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 · New Historicism · Psychoanalytic theory/theories · Deconstruction | · Marxist criticism · Postcolonial criticism · Feminist criticism · Queer theory |
In secondary school, I don't remember using anything but New Criticism as an approach (though we didn't even know its name then!), and I still think that's an important lens with which to equip students who are just starting out. The text itself already contains a multitude of riches that one can mine, so where better to start than with the actual product?
ReplyDeleteNew Criticism alone, however, will not suffice if a student wants to go beyond the text. I think I would have appreciated my teacher introducing me to feminist theory and queer theory when I told him I wanted to focus on Jeanette Winterson for my Lit S paper at the JC level, for example. It would have been exciting and fresh. But I suspect it would also have been terribly overwhelming and scary. I mean, even now, I find all these different approaches challenging and difficult to grasp fully.
So maybe for those in secondary schools, New Criticism mixed with Reader-Response would be good. Students are actually allowed to formulate their own opinions, and personal response would be validated, supported by close reading. I like that.
Though actually if you think about it, even New Criticism has elements of Reader-response in it. I mean, the act of reading and meaning making from the text is itself a subjective response. You pick out those elements in a text because you're you. Right? Though you might be trained to look out for certain elements, it's always personal how you put it all together in the end. So maybe it's a matter of bringing that more to the fore.
I think what I would most like to put forward is the idea of the reader as scriptor. I remember reading Barthes and being very excited by the death of the author. I don't know if I'm quoting/interpreting him wrong, but a world where the author isn't the sole authority, and his biography isn't the most important thing, is an exciting world. You get to look at the text and pick out that which matters most to you, you get to remake (script) it as you wish, and you're kind of just picking up where the previous person/author/scriptor left off. It's a continuous creative process. I think students, with whatever knowledge/life experiences they possess and whatever literary theories they are equipped with, are constantly making something new out of something old. And that's when a text has the most meaning. When it is read and made real and relevant by a student living in his/her own time, in his/her own world. I think pedagogically, that's when lit is most engaging.
So.. uh I guess I valorise all approaches? Because every approach is interlaced with the personal.
And it's important for a teacher to be able to explore different approaches with students who want to take it further. (But this probably only can realistically happen at uni level and maybe jc)
Delete'... even New Criticism has elements of Reader-response in it. I mean, the act of reading and meaning making from the text is itself a subjective response.'
DeleteI definitely agree with you on this! Here, I believe, is where we can introduce our kids to critical theories. Revealing their inherent theoretical inclinations would be infinitely better than jumping on them with a frightening Derrida or an even scarier Butler.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteI feel that the literary theories add a whole dimension to reading the text. Critical analysis enhances the act of reading, and the mere knowledge that these theories exist can alter the way one reads. As teachers, the introduction of some of these theories might interest the studies in the books that the school has forced them to buy and read (unwillingly). Perhaps the little ladies in a girl's school will appreciate the Feminist way of approaching a text - their inner Girl Power Mind Machine might hyperventilate at the thought of all this exciting analysis.
Sardonic jokes aside, if there are any other theories that will make reading more interesting for me, I'll take them. I'll take all the theories and absorb them like a sponge. Anything beats the stand-alone New Criticism approach that our education system is promoting heavily in schools. I'd like to see students pick up a psychoanalytical approach to their analysis and watch how far they can go with the text. Run free, my little children!
Alright. I know that realistically, this isn't going to work. Regardless, it is always good, as a teacher, to know more than your students. That way, you (and by you, I mean I) can impress the students with my extensive knowledge of the immensely profound Queer Theory and reap in the fawning adoration from my followers. Did I say followers? I meant students.
Lastly, please teach me more theories. If you don't, I might have to resort to Google and Wikipedia. Oh, the misery. Such is life!
I see these knowledge literary theories as my own personal compass; I will be more aware of how I approach a text as they would imbue in me a sense of purpose and direction when I am dealing new, unseen texts as a teacher. In secondary school and JC, I had only been exposed to New Criticism, and my years of linguistic training have inculcated in me a deeply entrenched structuralist – especially when it comes to literary structures – bias.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I acknowledge that no literary theory is inherently better than the others, so I appreciate how each theory adds value to my work as a literature teacher. I am more attuned to the heteroglossic nature of each piece of text – e.g. in terms of the biography of the author, the zeitgeist, the feminist / communist leanings, etc – and how each text is waiting to be unpacked from these various angles. Therefore, while these theories may not be directly applicable to my students per se, they still inform me of the themes and inner workings of the text, which I can then impart to my students, or at least surface these concerns to them so that they can form their respective thoughts on a particular text.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteI think the various literary theories give really refreshing ways of analyzing and viewing texts. Like my other classmates, I didn't really use any of the theories in Secondary School or JC but of course, now, I can see that the literary techniques we used were very much influenced by these theories. In particular, I remember looking at lit texts through New Criticism, Marxist, Feminist Post-colonial and New Historicism lenses.
In my classroom, a knowledge of these theories and approaches would definitely help in my teaching. Whilst it would be difficult to teach these theories and approaches to secondary school students (even we have trouble), they would be useful for me in my preparation of how to teach a certain text. The nuances that each lens lends to the same text enriches it.
What would be most applicable to my students, I believe, would be New Criticism. I think that a reader-response lens is essential when one reads a text. We all bring different things and views to the table and this is what makes a neutral text come alive - the thoughts, feelings, experiences of its reader(s). In this sense, I would teach my students that whatever they have experienced or are experiencing in life can go on to be used in their analysis of their literature texts to give them more meaning. Likewise, what they experience or are experiencing in the classroom can go on to influence and color their lives outside and beyond school.
I believe that school is just one part of a person's life and one should be taught or should learn to look beyond the school gates. I believe that literature helps to open up peoples' hearts and minds (sappy as this may sound) and this is what they will need in real life.
oops, paragraph 3 should be 'Reader-response' instead of 'New Criticism'.
DeleteI think that these approaches help us as teachers, better justify and theorize how the same text/poem can be interpreted differently. These theories work with each other; they compliment one another. Having knowledge of these theories will help me organize my thoughts when I am analyzing a new piece I have not seen before. I, too agree that New Criticism is what we have been practicing in schools today, and during my own secondary school/ JC experience as well. We will garner readers' responses from our students, discuss them, and come up with a general consensus. Perhaps these different theories will broaden my reader's lens. They will help me accept different interpretations more readily and open my eyes to different points of view.
ReplyDeleteIn schools however, at least in Secondary 1 and 2, the material that the students will be dealing with is more simplistic in nature. Having to prepare for tests and examinations, teachers will tend to consciously/unconsciously lead students into an "agreed" reading of the text/poem. Worksheets are filled with guiding questions so students can easily grasp the general idea of the material given. During contract teaching, I have not encountered a text/poem that was too ambiguous. There was always a straight forward way to interpret them. Although at times, students will say things that make me go "Oh I have never thought of it that way!".
I don't think we will have a chance to ever explicitly teach these theories to our students. However, they will definitely serve as a guide for us as literature teachers to organize the ideas and interpretations of our students.
Jillyan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePossessing knowledge of the various literary theories and critical approaches would be highly relevant to my work as a literature teacher. One thing I've always liked about literature as an academic subject is how allows students to come up with different responses to the same questions about a text. As Miller mentioned, it is "interesting to note the different readings that can come from one text when various schools are applied." For instance, I was very intrigued by the psychological criticism reading of the Brendan Gill passage, which pointed out the sexual connotations of lines such as "dangling modified" and "the sentence stands".
ReplyDeleteImparting my knowledge of the various theories and approaches to my students will enable them to systematically conceptualize and articulate their thoughts about literary texts they come across. Once they become familiar with the basic concepts of the various theories, they will have a theoretical background to fall back on when examining everything from poems to narratives. Moreover, getting acquainted with approaches like Marxist criticism, feminist criticism and postcolonial criticism will help to boost their critical thinking skills, level of empathy and ability to link literature with social, gender and historical issues.
As a secondary school teacher, I think the approaches that I would focus on would be New Criticism, Reader-Response Criticism. Both of these approaches are relatively straightforward and easy to grasp, as opposed to abstract ones like Deconstructive Criticism which would be too complex for lower secondary or NA students. New Criticism will be very useful to students who need guidance for writing practical criticism essays, and I believe that I will be able to teach them to identify unifying elements of literary texts. As for Reader-Response Criticism, it's an approach that would set the stage for dynamic classroom discussions that can hopefully allow students to see the beauty of varying responses to a single text.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteDifferent literary theories offer different sets of criticisms, that's one very important point. In Secondary School (or even JC), to be very honest I don't even recall my teachers telling me explicitly which theory we were using, or what these theories were about. Looking back, I was probably taught New Criticism in Secondary School and other theories (very sure I was exposed to Feminist Theory and Psychoanalytic Theory, can't really remember the rest) in JC. I probably didn't know I was using these theories then.
Being equipped with the knowledge of different theories has too many benefits for a literature teacher. For instance, it allows us to interpret a single text from multiple perspectives, and enables us to educate our students on the different dimensions of a single piece of literary work. I would think using just one type of theory (in today's schools mostly New Criticism) is rather narrow-minded, even though it still can guarantee our students a pass in their prac crit essays.
Of course, it would be best if we could introduce the theories to our students to help them see things from perspectives they might not have considered at all.
That being said, it would be quite idealistic to say that I will use as many theories as possible to interpret any literary work with my students even though it's believed that the more they know the wider will be their perspective. It is more likely that I, as the teacher, will choose one or two more relevant theories to guide my students with the interpretation of the text. In Secondary Schools especially, it might be safe to expose the students to not too many theories in case they get confused (come on, we need to be realistic about the standard of our students sometimes yo), so it would be good to train them in one or two theories which might be relevant to their generally simpler texts.
I oscillate between New Historicism and Cultural Materialism on the critical spectrum, partly because I'm a historian who's always worried about quoting out of context, and mainly because political optimism is sometimes impossible. To me, then, a true understanding of Literature (as discipline and text) cannot be achieved without a good dose of history and politics.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the importance of New Criticism in the classroom cannot be denied. Before attaining more sophisticated understandings, readers must be able to analyse the word—something that is trying for many Singaporean children who are not acquainted with analytical reading. Despite its soullessness (I adapt Ian’s term from the TG1 blog), I do acknowledge the significance of New Criticism in pedagogy, at least on the secondary level. It’s not so much about depriving our students of theory, but about equipping them with the necessary foundations.
Ultimately, I would privilege New Criticism and Cultural Materialism in my classroom, to balance pedagogical needs and ideology. Theory is never redundant in the classroom, but neither should we offer it without the base of analytical skills. I firmly believe that it is possible, and essential, to introduce our students to 'cheem' theories at some point, perhaps when they are more confident of their analytical skills--take heart, and believe in them!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about any text is that it was authored by somebody, and at the time of his authorship, this person was being fueled by certain motivations and beliefs of his own, and he lived in a certain age with certain cultural and political and racial and gender-related (and the list goes on) impositions on the way he behaved and conducted himself in society. This person was moulded by and was reacting to his environment and the circumstances of his day.
ReplyDeleteCritical theories will help me as a teacher to organise all this information in a somewhat meaningful way for my students as readers of a text sometimes far removed from their own day and age. In this way, they can view the same text through different lenses and understand and appreciate it in a more well-rounded way.
Beyond the grade-grabbing usefulness of these literary theories for the students, I'd be glad to be able to show my students that as a human race we are very multi-faceted, and that the same issue can be viewed differently by different people, but that no one can really say whose viewpoint is absolutely right or wrong. Appreciation and respect for viewpoints contrary to your own, I think, is generally a good thing to foster.
Sharifah
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteI think the knowledge of critical theories is very relevant as it helps the teacher to squeeze out the "hidden juices" of the text/poem which, without such a framework, on might not be able to see. At a very practical level, if students have nothing to say, then their essay scores will be low. I think there is something to be said for all critical theory though i often find Lyotard's "incredulity toward metanarratives" i.e deconstruction, a bit of a hustler's move to pretend that it is not itself a meta-narrative.
Personally, i read texts "theo-dramatically" (a phrased coined by Hans Urs Von Balthasar). I personally hold that the hermeneutical lens of the Word made flesh is a better critical theory. It offers in my view, a better story, one that takes into account all the valid criticism of the various critical theories but i think better resolves the points of tension within them. I remembered doing my post-graduate studies, writing an essay comparing the stories of Simone de Beauvoir and Luce Irigary (feminists) with that of theo-dramatist John Paul II.
I think that its because i read texts "theo-dramatically" i am able to derive "out of the box" insights which may well be valuable for my students.
Which approaches would you authorize or valorize in your literature classroom? (Describe the context of your particular literature class.) Explain your pedagogical rationale.
I think all approaches are helpful in one way or another. Maybe its because i am a history student but i do think that understanding the historical context of a piece and the author's concerns is important. Hence new historicism is my flavor of the month. If we are to have a dialogue with the text, i think it is important to try to understand broadly what the author is getting at and not simply read whatever we like into the text. When we do that, i think people of other disicplines can legitimately ask to what extent is there "value added" in literature and why bother studying it.
Nevertheless, i think that texts are "living" (though the author might be dead". Hence the meaning of the texts is dynamic and sometimes unforseen by the author. A reader response type of approach is still valid.
Deconstruction is helpful to some extent especially to unmask oppressive ideologies. Students sometimes are unaware of the sub-text and it is good to bring it to light. Some students are already aware and this gives them the tools to articulate their tacit suspicion of certain texts/discourses. Nevertheless, i would also ask the practioners of deconstruction (like how our govt likes to ask) "What's your alternative?" i.e it is sometimes easy to tear down, but building an alternative is more difficult. Unless you are a pure anarchist (very few people are, when push comes to shove), that is a quesiton a deconstructionist of whatever stripe (i.e feminist, queer theory, marxist, post-colonial etc) must grapple with.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteAt the secondary school level, the literary theory that is most commonly, if not the only one, employed is that of New Criticism. Teachers spend copious amounts of time getting students to find out what the text is talking about. However I do find it problematic to ignore the author's intention. I feel that any text or piece of work is inevitably coloured by the author's subjectivity. Even when the author tries his best to remove himself from his work, the choice of words, perspective, story line (how he chooses to frame the text) were choices made by the author. These choices dictate the way in which readers view the text. In my opinion, it is practically impossible to separate the text from its author.
Thus it is probably a good idea to introduce other ways of looking at literary works to students. The plurality of perspectives that this affords will allow them different avenues of looking at the same piece of work. Thus it is important that I become more familiar with these literary theories myself so that I can confidently and knowledgeably facilitate these discussions and to guide my students to look at a piece of work from these varying viewpoints.
It would also be useful to teach my students these theories to prepare them for the studying of literature at jc/university where it will be more challenging.
My literature professors back in university has what I now realise was an unnatural fascination with psychoanalytical theory. However, they were a deviously charismatic lot and somehow managed to persuade me and my peers to join them in the Dark Side. As a result, the words of Freud, Jung and others cut from similar cloth have been the influencing force behind my analysis of most literary texts over the years.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I rather unfortunately lack the infectiousness of my lit professors - to which I'm sure the Ministry of Education here breathes a long and loud, "Hallelujah!" Because let's be honest: psychoanalysis is quite possibly the most inappropriate critical theory to teach secondary school students in Singapore (or anywhere else, for that matter!), what with all those developing hormones raging unsteadily all around you ...
That isn't to say psychoanalysis was all I ever learned; I was pretty much exposed to all the others as well (just not in as much detail as psychoanalysis) - although I highly doubt my experience with queer theory and to a slightly lesser extent feminist criticism would go down well with our students, either. But it is exactly this assortment of theories, this bizarre mixture of the traditional and unconventional, which makes the study of literature so utterly exhilarating and provocative. These theories provide us the pleasure of being able to view texts from a multitude of perspectives, to think both inside and outside the box, to rip apart an entire passage and then slowly piece it back together in order to discover the hidden secrets and dimensions within.
To answer the question about its relevance to my work as a lit teacher, I’d say – without a doubt. As to which theories would I valorise in my literature classroom, I would have to agree with many of my colleagues that New Criticism is perhaps the best approach for secondary school students. Not only is it the most age-appropriate, it is one of the easiest critical theories to understand and apply – and also serve as a good way to introduce interested students to other theories.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeletePerspective does indeed shape our discourses towards pertinent and well, trivial issues in our lives. It affects our worldview and creates certain biases that are prevalent in our societal interactions. It is difficult for individuals to untangle ourselves from our entrenched perspectives, especially if they have been established by irreversible occurrences in our lives.
Similarly, every literature teacher (myself included, though I'm still valiantly attempting to figure out which approach I valorize) will possess one/a few/several theories that he or she subscribes strongly to. This, of course, introduces the question of how our perceived knowledge of our subscribed theories can be relevant to the teaching of Literature. Have we, as educators-to-be, been ascribed the right to impose our brand of approach/theories on our young charges? Should we, or more importantly, can we, be open to alternate approaches, as appropriated by our students, that might contort our favourite text(s) to an unrecognizable entity?
After much mental jostling with this life-changing question whilst watching the similarly life-changing re-run of the Manchester United - Liverpool game, I must profess that I can offer no concrete suggestion toward this dilemma. However, I would like to suggest a slightly inconclusive and perhaps, a little over-simplistic, stop-gap measure.
I do believe, as Ewan McGregor and The Beatles unabashedly proclaim, that all we need is love, not only in our own lives (that's another topic for another day), but also, in the teaching of English Literature. We need to teach our students to love English Literature; it is our imperative as teachers of this much maligned subject, to create a environment that allows for our students to figure out what they love about Shakespeare/Blake/Yeats/Archie & Jughead etc. Before I digress any further, allow me to posit that an adequate knowledge of literary theories and critical approach is relevant to my/our work as a Literature teacher, insofar that it acts as a platform for an appropriate and healthy expression/discussion/debate/moderation of ideas from our students.
And yes, nay to new criticism.
How would your knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches be relevant to your work as a literature teacher?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the MOE Literature in English syllabus, one of the Principles of Literature Teaching requires students to participate in creating a response to the text being studied. Also, the teacher's role is to provide pupils with the opportunity and support which will enable them to offer their own viewpoints, and substantiate with textual evidence. With this in mind, the teacher has to take into account the plethora of responses from over-enthusiastic students and turn them into constructive ones to bring about intellectual discussions about a certain issue or theme in a text. With knowledge of literary theories and critical approaches, the literature teacher is then able to organize these responses according to the approaches. I believe students need to at least know that these theories (minus psychoANALytic theory) exist. It would make things less torturous for the teacher as well.
Furthermore, the syllabus requires students to know the writer's intention and point of view in a text (i.e. the treatment of themes and issues), and also the historical, social, or personal influences on a writer's point of view. This means that the teacher has to talk about adopting historical and postcolonial perspective to interpret the text. This is particularly relevant when discussing war literature ('A' levels) in which students need to know the biographical and historical facts. As such, I feel students need to be educated on the different literary perspectives in order to effectively interpret a text in a more systematic and organized manner.
To answer the question - To the extent that Reader-Response, and simplified, watered-down, proto-theoretical versions of New Criticism and generalized author-centred approaches can be taught without too much confusion among students, I would find knowledge of theories and approaches to be useful in teaching secondary school students.
ReplyDeleteMy own experience was that literary theories and critical approaches were not taught at secondary school, and in my personal experience as a contract teacher, certainly not at lower sec.
There was instead a very rudimentary, proto-theoretical mish-mash of textual, writer, and reader approaches. Students are asked to analyse texts for things like imagery, narrative, characterization, etc. They are asked to write how they respond to the poems. At upper secondary or JC level, perhaps a bit of author-centric criticism is introduced, though only in a kind of background history way. I don't ever recall being presented with a theoretical framework for analysing literature in this way.
Indeed, I think that only the strongest classes would be able to handle critical theory. For the bulk of Express and N(A) students (at least in lower sec), I would have to stop at the basic forms of New Criticism and Reader Response. In a sense, anything author-centred would be more difficult to teach as it would require students to do "background" reading, i.e. reading about the author's historical, cultural, or religious milieu. It's difficult enough to get them to read the text!
I would valorize Reader-Response primarily, because of two reasons. Firstly - it is the most accessible for them and least demanding, therefore it would be the best to start with. Secondly, it would help them to be taught how to analyse their own responses and to be able to express a structured, rational opinion about the texts.
I would touch on New Criticism only so far as technical stuff - in fact I hesitate to call it NC at all, since it seems to me that NC looks at stuff like tensions and ambiguities, which is really beyond most students, I feel.
For a strong, upper-secondary class, I would actually want to introduce them to NC and Deconstructionism, as I think smarter students would relish the idea of deconstructing a "hated" text!
To be honest, I never knew about anything about literary theories and critical approaches until I was in university. I vaguely recall one of my lit teachers (out of the few we went through) for the unseen poetry and prose component in JC touching briefly on deconstruction and marxist criticism but beyond that I do not recall any other formal encounters with any of the other theories.
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect though, from my own experience I think my teachers used a variety of these approaches (though never formally named and acknowledged) in their teaching of lit texts. There was definitely application of new criticism, biographical & historical criticism and various others in our readings of Shakespeare and our war texts at the JC level, though queer theories and ecocriticism still sound pretty foreign to me.
I believe using literary approaches in introducing and fleshing out a text or poetry is absolutely crucial as it gives new dimensions to the piece of work and in some cases might help our students relate better to the content. However the type of critical theory I would use would depend wholly on the text and the level of students I am working with at the point of time. Like km I recall seeing alot of application of reader response and new criticism (though I'm not too sure about all the tension and ambiguities that we talked about in class) as well as deconstruction at the secondary level while shadowing other lit teachers when I did my school attachment. It seemed to be a pretty effective way to get the students acquainted with the lit texts as they can peel off the layers one by one...like an onion (vaguely recall a teacher in sec school saying htat to me once). If relevant, I do believe biographical and historical criticism is also essential for a deeper understanding of a literary piece as many texts are a product of the zeitgeist of their era and reflect the common ideals and beliefs of that time.
For a class of higher caliber and maybe at the JC level, I think throwing in some good ole' psychoanalysis, marxist, feminist and postcolonial viewpoints (not the theories per say) here and there would spice up lessons, as Shao mentioned a feminist approach of a text might incite interest in the young nubile minds of our female students :). However I would hesitate in teaching them how to apply the less frequently used cirtical approaches for fear that they might start seeing one too many ways to read a text, which at that level would confuse them (as it did to me in my early university years). An exposure to the multitudes of critical approaches would be definitely a boon in helping develop student interest and understanding to literary texts, but I would leave it at that, just an exposure without an actual delving into the explanation of theories (unless they ask for it) for fear of overloading their developing minds with too much information.
I see the literary theories as a tool to help my students understand the text better and thus improve the enjoyment of the subject. For that to happen, we need to consider the students' maturity and limited life experiences in our choice of literary theory to be used in class.
ReplyDeleteSome good theories to begin with at the secondary school level would be Biographical/Historical criticism and Feminist Criticism. The former introduces the students to the author, his background, his influences. Some of these experiences could be what the students can relate to thus helping them understand the author and his intentions and inspirations in his text.
The feminist theory can be brought in at a level where the students can relate to also eg to their growing up experience where they experience gender discrimination eg sibling rivalry.