Lynn, S. (2005) Critical worlds: a selective tour. In Lynn, S. (2005) Texts and contexts: writing about literature with critical theory (4th ed., 13-35). NY: Pearson.
Miller, L. (2001) Step-by-step guide to Practical Criticism. In Miller, L. (2001) Mastering Practical Criticism (pp. 77-96). London: Palgrave.
Liew, W.M. (1999) "Thy word is all": Différance in George Herbert's Christian hermeneutics. Literature and Belief: The Tradition of Metaphysical Poetry and Belief, 19,(1 & 2), 191-210.
List of critical interpretive approaches:
| · New Criticism · Biographical & historical criticism · Psychoanalytic theory/theories | · Marxist criticism · Postcolonial criticism · Feminist criticism · Queer theory |
This feels like a trap question after last week's tutorial session on "What is Literature?"
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel that all readers of literature should be given access to all of the above tools to critique, I also feel that some interpretive approaches are user-friendlier to specific groups of people.
I would teach a mix of New Criticism and Reader Response Criticism as introductory approaches.
Maybe there's some teacher-expectancy theory at play here, but I feel that New Criticism approach offers opportunities for close reading where students are made to focus on the author's work (and help them acquire an understanding of form and literary devices). Because New Criticism involves: reading carefully, marking up the text, asking questions, drafting answers to questions, brainstorming, free writing and putting ideas together [Lynn, S. (2005)], it offers the perfect platform for designing structured lesson plans.
The Reader-Response Criticism is also a non-intimidating approach for young Literature readers. "If it is (indeed) the reader who brings the text to life, who gives it meaning" [Lynn, S (2005), p. 17], then, this would be a logical approach to responding to literary works. And because, this approach 'teaches' students 'how' they ‘should’ respond, it offers some sort of structure/ guidance/ template for those who feel 'lost'. Students have to provide textual evidence and be familiar with the effects of writers' literary techniques but this approach will also enable them to offer their viewpoints. The teacher's role here is to find the right balance (if you will) of personal response + subjective features [Lynn. S, (2005)].
I am aware that the above approaches have their limitations. I understand that they may limit a young reader’s response. These are my thoughts at this moment and they are formed from the few readings I have done and my short experience during my contract teaching stint. Factors such as: lack of curriculum time to teach all strategies, the need to prepare students for assessments, lowly motivated students who do not choose literature as a subject they would like to learn (in the secondary school I taught, only 2 out of 25 students chose to read literature), contribute to my decision making as to which two approaches could best meet the aims and principles of the MOE 2010 syllabus.
My thought may change as the course progresses and as I learn more teaching tools.
Firhana Alsagoff
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI must premise this by stating first off that I am a Critical Theorist at heart. Thus my response to this question is hardly unbiased.
ReplyDeleteI've spoken to my JC teacher about this before. I remember how shocked and annoyed I was when I was introduced to the different critical theories. I kept wondering why was it that all these other approaches have been kept from me, and that our education system still keeps the outmoded practice of "New" Criticism. (I've added the "" because it's hardly new is it? =p) I felt that we were lagging behind the times, that our approach to literature was painfully malnourished. We were all taught to ingest the Text itself, while considering a mild sprinkling of "contextual" knowledge that could hardly be classified as incorporating a "historicist", "structuralist" or any other "---list" approach. In a way, i felt outrage at how I had been shortchanged in my literary education.
I'm of a more Cultural Materialist myself (I use this term instead of New Historicist because I think the work of Marx, Raymond Williams and Foucault supersede that of Greenblatt, but that's a whole other essay.... =p) and thus my personal view of how we currently approach the subject of teaching Literature in schools is that its terribly inadequate. By dislocating the text from its social, political, economic, historical, and (the more recent new kid on the block) environmental milieu, we have stripped the text of its vast richness. What remains is something like Coke that has become flat, warm and lost its color!
Yet, personal prejudices aside, I can see how it would be INCREDIBLY difficult to attempt to teach these literary theories in class, when at a secondary school (and at times even at the JC level) most students have problems with just reading and comprehending the texts they have been given. This is perhaps where "New" criticism shines, as it teaches the very fundamentals of textual appreciation. Another point to consider is that a 14-17 year old will have trouble dealing with concepts like deconstruction and postmodernism where the absolute is completely dissolved. Literature teachers will be fighting a war of attrition when they are faced with rebuttals like "but there is no absolute answer! why my reading of the poem cannot?!? For me it's like that what..."
I honestly think that Literature without its critical theory is soulless. To quote the Earl of Oxford in the movie "Anonymous": All art is political. The moment we attempt to castrate it from its body politic and cultural milieu, you make the text impotent and flaccid. Thus I think it's a pedagogical issue. Research on how to water down these approaches and make them teachable at a lower level needs to be done. "New" Criticism needs to be replaced with a more robust mode of criticism, my vote is that everyone should read Marx, Foucault, Williams, Baudrillard and Eagleton. But that's just me.
Like Ian briefly alluded, I think it is difficult to approach this question without bringing a part of our own inclinations and reading philosophies into the mix. I am inclined towards protofeminist and feminist readings, but I think I would endorse the variety of theories - maybe with the exception of the theories that seek to question and un-anchor meaning and significance because that would be confusing even to students of higher-ability.
ReplyDeleteHaving done this week's classroom teaching on reader response, I have to admit that I see the beauty in that - previously, I would go into classrooms with the lofty ambitions of inculating a love of literature in my students, to foster in them this desire to continue reading literature in their later school life, and to appreciate the technicalities and devices that we apply to gathering meaning. But now, I think aiming to teach students to love reading is itself a noble, and perhaps more realistic goal, and because of that, I would endorse reader response, and of course that means I would endorse the whole range of possible theories - because honestly, some of us come to texts with Marxist/Feminist/Queer/Deconstructionist perspectives, and that would count as reader response anyway, wouldn't it?
I guess my long-winded answer is that I would endorse and even encourage my students to use the entire range of possible reading theories, but of course, only after I've explained the theories to them, and corrected their understanding/misunderstanding of the theories.
I remember how shocked and horrified I felt at one of my first lit classes at uni when everyone spoke about their literary affiliations, using words like Formalist, Structuralist, Marxist etc. I didn't know I had to have an affiliation, I thought one just analyzed literature, whatever that meant. I didn't have the right vernacular and thus didn't have any social currency to prove that I was a literary scholar. The module that saved me was called 'Modes of Reading'. I learned to deconstruct the process of reading itself and realized that there were actual theories behind the process of 'close reading'. I soon found my own theory label - New Historicist.
ReplyDeleteI wish we had a module like 'Modes of Reading' in the JC curriculum (don't think this would work in a secondary school). An entire module devoted to teaching students theory in an abridged and therefore easily digestible manner. Sadly, I think a module like this will be a long time coming so in the meantime, I will teach a text in relation to social, political and economic contexts. If we can have an integrated study of the humanities, why then must Literature be taught in isolation, a mere shell of a subject which has had its cultural aura exorcised? Perhaps a way of introducing theories to the students would be to present them with two readings of the same text that have been influenced by different theories. Get them to compare and contrast them and pin down the fundamentals that drive these interpretations.
I think it's time to update the pedagogical approach to teaching Literature... hmmm... I smell a possible PhD.
Looking at the responses thus far, I was reminded of my JC Lit classes, and I was really just coping with reading books and enjoying literature and am not sure that I would have been able to deal with these literary theories in such depth at that point of my life. I am reminded of the question that Nurul asked during last week's discussion - is there a difference between being a lit lover and a lit teacher? Paraphrase that, is there a difference between loving to read and loving to analyze texts? Yes, there is and we enter different texts differently at different points of reading and different points of our lives. And I think that there are different aims as literature teachers when we teach different age groups and different kinds of students.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I insist on in class is reading a poem out loud because I think it means so much to hear a poem, and to respond to it personally. It ceases to become something to be just analyzed. My favourite poems today were Childhood and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings because as I heard them and looked at the words on the page again, it evoked sadness and hope in me. I am reminded that we teach literature to inspire, and the choice of the right poems can get students interested in reading more and in wanting to read on.
Think about teaching students to read as requiring scaffolding - in order to even read from different lens, one must first read the text and respond to it. I think this is what Esther and Firhana were saying when they talked about the attraction and/or necessity of these two ways of reading at secondary level.
In agreement with most things said thus far, I too would like to guide my students into loving to read and responding to literature on their own terms first before assuming a specific lens––after all, before they can even think to adopt a lens, they'd need to understand themselves, the text, and then whatever theoretical lens later. However, even before they do anything, any reading even, I would like them to understand that the moment they approach a text, be it a work of Literature or that of literature, they're always already (interpellation, was it?) adopting some sort of lens (usually formalist, since they're looking at the basic structures of any text, but it could be socio-cultural, political, depending on the reader and the text they're looking at too). In other words, I would like them to learn to be skeptical readers first: many young readers take literature 'texts' like 'textbooks' (the work of formalism, no less). This skill, in my opinion, is the much needed build-up towards a more theoretical approach to literature in schools. Students need to be more sophisticated readers, whether dealing with literature or not.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I find reader-response the most practical with beginner students of literature but wouldn't practise it without pointing out that, hey, this is reader-response we're doing and there are other responses out there we'll probably deal with later. And I agree with Esther that every theoretical reading is already a kind of reader response, a choice one makes when analysing texts. When I read for myself, though, I have a partiality for postmodern theories (no brainer here with all that 'skepticism' thing being discussed in my piece) which in the spirit of it all, am still rather skeptical about. It's actually rather funny, but that'll be for another time.
Every teacher will have their own inclination to read and analyze a text in a certain way. Likewise, students will read and understand a text through their own lens. So, I agree with Hafizah in that students should first be exposed to a text to read and understand it in their own way. It is also important for students to know that there are various literary theories and critical approaches that can be applied to the text. Teaching students these theories and approaches will bring depth to the students reading of literature. However, not all theories will be directly relevant to the study of literature per se, however, the formalist approach will be a good start for students to be concerned with the text itself. Analyzing the text for its structure and meaning is the foundation to reading literary texts.
ReplyDeleteAs students have a better grasp literary analysis, as a teacher, I would expose the students to as many literary theories and approaches as possible. This will enable students to gain a wider perspective of the text and not only analyse the text through a specific lens. Although I would like to be as objective as possible when teaching literary theories and approaches to students, I would have certain inclinations to steer towards a certain way of reading a text based on my own experiences, thoughts and perspectives. Throughout my years of studying feminism in Canada, I tend to apply feminist criticism when analyzing texts. So, in a nutshell, when teaching literature I would inculcate the love of reading literary text first, before introducing literary theories and critical approaches. Once students are able to appreciate the text on a basic level, I would introduce the formalist approach to reading literary texts. Moving on, to expand their views, I would expose them to as many theories and approaches, including my own critical inclinations.
I agree with what most have said about us as literature teachers, would already approach a text through our own inclinations to whichever theory. I do see the importance in teaching theories like Ian said, it does help one to better appreciate the texts. Like Priya, I too was clueless in university when lecturers started sprouting theories. I had no idea of any theory and it was an awakening for me because I never read any of my texts in JC with the usage of any theory. There is definitely a need for students to be introduced to the theories however watered down it may be. This might be more appropriate for those doing pure literature or even those offering it at O levels and even more so at A levels. If they had told me that the deconstruction of a text was a formalist approach to reading a text, I think I would have entered university a bit more knowledgeable on what kind of readings I was applying to the text. We should definitely give students a chance to know more about this wonderful subject and people study it. If they knew there were theories about Literature, hell, they might even change their perspective about Literature and think that it is a subject worth studying like Math.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I would use the Reader-Response Theory and post-colonial theory. Reader-Response because I like how there are so many takes or views on a particular text. I love seeing how these responses relate to the reader and how their backgrounds influence the reading of a text. It makes the class diverse and it provides views that I might not have thought of. However, the danger of this in the Singapore system is the fact that many of them choose to remain silent and voice the opinion that they think is “acceptable” and some are even afraid of voicing their opinion so I would definitely have to work hard at making the classroom a safe zone for them to be vocal as well as inculcate this culture of speaking up. As for post-colonial theory, I enjoy it first of all and I would hope to God that I can make it relatable for them if not, I might go a long the more provocative line of gender criticism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a Literature teacher, I would consider it an important task to teach my students fundamental literary theories and critical approaches in order for them to build up a strong theoretical foundation. As much as we talk about making Literature fun and interpretive, let's face it, a strong knowledge of theories is necessary to analyse Literature. Without theoretical underpinnings, their interpretations will just read as opinions and opinions don't count when you sit for an exam.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, studying theory is akin to swallowing a pill. Students just wouldn't want to do it. Therefore, the onus is upon us to make it simple and accessible. For example, I really liked the way the 'reader-response' group in our tutorial presented their theory. With a simple and fun exercise such as, guessing the title of a poem, they effectively taught us how the approach can be used to analyse a poem. I would like to implement such teaching strategies to aid students' understanding of wordy theories.
Like most of the others who have responded so far, I too would like my students to have a basic appreciation for Literature before I start teaching them theories and approaches, so that no matter how hard they think the studying gets..they will still not lose their passion for the subject.
I think that the relevance is paramount.
ReplyDeleteI see literary theories and critical approaches as various lens through which we can read and access a text. With a great knowledge of the various literary theories that are prevalent today, what we can provide with our students as teachers is a plethora of perspectives of any given text.
Not all theories and approaches will be accessible to students, for a lot of them will require a great maturity and intelligence to learn and apply. However, what we can do as teachers is to pick theories that will be more accessible to students, and to water down certain theories for the students.
For example, the application of structuralism and practical criticism in literature classes can be done in our secondary schools today. We do not need to give them all the technical terms, which will mostly likely confuse students, but by simply using these "easier" theories and showing them how to read a text through such lens, they will gain a better understanding of any text.
With other texts that are staples in secondary schools now, such as Shakespeare, Ho, or even Achebe, where a necessary knowledge of the background of their texts is required for them to better learn, this steeps us lightly into New Historicism, Post-colonialism, and even Gender Studies. We can use these more difficult theories that we know, to steer students into reading texts from such perspectives.
I will teach the New Criticism and Reader Response approach to my Secondary school students at the beginning and try to incorporate elements of New Historicism, Post colonial and Feminist criticism at the later stage to arouse their interest in Literature. As much as I am a fan of Psychoanalytic theories, I will try to select and teach the literary theories and critical approaches objectively according to the students’ profile.
ReplyDeleteDuring my 4 months contract teaching stint, I have realised that most students are not interested in Literature as a subject, but they get really excited when we introduce Literature through formative assessment. Hence I personally feel it is essential to employ the Reader Response approach at the start and introduce other critical approaches and help them to see the bigger beauty behind a seemingly simple piece of text.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSecondary level may be the ideal time to "corrupt" the porous and spongy minds of the young adults.When they are just getting into the reading sphere they could be introduced to the theories whereby they are able to critically infer the value and depth of a text beyond what they decipher from the merely "given" lexical symbols.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest and the most pragmatic would be to acquaint them with the New Criticism and Reader Response at the earliest.This would slowly push them towards discovering meanings at a higher reading level.However,it is quite challenging to prepare them for theories and expect quick results from them at the same time specially when they are struggling to just successfully complete their reading list which seems their primary aim at that stage.
So,I'd confess that I am a little unsure whether to bring in theories at the secondary level or to merely let them read extensively and expand their range hoping that the critical thinking and analysing may seep in eventually?It is Literature we are talking about where literary theories,analysis cannot stay far behind from the text.For instance,once a student reads books like "Dracula" they would definitely be tempted to read the history of the real man and such different theories in different texts and contexts as and when thirst needs to be quenched.So why not wait, instead of antagonizing the already fearful minds of the students with heavy literary jargons?!
I completely agree with most of the comments that has been said with regards to the fact that teaching literature could be better facilitated through the New Criticism and Reader’s Response theories. I remembered how my secondary school teachers used to employ the concept of close reading, analysing and deconstructing a literary text so that we could acquire the essence of the passage better.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is also crucial for teachers to make the subject relatable to their students and (like what Deeba has said), to imbue them with a ‘basic appreciation [of] literature’ before we could afford students with the necessary tools for critiquing a text through various interpretive approaches.
From my own experience of teaching in FTPSS, I realised that many secondary four express students could actually elucidate the notions of feminine criticisms quite soundly. Furthermore, those who have selected to undertake history (as a supplementary subject) could also engage their background knowledge of western imperialism to extricate the key concepts of certain Marxist and Postcolonial ideologies too.
Ultimately, whether a student is able to ascertain the complexities of different critical perspectives depends largely upon the scope of literary texts that they are exposed to, and the type of student profile that we’re assigned to work with. I personally believe that, the stark difference between an educator who could illuminate the thought processes of a novice reader, versus one who believes that critical theory should only be introduced at a later stage, lies in his/her ability to dissect new information into ‘bite-sized’ chunks and present it in a comprehensive manner which fosters effective learning to take place.
As per my belief, at the secondary school level, if you are asking your students to master all the different critical view points, you are asking for too much. However literary criticism is important as it opens their minds to the concept of multiple perspectives. Such concepts are best developed at a young age. Exposure to different forms of criticism helps then understand that one situation or one idea can be looked at from different viewpoints. Thus, when faced with a real life situation they know that the way they perceive a situation is not the way another person will as there are multiple ways of looking at the same thing. As a literature teacher, literary criticism will help me impart this lesson to the students. All this said, I also realise that bombarding the secondary school learner with a whole range of critical theories will make lessons very tedious and difficult for them. So, a few of the theories that will be grasped better at such an age are to be dealt with in class. I agree with the others that New criticism and reader-response theory would be the best in terms of introduction to a secondary school learner. However New Criticism will provide them with a more exam based approach. The analysis of the structural aspects of a text, close reading and analysing prepares even the weaker students to at least work on exam based questions. The reader-response theory on the other hand is essential to build the love for literature. It would help my students interpret the text in their own ways and would make the text relatable to their own lives along with providing them the essence of it.
ReplyDeleteKnowing critical theory is valuable, but not entirely a must for the Singapore literature teacher. The literature syllabus currently seems to favour a New Criticism approach to understanding literature, especially with an entire paper devoted to practical criticism. Even for set texts, contextual evidence is usually only briefly mentioned, and is secondary to the text. There is still a strong emphasis on forms and features such as imagery, and explaining how a writer has achieved a particular effect in a text.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, a knowledge of critical theory would help teachers themselves analyse the text, and provide a framework for discussion in the classroom. Knowing which theory one favours is also important because it articulates a particular belief in literature. While it is important to have opinions about literature, it is also critical not to drown out dissenting voices in the classroom.
It is extremely difficult to introduce critical theories themselves into the classroom, but I have had teachers who introduced Harold Bloom, I.A. Richards, etc. and expected us to have an opinion on their perspectives, so it's not entirely impossible! It might be good to start doing that in JC because for students who intend to take Literature at a higher level, it would be a good taster of what will happen at undergraduate level.
Like Ian, I'm more of a cultural materialist and I believe in a critical examination of where/why/how a text is produced and how it contributes to/ subverts discourse in that area. I think approaching texts in this manner to some extent makes it more relevant to students (real-world contexts...) and makes them question their habits and assumptions about an idea.
Oh yes they will be!
ReplyDeleteThat was the first thought that blitzed through my mind when I read the question.
Without realizing, I think we and even our students are 'theorists' in our own right. Our ways of thought -although not recognized in the hallway of literary critical theories - influences the way we read our texts. We reason to explain. But after exposure to critical theories, we realize that the way we reason incline towards certain critical theories.
Like what Wen Rui said, it is about bringing relevance into the use of critical theories into the classroom, as a teacher. I think it is extremely relevant because it helps me to approach the various texts with more creativity to help inform my students and challenge them to look through new lenses to gain new perspectives. At secondary level, the explicit introduction of critical theories won't be too viable simply because of the amount of jargon and the higher level of thinking which they may not have a grasp over. However, the encouragement of different but reasonable readings for a poem by considering the poet's background, for example, might be more feasible.
Having knowledge of critical theories definitely stands a teacher in good stead.
I think all of us have mentioned things that are really relevant. I think its essential for students to realize that literature goes beyond reading for the sake of understanding the story. It is with this knowledge of literary theories that they will begin to realize that they are able to enjoy the texts in many ways, including the challenging pleasure of trying to decode meanings through many lenses. One of the things that I hope to achieve as a lit teacher is to get my kids to realize the fun in engaging with their thoughts and ideas at the intersection of the literary lens and the text.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, the ultimate goal is for them to become humans who don’t just consume literature/art blindly and passively, but to understand that literature provides a chance for "consumers/participants" to have control. I always find it beautiful that once you fall in love with a theory, you will be sooo excited to apply it to other mediums of literature, especially films. Ultimately it gives a kind of realization that literature shouldn’t be about hierarchy (low art vs high art) but how we derive meanings from it.
My point is, with this knowledge of critical theories, we as teachers will be able to find more resources (lyrics, films, advertisements) to help them to understand the way to apply their critical thinking into Literature, even into pop culture which they encounter on daily basis.
And also, feminist theory ftw!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteList of critical interpretive approaches:
ReplyDelete· New Criticism
· Biographical & historical criticism · New Historicism
· Psychoanalytic theory/theories · Deconstruction
· Marxist criticism
· Postcolonial criticism
· Feminist criticism
· Queer theory
· Ecocriticism
Sub-question (for tutorials): Which approaches would you authorize or valorize in your literature classroom? (Describe the context of your particular literature class.) Explain your pedagogical rationale.
It would be unfair to pick an approach over the other, because I think in time a Literature student (in university level) would formulate and have a way of looking at the world... be it through any theory or criticism. However, we as humans have our biases... I think I'd teach postcolonial, but not blatantly, only because I'm wired to look at the world like that, and that's my area of interest.
Agree with Hafizah and most others that Reader-response would be the easiest pill to swallow. They will be free to interpret the text in their own fashion (so long as they can justify it, why not?), and it does not clamp down on their opinions. I would like students to practice critical reading, but perhaps it is suitable when one is more cognitively mature, and learn how to read the subtleties and nuances of a piece of work. I know one can de-construct and get all upset and frustrated with the text (hasn't it all happened to us before?), and I hope I'll be the sort of teacher who can bring out the beauty of a text through critical reading. Tough though...
When I was doing my contract teaching, all we had from the level coordinator for Literature was a set of poems that we had to teach. No one spoke about standardising the 'meaning' of the poems, no one spoke about how to go about teaching it. I don't know if it's good or bad, but I was then shadowing the level coordinator and didn't have to teach poetry. However, out of the 3 classes that I have observed, I realised that every single student was vigorously copying every word from the powerpoint slides (that have been recycled for many many years, I hear) and no one asked any questions nor had anything to say. And that was literature for them.
ReplyDeleteSo the question I asked myself at the end of the day was, what would I change when it's my turn to teach? And truth is, I still don't know. But I guess what would make the most sense is to probably look into who the author is, when it is written and for whom it is written for. From there, we will be able to identify the common themes and using those themes, teach the class about a particular way of reading?
I feel that my knowledge of critical and literary theories will help students cntextualize what they are learning. These theories can help students frame their opinions and better understand the texts they engage. Critical thinking is encouraged through engaging these theories, students are more aware of how people think and gain multiple perspectives and wil be bettter able to form opinions. To authorize or valorize certain approaches to literature will betray what the meaning of this subject. Teachers of Literature should always encourage a free range of opinions but of course, for the sake of time and framing a lesson there should be guidelines. Objectives and aims should help structure the lessons but a teacher should try as much as possible not to valorize a certain opinion or approach to questions because Singaporean students probably will memorize and take on one argument for the sake of pleasing their exam script marker.
ReplyDelete