines. For Arnold, the Populace represents the most malleable, and the most deserving, social class to be elevated out of anarchy through the pursuit of culture.

Major Themes

Arnold introduces the principal themes of Culture and Anarchy directly in the essay's title. Culture involves an active personal quest to forsake egocentricity, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness and to embrace an equally balanced development of all human talents in the pursuit of flawlessness. It is a process of self-discipline which initiates a metamorphosis from self-interest to conscientiousness and an enlightened understanding of one's singular obligation to an all-inclusive utopian society. According to Stefan Collini, culture is “an ideal of human life, a standard of excellence and fullness for the development of our capacities, aesthetic, intellectual, and moral.” By contrast, anarchy represents the absence of a guiding principle in one's life which prevents one from striving to attain perfection. This lack of purpose manifests itself in such social and religious defects as laissez faire commercialism and puritanical hypocrisy. For Arnold, the myopic emphasis on egocentric self-assertion has a devastating impact on providing for the needs of the community; indeed, it can only lead to a future of increased anarchy as the rapidly evolving modern democracy secures the enfranchisement of the middle and lower classes without instilling in them the need for culture. Inherent in Arnold's argument is the idea of Hebraism versus Hellenism. Hebraism represents the actions of people who are either ignorant or resistant to the idea of culture. Hebraists subscribe to a strict, narrow-minded method of moral conduct and self-control which does not allow them to visualize a utopian future of belonging to an enlightened community. Conversely, Hellenism signifies the open-minded, spontaneous exploration of classical ideas and their application to contemporary society. Indeed, Arnold believes that the ideals promulgated by such philosophers as Plato and Socrates can help resolve the moral and ethical problems resulting from the bitter conflict between society, politics, and religion in Victorian England. As serious as Arnold's message is, he elects to employ the device of irony to reveal his philosophical points to his readers. Through irony, satire, and urbane humor, the author deftly entertains his readers with examples of educational travesties, he wittily exposes the enemies of reform and culture, and he beguiles his readers with self-deprecating humor in order to endear them to his ideas. 

(Source: Nineteenth-Century Literary Criticism, ©2003 Gale Cengage.) 

Concept of Culture

Culture - Sweetness and Light

What is anarchy in society?

Discuss 'Doing as One Likes'

Bring out the distinction and difference among Barbarians, Philistines and Populace

What is Hebraism and Hellenism?

Porro Unum est Necessarium

Out Liberal Practitioners

Critique of the essay - 'Culture and Anarchy'

Lincoln Allison -recently retired as a Reader in Politics at the University of Warwick - finds Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy a morally repugnant workespousing mad, bad and dangerous ideas.

Click here to read this article.

Check your understanding - Online Test

Questions

1.    What is the concept of Culture according to Matthew Arnold? Explain the various factors which make ‘Culture’.

2.    “The whole scope of the essay is to recommend Culture as the great help our of our present difficulties; Culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us – ‘the best which has been thought and said in the world’.” Explain with reference to the essay ‘Culture & Anarchy’.

3.    Discuss ‘Doing as One Likes’.

4.    What does Arnold mean by ‘Anarchy in Society’ in his essay Culture and Anarchy?

5.    Freedom of doing as one likes, according to Arnold, was one of those things which English thus worshipped in itself, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. Justify with reference to your reading of Culture and Anarchy.

6.    “Firstly, never go against the best light you have; Secondly, take care that your light be not darkness”. Justify with reference to Matthew Arnold’s views on Culture & Anarchy.

7.    Explain the concepts of ‘Hebruism and Hellenism’ as discussed by M. Arnold in his essay ‘Culture and Anarchy’.

Write brief note on class distinctions discussed in form of ‘Barbarians, Philistines & Populace’ by M. Arnold in his essay Culture and Anarchy.

Additional Resources:

My presentation from Sid Eusaphxai

Presentations of Literary Theory, Criticism and Terms

Presentations on Literary Theory, Criticism and Terms

1) 

Literary Terms from Dilip Barad

2) 

 

Criticism Vs Creativity from Dilip Barad

3) 

Difference between Literary Theory and Criticism from Dilip Barad

Check your progress:

Appear in online quiz to know your understanding of this lesson

Literature, Theory and Criticism

To appear in the pre-test, click here

1. What is Literature?

What is Literature? from Dilip Barad

2. Criticism Vs Creativity

Criticism Vs Creativity from Dilip Barad

3. Difference between Theory and Criticism

Difference between Literary Theory and Criticism from Dilip Barad

T. S. Eliot: Tradition and Individual Talent

Short Video Lectures and Quiz on T.S. Eliot's 

Tradition and Individual Talent (1919/1920-22)

IZQuotes

Introduction:

T.S.Eliot’s “Tradition and Individual Talent” was published in 1919 in The Egoist - the Times Literary supplement. Later, the essay was published in The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism in 1920/2. (Gallup). This essay is described by David Lodge as the most celebrated critical essay in the English of the 20th century. The essay is divided into three main sections:

* the first gives us Eliot’s concept of tradition;

* the second exemplifies his theory of depersonalization and poetry. And in

* the third part he concludes the debate by saying that the poet’s sense of tradition and the impersonality of poetry are complementary things.

At the outset of the essay, Eliot asserts that the word ‘tradition’ is not a very favourable term with the English who generally utilize the same as a term of censure. The English do not possess an orientation towards criticism as the French do, they praise a poet for those aspects of the work that are individualistic.

 However, they fail to realize that the best and the most individual part of the poet’s work is that reflects maximum influence of writers of the past. Tradition does not imply a blind adherence to the literary tradition of the past tradition. This would amount to mere copying or slavish imitation.

For Eliot, Tradition has a three-fold significance. Firstly, tradition cannot be inherited and involves a great deal of labour and erudition. Secondly, it involves the historical sense which involves apperception not only of the pastness of the past, but also of its presence. Thirdly the historical sense enables a writer to write not only with his own generation in mind, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature from Homer down to the literature of his own country forms a continuous literary tradition.

As claimed by Chris Baldick that Eliot had created an inverted literary history in which history being second to the permanent quality of literature, is readjusted to accommodate it to literature. Therefore, Eliot’s conception of history is a dynamic one and not static; and is forever in a state of flux.

Short Video Lectures:

1. Introduction:

2. The Concept of Tradition:

3. Explanation of "Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it":



4. Explanation of The Chemical Reaction: The theory of Depersonalization:



5. Summing up:

Critique of Eliot’s Critical Thought:

Until the middle of the last century, Eliot’s ideas of tradition were extraordinarily influential. His essay was a major contributor to Modernism’s rise and hegemony. Like its author, the essay came to be regarded as conservative, elitist, obsessed with order and backward-looking. (Gareth Reeves – T.S.Eliot and the Idea of Tradition in Patricia Waugh’s Literary Theory and Criticism)

Eliot’s theory of literary tradition has been criticized for its limited definition of what constitutes the canon of that tradition. He assumes the authority to choose what represents great poetry, and his choices have been criticized on several fronts. For example, Harold Bloom disagrees with Eliot’s condescension of Romantic poetry, which, in The Metaphysical Poets (1921) he criticizes for its "dissociation of sensibility." Moreover, many believe Eliot’s discussion of the literary tradition as the "mind of Europe" reeks of Euro-centrism. (on the same note it should be recognized that Eliot supported many Eastern and thus non-European works of literature such as the The Mahabharata. Eliot was arguing the importance of a complete sensibility: he didn't particularly care what it was at the time of tradition and the individual talent.) He does not account for a non-white and non-masculine tradition. As such, his notion of tradition stands at odds with feminist, post-colonial and minority theories. Kenyan author James Ngugi advocated (in a memo entitled "On the Abolition of the English Department") a commitment to native works, which speak to one’s own culture, as compared to deferring to an arbitrary notion of literary excellence. As such, he implicitly attacks Eliot’s subjective criterion in choosing an elite body of literary works. Post-colonial critic Chinua Achebe also challenges Eliot, since he argues against deferring to those writers, including Conrad, whom have been deemed great, but only represent a specific (and perhaps prejudiced) cultural perspective.

Harold Bloom (The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry:1975) presents a conception of tradition that differs from that of Eliot. Whereas Eliot believes that the great poet is faithful to his predecessors and evolves in a concordant manner, Bloom (according to his theory of "anxiety of influence") envisions the "strong poet" to engage in a much more aggressive and tumultuous rebellion against tradition.

In 1964, his last year, Eliot published in a reprint of The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism, a series of lectures he gave at Harvard University in 1932 and 1933, a new preface in which he called "Tradition and the Individual Talent" the most juvenile of his essays (although he also indicated that he did not repudiate it.)

However, now that the dust is settling, when postmodernism is retreating, when we are beginning to live comfortably with the fact of plurality and the notion of literatures rather than Literature, and with canons rather the Canon, it is possible to return to Eliot’s idea of tradition, as critics and theorists have been doing of late, from a more impartial perspective. 

After viewing these short videos on key concepts in the essay 'Tradition and Individual Talent', students shall give their responses to the below given questions/though provokers. The responses shall be given in the comments section below this blog.

1. How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of Tradition? Do you agree with it?
2. What do you understand by Historical Sense? (Use these quotes to explain your understanding)
• "The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence"
• This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. 
3. What is the relationship between “tradition” and “the individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot?
4. Explain: "Some can absorb knowledge, the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum".
5. Explain: "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry"
6. How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of ddepersonalization? You can explain with the help of chemical reaction in presence of catalyst agent, Platinum.
7. Explain: " Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality."
8. Write two points on which one can write critique on 'T.S. Eliot as a critic'.

Quiz:

Click here to attempt the quiz on this essay.

Further Readings:

• Brooks, Harold Fletcher. T. S. Eliot as Literary Critic. London: C. Woolf, 1987.
• Rainey, Lawrence S. Institutions of Modernism: Literary Elites and Public Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
• Reeves, Gareth. T.S. Eliot and the Idea of Tradition. Ed. Patricia Waugh. An Oxford Guide: Literary Theory and Criticism. International Student Edition. 2006/7. OUP.
• Shusterman, Richard. T. S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism. London: Duchworth, 1988.
• "T. S. Eliot." The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Ed. Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth, and Imre Szeman. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Citation credits:
Barad, Dilip. Short Video Lectures on T.S. Eliot. NMEICT Project Playlist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2CTQo6ZPt8&list=PL5C6B835309FB9771 2012.
Gallup, Donald. T. S. Eliot: A Bibliography (A Revised and Extended Edition) Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1969. pp. 27–8, 204–5 (listings A5, C90, C7)
IZQuotes-image credit: http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-progress-of-an-artist-is-a-continual-self-sacrifice-a-continual-extinction-of-personality-t-s-eliot-305388.jpg

Short Learning Videos on Aristotle's 'Poetics' and Dryden's 'Of Dramatic Poesy'

Under the project of eContent development, we prepared some Short Learning Videos. On this blog you will find video playlists on Aristotle's 'Poetics' and John Dryden's 'Of Dramatic Poesy'.

Literary Theory and Criticism in the Digital Age

Post by Dr. Dilip Barad.

2: Meetings, Teaching and Presentations

Academic Year 2013-14:

Post 2: Blending Teaching Methods:

The week (15-20 July 2013) was the week full of meetings and most of the time was eaten away by monstrous Mr. Admin. If I have to rewrite Dryden's aphorism: 'The corruption of a Poet, is the Generation of Critick'; I would rather put it as - 'The corruption of a Teacher, is the work known as Meetings and Administration.' The body and mind (fortunately, not the soul), were so exhausted that it fell prey to fever, headache and diarrhoea. Amidst, the work which I do not love to do, if there is anything relieving, it is the time when I am either in the classroom or on the tennis court.

Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage; Minds 

innocent and quiet take That for an hermitage. (Richard Lovelace)

During let-down moments, the vine like this (see photograph) has some message for us. It makes, if not friendship, at least, adjustment with the iron-twines. It sustains and goes on growing, longer, climbing, twining against the odds - but do not think of ending a life. There are different kinds of suicidal tendencies. The worst of them is not self-slaughter; it is to return back from the path taken for a tough journey.

Well, the classroom interactions went on quite well. In semester 1, we continued out discussion of 'Literature, 'Criticism', 'role of a Critic' & 'difference between theory & criticism'. The class has a few quite impressive fast-learners. They can sense questions and hit answers right on the head of the nail. As most of their responses were on the slides, there was but little space to do board work. So, there are no green board images. Instead, have a look at the presentations discussed in the class. The following three presentations were discussed in the class with quite a lot of discussion.

What is Literature? from Dilip Barad

The discussion ended with a conclusion that it is 'language' and the 'use of language' which makes for the literature. 

The confab on Criticism Vs Creativity was aimed at understanding role of a Critic. A few students came with interesting observations. Say for instance, one of them said: 'the relationship between critic and creative writer is analogous to the relationship between 'Bahu and Saas' (it is daughter-in-law and mother-in-law relation deeply rooted in Indian cultural context). Tom and Jerry can be yet another similar relation. The other student came with an observation that: 'critics are very important as they give new vision to the work of art'.
To a question: 'whether we need a critic when we consume literature outside academic periphery?', some students nodded to the voice that the movie reviews are read before deciding on watching a movie. This confab concluded in congruence: the role of critic is as important as that of creative writer, who is also a critic of life.

Criticism Vs Creativity from Dilip Barad

The week ended with final discussion on the difference between criticism and theory.

Difference between Literary Theory and Criticism from Dilip Barad
We ended with concluding remark that: 'Criticism is passing judgement on various aspects of literature; whereas, Theory is not judgement, but understanding of the frames of judgement.

 Semester 3: The Waste Land

The Waste Land: III. The Fire Sermon

The Waste Land: V. What the Thunder Said

The teaching of this poem was pedagogically based on I. A. Richards's 'The Practical Criticism;. Purely, New Critical approach. We listened audio of the poem downloaded form www.librivox.org and dissected it into bits and pieces. Yes, dissection is the most appropriate word. First of all, we torn the poem apart by separating scenes and images. The collage was operated & individual pictures were separated; and then had microscopic view of the scenes as an individual image before seeing it as a part of whole picture. At the end, we connected the seemingly incongruent images - and the beads got settled with the string to make a rosary! Yes, beads (rudraksha) and rosary (prayer mala) give spiritual connotation, and 'The Waste Land' also ends with very strong spiritual connotation: "Shantih, Shantih, Shantih." The peace that passeth understanding.

 

Next week, we will discuss some questions (handouts are already distributed) and probable answers - more of an exam oriented teaching - an unavoidable evil!