SCE REPORTS 6

SUPPLEMENT: ANNOTATED CHECKLIST '"BEYOND INTERPRETATION*' SCE REPORTS

SCE REPORTS 6

Supplement

SCE REPORTS is published by The Society for Critical ExchanDe, Inc., a not for profit corporation organized to FALL, 1979 promote cooperatnve inquiry in criticism. All rights for material published in SCE REPORTS are retained by the authors. Address inquiries to: Patricia H. Sosnoski, Managing Editor, 5384 Coulter Lane, Oxford,Ohio 45056

For information concerning SCE, write to: SC E 6273 19th Ave. NE Seattle, Washington 981 15 SCE gratefully acknowledges the ossistance of the English Departments of Miami University and The University of Washington in the preparation of this issue. SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

Richard A. Barney Hiami University -of Reading (Baltimore: John Hopkina Univ. Press, BEYOND INTERPRETATION: AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST 19781, Chapter 1; and Morse Peckham, Explanation --and Power (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), Jonathan Culler, in response to an inquiry Chapters 1 and 2. But a consideration of these for background articles which might elucidate his works would go beyond the scope of the present essay, "Beyond Interpretation," wrote that com- discussion. piling such a checklist ". . .would be of no I have organized the checklist under five help. What I was arguing was that critics have ireadings: (I) Beyond Interpretation; (11) New assumed that their task was to interpret literary Critics on Interpretation; (111) Other Theories works. If there were numerous articles that ex- of Interpretation; (IV) Overviews; and (V) SCE plicitly argued that this was the task of criticism, Members on Interpretation. that would indicate that it wasn't an assumption I. Beyond Interpretation at all." I do not wish to quarrel with Professor Culler. Critics appear increasingly dissatisfied His point is well taken and I have used it as with the predominance of interpretation in a guide. It seems evident, nopetheless, that the practice of criticism. Whether their numerous critics have had their consciences arguments are "against" interpretation, or for pricked, so to speak, because of his and other going "beyond" it, many critics are calling for challenges to traditional critical assumptions-- a new focus for literary investigations. that many critics are rising to the occasion Jonathan Culler, in "Beyond Interpretation: by defending interpretation. With both these The Prospects of Contemporary Criticism,'' Compar- views in mind, I have made the goal of this -ativeserves Literature, that the Mew 28,Criticism, No. 3 (1976), with fts244-56, commitment ob- checklist first, to outline the nature of the assumptions about interpretation, second, to the autonomy of the literary text, has benefited to survey the responses of those critics who the teaching of literature, but he attacks its have attempted to defend interpretation, and "most important and insidious legacy," which third, to present a few of the arguments that is the "widespread and unquestioning acceptance view interpretation as secondary. My choice of of the notion that the critic's job is to inter- articles and books has been selective, but, pret literary works" (p. 246). Instead, he I hope, representative. maintains that "while the experience of literature The participants in this session have been may be an experience of interpreting works, in very helpful with suggestions for the checklist. fact the interpretation of individual works is However, I have not annotated references they only tangentially related to the understanding of supplied where they go beyond the purpose of literature. To engage in the study of literature this checklist. Eugene Goodheart cites Roland is not to produce yet another interpretation of Barthes' essay "What is Criticism?", 1963, in King Lear, but to advance one's understanding of Essais Critique, as formative for an "anti-inter- the conventions and operations of an institution, pretive" outlook. Barbara Herrnstein Smith's a mode of discourse" (p. 246). suggestions for understanding her use of the term Literary criticism should focus its attention "interpretation" include: Wolfang Iser, The Act on a number of unanswered problems: (1) the role SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

The type of literary study which structuralism of literature in society or social consciousness; helps one to envisage would not be primarily (2) its "historical relation to other forms of interpretation. . . . Rather than a criticism discourse through which the world is organized"; which discovers or assigns meanings it would (3) a formulation of an "apposite account of the be a poetics which strives to define the role of literature in the psychological economies" conditions of meaning . . . .The study of lit- of writers and readers; (4) the effect of fictional erature, as opposed to the perusal or discourse; and (5) a "typology of discourse and discussion of individual works, would become a theory of the relations (both mimetic and non- an attmept to understand the conventions which mimetic) between literature and other modes of make literature possible (p. 128). discourse which make up the text of intersub- jective experience" (p. 247). Through an analysis of verbal behavior, Barbara Culler contends that three promising attempts Herrnstein Smith examines the nature of literature, to break away from New Criticism have failed to challenging Culler's structuralist assumptions. In "combat the notion of interpretation itself" her book On the Margins of Discourse: =Relation- (p. 247). Northrop Frye, in his Anatomy of ship of Literature s Language (Chicago: Univ. of Criticism, posits the need for a "'coherent and Chicago Press, 19781, she first makes a distinction comprehensive theory of literature'," but his between "natural" and "fictive" utterances. Natural proposals ultimately are only used as methods of utterances are verbal acts characterized as "occur- archetypal interpretation. The second attempt, ances" that are caused by, and in response to their psychoanalytic criticism, has also failed to historical contexts (p. 15); fictive utterances, resist the tendency to be used merely "as a however, are not historcally unique "events", but, method of interpretation for texts which contain governed by their linguistic structures, are special oddities" (p. 250). Stanley Fish, using representations of natural utterances (p. 24). Thus his "affective stylietics," focuses his study there are distinct interpretations. A listener on the act of reading, but then attempts to use interprets a natural utterance by inferring its this approach for a new way to interpret texts motivational, temporal, and spatial contexts. For (see Fish). interpretating literature, the reader must draw Critics such as Jameson, Hartman, Bloom, from the linguistic structure of the text, his and de Man, however, have thrown off the inter- "experiences of the world," and acquired,knowledge pretive bent to begin a "reinventing [of] literary about natural utterances (p. 36-37). The literary history," and "to produce a theory of literature work presents the opportunity for the reader to as a conceptual space" (p. 255). Interpretation, engage in "cognitive play" about its meanings; especially for de Man, is "in fact literary history, although he can "never 'finally' understand a and in this context it "is always necessary error," poem," he can return to consider its potential thus these critics move on to more profitable meanings (p. 124). areas of literary study. With these assumptions, Smith contends that A year earlier, in Structuralist Poetics the "ethics" of scholarly interpretation do not, (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975), Culler as E.D. Hirsch maintains (see Hirsch), prescribe argued that that literary critics privilege the ferreting out SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

of authorial intention, but that they acknowledge Ihab Hassan also argues for a reassessment that their interpretations are inextricably tied of literary criticism's traditional views in to the critic's cultural setting (p. 151). Thus, "The Critic as Innovator: A Paracritical Strip both historicist "explications" and individual in X Frames," Chicago Review, 28, No. 3 "readings" contribute to "the pleasure and interest (Winter 1977) ,= -sent8 a provocative we take in our cognitive engagement" with literature case for the critic's role as both analyst and (pp. 152-53; see Hancher). artist. Using the ideas of Wilde, de Gourmont, and Turning to the use of linguistics in literary Sartre to enforce his stance, Hassan argues--as theory, Smith exmaines the work of "new stylists" do Fiedler and de Man--that the critic, in writing such as Donald Freeman and Stanley Fish, and his discourse, is both the perceiver of a lit- structural studies by Jonathan Culler and John erary work, and the creator of his own "artwork" Rutherford. A stylistic analysis, in studying (pp. 11-15). He, as innovator, should recognize "syntactic strategies," brings the reader into his "Freedom" to create in critical discourse consideration, but in fact it only "attaches a (see Hancher). This freedom must also be com- new piece of apparatus [reader response] onto the plemented with "an erotic sense of Style," a machine (here an illfitting. .*.Russian and Czech feeling for the artistic use of language that is Formalism)" (p. 160). A comprehensive theory free of jargon, and "an intuition of the New," the about readers and language is lacking. Although ability to look forward to innovation in criticism structuralist methods yield insightful conclusions (pp. 16-17). Hassan points out that art, in about texts, they are limited and strained because this postmodern era emphasizing deconstruction, -of the underlying assumptions that literature is discontinuity, and fragmentation, has become at a "system of signs" and directly analogous to best "an occurrence without clear boundaries," language usage. These assumptions--for example, demanding a reconsideration of the present about the intuitive ability of readers to under- restrictiveness in literary criticism. He stand texts--are incompatible with Chomsky's presents intellectual and moral "concerns" theories, i.e, that every native speaker has to meet this exigency, proposing five subjects of inherent language competence. The attempt to study to "empower the critic's language to enter define a theory of literature by using linguistic history": (1) a general theory of fiction that methods is misleading, because the conventions in takes into account current neurological, literary works are not "shaped by a communicative psychological, philosophical, and linguistic function, but by an aesthetic one" (p. 193). A research; (2) "The Politics of the Imagination," re-oriented theory could instead attempt to dis- i.e. the nature of the imagination's power; cover (1) the way in which the process of a (3) "The Future," models of "desire, hope, or narrative elicits the reader's interests and dream. . .[that] become concretion of the future8'; enjoyment (e.g. suspense); (2) how general-pro- (4) "My thology and TechnologyM--the "convergences positions or themes in a narrative are left un- between their structures in the deeper structures stated and indeterminate, but are construable; of postmodern culture"; and (5) "The One and and (3) the way in which the act of narration is the Many: the emergent role of mind, extended understood to be the "representation of a telling" by technology, in mediating between unity and (pp. 195-96). diversity" (pp. 28-29). SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

~lthoughSusan Sontag is interested in needed for the study of literature in general. protecting art, not literary study, from inter- This attention to form will not take the,expe- pretation, literary critics are repeatedly rience of a work of art for granted, as previous citing her views. In her provocative essay, interpretation has done, but will capt.ure the "Against Interpretation," Against Interpretation *'sensuous surface" of a work, cutting back --and Other Essays (New York: Dell Publishing Co., content so "we can see the thing" (pp. 13-14). 1961). 3-14, Sontag observes that the modern The function of criticism could thus become the view of art is predicated on the Greek theory of task of showing "how it is what it is, even art as mimesis or representation, arguing that that it is what it is, rather than to show vhat this orientation "makes content essential and it means" (p. 14). form accessory" (p. 4). This emphasis on what a Leonard Meyer, although concerned with text means instead of what is necessitates musical scholarship, agrees on the need for interpretation, the "conscious act of the mind establishing a comprehensive theory of the which illustrates a certain code" (p. 5). Inter- general dynamics in the field (in his case, pretation, first of all, is the attempt to music), before emphasizing a focus on the inter- "reconcile" a text that seems unaccep$table to pretation of individual works. In the preface modern expectations by revamping it, disclosing of his book, Explaining Music: Essays and "its true meaning" (p. 6). More contemporary Explorations (Berkeley: Univ. of California interpretation, however, is all the more "openly Press, 19731, Meyer compares the music critic aggressive" in its relentless drive to "excavate" with the literary one: just as the literary meaning, and this impulse is reinforced by the critic need not "exhibit the greatness of King doctrines of Marx and Freud which insist that Lx," but is content to consider "the ways in events are only intelligible through interpretation. which plot and character, setting and diction Such an exerc'ise of interpretation is "the revenge shape our understanding of and response to lit- of the intellect upon art" (p. 7), since it erature," the music critic should'follow suit. attempts to make comfortable "Real.art (which] Further on, in the chapter "On the Nature and has the capacity to make us nervous" (p. 8). Limits of Critical Analysis," Meyer endorses Interpretation, based on the items of content, the need for intelligent interpretations of indicates a dissatisfaction with a work, making specific works, but maintains that a comprehensive it "an article for use, for arrangement into a theory about the very nature of musical works . mental scheme of categories" (p. 10). must precede such interpretations (p. 9). He Instead, what is needed is an interpretation notes that instead of investigating theory, that focuses more attention on form, and for this "many humanists, especially those in music, have task an extended descriptive vocabulary is essen- tended to follow the well-worn path of safe tial. Our present idea of form in art is based scholarhsip, . . .have been those which illumi- on spatial concepts, an orientation derived from nated a relationship, a work of art. or a oast the Creek metaphors that are predominantly spatial, epoch thrdugh a bold, encompassing hypothesisn and critics lack a "poetics of the novel, any (P. 25). clear notion of the forms of narration" (p. 12). For another view of extending literary More powerful concepts with temporal emphasis are criticism, see Benjamin Hruehovski, "Poetics, SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS ---

32 (1971), 143-48, Beardsley reveals his recog- Criticism, Science: Remarks on the Field and nition of interpretation's pervasive role: "The Responsibilities of the Study of ~iterature," twentieth century (like the Patristic Age) is an -PTL: Poetics and Theory of Literature, 1, No. age of interpretation" (p. 143). He maintains that 1 (1976), iii-xxxv. the reason for this is the widespread "conviction that an adequate theory of interpretation would 11. New Critics on Interpretation be the key to many of the mysteries that baffle New Criticiem,'using formalist techniques, us," although he considers it unlikely that a has insisted on the need to approach a literary general theory of interpretation could apply to text as "object," the irrelevance of authorial all fields (e.g. music, astrology, literature). intention, and the value of extracting meaning In The Possibility of Criticism (Detroit: from literary works. In establishing literary Wayne State Univ. Press, 1970). Beardsley argues study as a respected discipline, it has enjoyed at length against E.D. Hirsch's aim of finding widespread support, but more recently, New authorial intention for "correct" interpretations Critics have had to defend their assumptions. (see Hirsch). He makes a distinction between Monroe Beardsley has played a key role in "indeterminacy" and "indef initeness" of meaning, establishing New Critical apbroaches . In the latter being an ambiguity that can be removed Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophyof "by supplying further information" about the text Criticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, itself (p. 30). The text itself determines Inc., 1958), he generally defines a critical meaning: "It has a will, or at least a way, interpretation as "a statement that purports to of its own" (p. 37). Since the primary purpose declare the 'meaning' of a work of art," and of literary interpretation is to help readers meaning is the "semantical relationship between find the "goodness" in the text, a critic must the work itself and something outside the work" create a valid interpretation by carefully (p. 9). In refining his definition, he calls the formulating "regional" interpretations from small "process of determining the theme, or themes, and parts of a text, then building these lesser the thesis, or theses (if any), of a literary constituents into a "macromeaning" (pp. 44, 58). work" the act of interpretation (p. 403). He In regional interpretation, he must pay attention describes theme in conventlonal terms as the to "suggestions" from syntactic structures and to general idea that gives coherence to any set connotatione of key words (pp. 45-47). Beardsley of images or references in a text; it is "some- points out, however, that a more systematic thing named by an abstract noun or phrase: the theory of the nature of meaning is needed, futility of war, the mutability of joy; heroism, turning to the work of Alston and Austin. He inhumanity" (p. 403). A thesis, according to then uses their proposals for identifying the Beardsley, is "something about, or in, the work "illocutionary acts" in a text as guidelines for that can be called true or false" (p. 404). testing the validity of sample interpretations. Theses are the ideological ingredients in a work Cleanth Brooks, in his essay "In Defense of that pose social statements, observations about 'Interpretation" and 'Literary History"," Mosaic, ethics or religion, or philosophical ideas. 8, No. 2 (19741, 1-11, quotes his colleague, Ren6 In his introductory comments to "Modes of Wellek, that criticism, having abandoned its Interpretation," Journal of the History of Ideas, SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS -

criticism could not be "neutral scientism" (p. 619). central concern--which is the art of literature-- The aim of New Criticism is "understanding, [and] now "'looks constantly elsewhere, wants to become 'interpretation'" leading to "discrimination between sociology, politics, philosophy, theology, and good and bad" works (p. 620). Wellek says: "It is even mystical illumination"' (p. 1). Thus Brooks hard to see how a study of literature can get along sets out to demonstrate some "basic truths" about without interpretation of individual works and how literature in order to approach it properly. one can be 'against interpretation', as Susan First, literature is "incorrigibly concrete," not Sontag entitled her book, or declare 'interpretation' only a presentation of valid human experience, to be 'the real enemy "' (see Sontag, Culler). "The but also a process of experience that is inherent object of literary study is conceived not as an in the dramatization of its content. This is artibitrary construct, but as a structure of not to say that literature is isolated from norms which prescribes a right response" (p. 620), other areas of human thought, but that if its and interpretation aids in establishing those "dramatic and symbolif qualities" are neglected, norms. "we may fail to gain some of the real insights" 111. Other Theories of Interpretation that the work reveals. Thus, in the interpretation of poems, for example, with "reference to their As the doctrines of New Criticism fade from metaphors and symbols, their choice of diction, prominence, new theoriee--still supporting inter- and their tonal qualities, we have not been pretation as a primary goal--have surfaced. The talking about decorative details--about non- most dominant hypotheses have been hermeneutical, essentials--6ut about the very structure of their subjective, and "affective" ones, each emphasizing meaning." The critic must be willing to approach distinct departures from New Critical orthodoxy: a work in its own mode, realizing that literature hermeneutics underscores the element of human "gives us its special knowledge of reality only vision in the creation and reading of literature; through symbolic and metaphorical representation" subjective criticism posits an individual, (p. 10). The object of criticism is to understand psychologically-based theory of interpretation; the "special knowledge" that a particular piece and affective stylistice centers interpretation on of literature presents. the reader's response. Equally concerned with defending new critical Warranting his procedure with a phenomeno- standards, Rene' Wellek, in "The New Criticism: Pro logical stance, Geoffry Hartman reveals himself and Contra," Critical Inquiry, 4, No. 4 (19781, as interpreter in "The Interpreter: A Self- 611-24, analyzes four accusations against New Analysis," w, 4, No. 2 (1973), 213-27.* He Criticism: (1) that it is "esoteric aestheticism," describes the role of an interpreter as precluding uninterested in human meaning; (2) it is unhistorical that of a critic. His development as a thinking (3) that it attempts to make criticism scientific; person required the ability to understand and and (4) that it is a "mere pedagogical device" for channel his perception, which "was enough and too explication de texte. Instead, New Criticism much: for interpretation in some cases (p. 214). insists that "the very nature of words points to He had to resist the tendency to submit to the the outside world" (p. 617), and the New Critics "passion of mimesis" of a work without attempting saw poetry as "the reassertion of particularity of "representation" of that experience, a process the world against the abstraction of scienceo'--hence * (Reprinted in The Fate of Reading (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1975) , 3-19. SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

whereby the interpreter '*'presents' himself to- with synoptic analyses of the Geneva School, gether with the work of art." This is a crucial Anglo-American approaches, Heidegger % theories, step, since Hartman posits that here is in an and the structuralist controversy. Xagliola artist, perhaps in everyone, a representation- points out that in Heidegger's hermeneutics compulsion inseparable from coming-of -age" (pp. 217- Interpretation is a necessary activity eo that 18). In this light, interpretation insists on "the authentic meaning of Being, and also those objectivity of the interpreter, integrity of the basic structures of Being which Dasein [the text, and the "scrupulous distinctions of functions" 'human existent'] itself possesses, are made (p. 2191, Hartman then proceeds to consider dif- known to Dasein's understanding of Being" ferent facets of interpretation. First, it can (p. 62). Because phenomena are not innnediately be like "a shadowy double of the work of art." manifest, they demand interpretation. This shadow can be understood "as cast by the In part 2, Magliola comments on Ingarden's, individual work onto the interpretive conscious- Dufrenne's, and Heidegger's theory of meaning, ness, or as a 'form' that makes art-understanding adjusting Heidegger 's description to apply to possible--that allows us to connect art with literary works. The first stage of the hermen- other concerns through 'interpretation'" (p. 221). eutical process, according to Heidegger, begins Interpretation can "extend" the "charm or memor- when the critic is one with the text, when "both ability" of a work, as well as "interrupt a belong on the same ontological plane" (p. 174). spell which has made us too enjoyably passive" Then, the critic must extricate himself and (p. 223). Finally, Hartman says that critics, interpret his experience in order to deecribe his as interpreters, should "set interpretation understanding. Interpretative activity manifests against hermeneutics," since hermeneutics dis- three functions: the "As-ques tion," the "As- tinguishes between "primary source and secondary which," and the "As-structure." The "As-question" literature, or between a 'Great Original' and presents the query that the interpreter asks of its imitations," seeking to reconstruct, or get the text; the "As-which," provides an answer to back to, an origin in the form of sacred text, . . . the question; and the '*As-structure" articulates or authentic story." Interpretation, unlike the resultant understanding. (p. 175). Finally, hermeneutics which views fiction as "lapsed rsIagliola opposes Hirsch's insistence on locating scripture," would approach Biblical scripture authorial intention (see Hirsch), using Heidegger's as "a mode, among others, of fiction" (p. 225). idea that As-questions derived from mdern Thus, interpretation can exist "unbelatedly" culture are as valid as ones concerning an author's beside art, since the fading distinction between intention. Magliola concludes that since the primary and secondary texts is "associated with author's langue is lost, the significance of Writing," and "to be conscious is already to be interpretation depends on cultural langue; thus, writing" (p. 226). in interpreting a work, the critic drawe from and Robert Magliola examines the philosophical must appeal to his present culture's langue. background for hermeneutics in Phenomenology and Matei Calinescu, in "Heruieneutics or Poetics," Literature: & Introduction (Indiana: Purdue ---The Journal of Religion, 59, NO. 1 (1979), 1-17, Univ. Press, 1977). In Part 1 of his study, he weighs the validity of phenomenological versus provides a cogent history of ,phenomenology, structuralist views. He notes that writerr.auch SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

as Borges and Bloom have seriously challenged historicism's linear view of time and literary a second text that illustrates the first text's history in their proposal for an "inverse richness, and third, as the way by which the critic influence," whereby a writer "'creates his own breaks "the linearity of historical time" to precursors"' by illuminating previously unper- regain meaning. In this context, a poetics is ceived qualities in preceeding texts (p. 2, useful for understanding the complexities Borges' quote). With the anteriority/posteriority and functions of llterary works, but hermeneutics, view of time weakened, other traditional opposi- via interpretation, helps us to perceive our- tions derived from it, such as the one between selves, to "decipher. . .the essential book that "primary" and "secondary" texts used by hermen- is in US'). (p, 17). eutical approaches in interpretation, become E.D. Hirsch, in the chapter "Three Dimensions suspect: Susan Sontag argues "against" inter- of Hermeneutics" in The Aims of Interpretation pretation, and Geoffrey Hartman has suggested (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1976), 74-92, that "'we must set interpretation against hermen- distinguishes between two aspects involved in eutics"' (see Sontag, Hartman). interpretation: the "descriptive" aspect, which To the challenge presented in the structur- concerns the nature of interpretation, and the alist proposal that poetics as 'a "science of "normative," which concerns the goals of inter- literature," not interpretation, be the goal of pretation that are determined by value prefer- literary criticism, Calinescu responds that ences. The nature of interpretation is "to Roland Barthes' method of producing a text's construe from a sign system (for short, 'text') "second set of signifiers" renders meaning void, something more than its physical presence" (p. 75) vacuous, and "sterile" (pp. 6-8). In opposition in relation to its meaning and its significance. to the Jakobsonian goal of distinguishing "lit- Meaning is the "determinate representation of a erariness" from "non-literariness," Calinescu text for an interpreter," while significance holds that "The writing and reading of literature. . . "embraces a principle of change" (pp. 79-80). have certainly not been a result of a mere recog- Thus interpretation is needed to understand an nition of difference--literature is distinct from author's original meaning and its relevance for other kinds of discourse--but of the attachment us as readers. "Interpreters make the best of of a certain value to the fictional use of lan- our historicity not by reconstructing an alien guage" (p. 10). He agrees with Gadamer that, world from our texts, but by interpreting them as readers of a text, we are ultimately concerned within our own world and making them speak to us" with "'what it says to us"' (p. 11). A second .(p. 81). Hirsch sets out a "fundamental ethical tenet of a structuralist poetics--that an maxim for interpretation": "Unless there is a indefinite number of "rich" readings, created powerful overriding value in disregarding an without external criteria, are valid--is ambiguous, author's intention (i.e. original meaning), we who and equally valuable "extrinsic readings" are interpret as a vocation should not disregard it" excluded (p. 12). Using phenomenological (p. 90). Interpretation, in this light, is the warrants, Calinescu turns to endorse interpretation-- legitimate channel by which we can correctly first, as "a way of understanding certain revela- perceive an author's communication. tions" (p. 13), second, as a means for creating In reviewing The Aims of Interpretation, C.B. Chabot, in World Literature Today, 51, No. 4 SCE REPORTS --. . ------... - ---. ---. - - " - - SCE REPORTS

(1977), 683-84, notes thai: Hirsch draws upon the European hermeneutical tradition to argue against it incicates the existence of supreme truth and the concept of the "Intentional Fallacy" and to God (pp. 314, 316). Recent scientific theories, establish the relevance of authorial intention in however--including Einstein's, Bohr's, and determining the meaning of texts. At the same time Heisenberg's--have shown that space, time, and however, Hirsch replaces the "famed circle of matter are variables of man's perception; the understanding" with Piaget's schemata for the observer's frame of reference is paramount. interpretive process: the reader corrects and Writers such aa Husserl, Piaget, and Freud have refines "formative expectations" in reading a supported this view: perception is validated by text. As in Validity2 Interpretation, he interpersonal contact, and subjectivity confers discriminates between meaning, "'the whole verbal meaning on experience by centering this "knowledge" meaning of a text'," and significance, "'textual in man's mental processes, not in "objective meaning as related to some content. . .beyond reality." In literary studies, I.A. Richards itself"' (see Hirsch). Hirsch argues against began to use a subjective paradigm with his Heidegger, defending the "proposition of stable argument that psychology was vital to understanding meaning" and the possibility of interpretive human interest in literature, but he retained an knowledge. The contribution bf &, according to objective orientation by maintaining that there Chabot, is that it argues convincingly "against was a set standard for judging literary works. the very possibility of intrinsically literary Northrop Frye recognizes "experiential knowledge" values, one unique without recourse to political of literature, but still maintains that the aim or psychological theories," and secondly, that it of criticism should be objective knowledge (p. 331). recognizes the necessity of making judgement:; Norman Holland also acknowledges a reader's sub- about texts, pointing out the need to examine the jective response to literature, but argues that grounds for critics' evaluations. in the act of reading, this response ie opposed See Validity& Interpretation (New Haven: to and combined with the "objective reality" of Yale Unlv. Press, 1967) for Hirsch's extended a text. Bleich calls for a reevaluation of argument for'determinacy in interpretation. literary criticism's "objective" assumptions, David Bleich suggests a "subjective" ap- since in the classroom, the tendency of teachers proach to criticism in "The Subjective Paradigm to favor.objective literary interpretation in Science, Psychology, and Criticism, NI,H, 7, NO. suppresses students' creativity and personal 2 (1976), 313-34, outlining an intellectual shift responsibility for their own feelings. fro* a paradigm of objectivity that prevailed in See Bleich's Sublective Criticism (Baltimore: the time of Descartes, to one of subjectivity that John Hopkins Univ. Press, 19781, especially Chapter started with Einstein, Freud, and I.A. Richards. 3, "The Logic of ~nterpretation," for his develop- He argues that all perception takes place through ment of interpretation as subjective response. the agency of a paradigmatic set of beliefs about As a proponent for "affective" stylistics, the nature of reality. He then describes the Stanley Fish, in '*Interpreting the Variorum," "paradigm of objective truth" held by scientists Critical Inquiry, 2, No. 3 (Spring 1976). 465-85, such as Newton: the world, as ;in object separate poses a solution for the various disagreements from the ol):;crv-r, is a predictahla, fixed systenl-.- critics have had in interpreting ~ilton'epoems: to consider the reader of the poems as the central SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

figure in locating a sound interpretation. He and shifted in importance. It becomes, for argues that ambiguities in certain lines "are example, more "personal" in phenomenological not meant to be solved, but to be experienced,'' approaches, more "scientific"--if not merely and that the process a reader goes through in peripheral--for etructuralist criticism, a making sense of a poem, line by line, is the question of probabilities for Hirsch, etc. focus of an interpretational study. Describing Two scholars, Ralph Cohen and David Fleming, the reader's progressive interpretations becomes attempt to put such changes in perspective. the critic's interpretation. In this way, Fish In his essay "On a Shift in the Concept of places emphasis on the reader as person, avoiding Interpretation," The New Criticism and After, Ed. the Formalist position that meaning resides in the Thomas Daniel Young, John Crowe Ransom Memorial text. Instead, he posits the thesis that "the Lectures, 1975 (Charlottesville: Univ, of form of the reader's experience," "the formal units" Virginia Press, 1976), pp. 61-69, Ralph Cohen (e.g. the end or beginning of lines), and the begins with the formalist position--represented "structure of intention," how the reader deter- by Wellek, Warren, Wimsatt, and Brower--that mines the speaker's intent, come into perspective interpretation should describe the internal parts simultaneously in the process,of reading. In and the external setting of a poem. He notes answering the objection that such responses must that this strategy attempted to establish the be predicated on some standard "factsw--grammatical, particularity and individuality of a work as literary, or otherwise--Fish argues that such facts object in order to "make the human values of are "the product of a system of differences that literature more accessible to a wider audience" must be imposed before it can be recognized" (p. 61). This approach, however, excluded (p. 480). Thus it is the act of reading, with all works such as Augustine's Confessions since they the expectations, preconceptions, and "interpretive lacked formal "literariness," and thus reduced strategies" of the reader as impetus, that produces the role literature could play for readers. a particular meaning of a text. Readers, then, . Critics such as Geoffrey Hartman, Harold Bloom, who respond similarly to the same text, have and Stanley Fish have objected to the formalist siinilar interpretive strategies, and they poten- method and "wish to redefine interpretation as the tially comprise an "interpretive community," a self-conscious critic's "relating" of the poet's group who share interpretive strategies not only understanding of experience and earlier poets; for reading, "but for writing texts, for constitu- Bloom argues for criticism based on the study of ting their properties and assigning their intentions" the "influence" of other works on a writer; and (p. 483). For a full scale account, see Fish's Fish wishes to focus on the "reader's response Self-consuming Artifacts: Experience of to the expectations of words, lines, and sentences" Seventeenth-Century Literature (Berkeley: Univ. (p. 66; see Fish). These alterations produce more of California Press, 1972). valid approaches than do the formalist premises IV. Overviews since (1) the previous analysis of meaning in the "objects" of a work did not "confirm how words With the decline of New criticism's influence mean"; (2) the more recent concentration on the and the proliferation of new theories, the role reader's dynamic relation to a work establishes of interpretatloll in literary studies has changed the reader as the "valued being"; and (3) now SCE REPORTS

the historical perspective is more relevant and into "subservience to a political ide~logy*~ vital to literary study (p. 69). Further inter- (p. 370). pretive approaches are posited by Fredric Jameson, A more satisfactory framework is available who argues that interpretation is "the laying from the hermeneutics of thinkers such as Heideggern bare, a restoration of the original message" beneath Ricoeur, Gadamer, and Ebeling. Fleming outlines ten the culturally "censored" language used by a "axioms" of literary interpretation that emerge particular writer (p. 70). George Poulet presents from their thought: (1) Interpretation is the a phenomenological view that interpretation should task of the literary scholar; it first involves be based on the premise that "the process of "understanding", the "laying bare [of ] the reading requires the critic to reconstruct the insights, emotions, truths" in a work, and artist's categories of thought, of space and time" secondly "criticism", the dialogue between a (p. 72). Hans Robert Jauss proposes a distinction work and the reader's current world--and criticism between the "text", the author's words, an "inter- is essential because "it alone expresses the way pretation", a particular, single construction of in which a work can apeak to our existence here "statements giving coherence to attributes in and now" (p. 371). (2) A text must be considered the text," and the "literary work," which is the in its sociocultural context to be adequately sum of interpretations (p. ?3). understood. (3) A work must be made meaningful With these "shifts" in mind, Cohen maintains to the present. (4) Literary study is a dialogue that "the social aims of criticism continue, that between the reader's expectations and questions the need to understand the individual work persists" and what can be learned from the work. (5) This (p. 72). He briefly proposes an "interpretation dialogue is a "hermeneutical circle": "We in terms of functions of literary conventions: change the work because of our situation and our (p. 76), an approach that analyzes the adapta- self-understanding, and the work in turn changes tions and transformations of previous literary us by broadening our horizons"' (p. 373). (6) The conventions in an individual text. This requires "norm of literary study" is to "render explicit mutual attention to the work itself, the historical the underlying questions and presuppositions that context, the author, and the responses of a reader make such a work possible" (p. 374). (7) The to such changes. history of interpretation is an integral part of David Fleming, in "Literary Interpretation a work's present meaning. (8) The values incor- Today: An Assessment and Reorientation," Southern porated in medieval biblical interpretation-- Humanities Review, 6, No. 4 (1972), 368-80, contends the historical, allegorical, moral, and anagogical that literary criticism must be based on a sound aspects of scriptural meaning--can prove useful in "philosophy of interpretation," and for this reforming a philosophy of interpretation. (9) Using reason New Criticism, "historicism," and "socio- the "hermeneutical circle" ae the model of criticism" are inadequate approaches: New Crit- interpretation for the humanities can lead to more icism studies texts as "objects," and is unable productive interdisciplinary studies. (10) Inter- to show literature's relevance to the "realties disciplinary work is essential to interpret the of life" (p. 369) ; "historicismu concerns itself multifarious meanings of a given work. with the data about works, but does not relate These "axioms" says Fleming, "allows us, pre- texts to the present; and "socio-criticism" falls cisely as humanists, to go about our tasks with SCE REPORTS -- - SCE REPORTS

the conviction that we have something to contribute to our world" (p. 378). positions about the "open-ended" nature of textual meaning. Graff also argues that New Criticism V. SCE Members on Interpretation recognized the vital function of emotion in SCE members have offered their insights on respect to reading, thus avoiding a "cold, value- interpretation: Gerald Graff analyzes the free attitude." Attacks on the New Critical development of New Criticism's literary concepts; concepts usually presuppose mistaken ideas about Michael Hancher proposes an alternative to Hirsch's the intellectual and literary history that con- "scientific" interpretation; and Wallace Martin stitutes the movement. considers the nature of the "hermeneutical circle." In his article "The Science of Interpretation Gerald Graff, in "What was New Criticism? ,and the Art of Interpretation," Modern Language Literary Interpretation and Scientific Objectivity," Notes,-that the 85 distinction (19701, 791-802, between Michael interpretation Hancher notes as Salmagundi, 27 (19741, 72-93, points out that many of the protests against New Criticism's art or science begins with Plato, who considered view of the "objective" nature of the literary literary criticism to be undisciplined and "cog- text maintain a political stance, as Susan Sontag nitively decadent." Hancher argues that since and Richard Poirier do, that'such an orientation Platols accusation, the first sustained efforts is a "natural extension of the technological in English to establish criticism as a disciplined imperialism of American society." Others declare approach arose in reaction to the impressionistic that "detached" analysis of a work presupposes a criticism of the late nineteenth centure (see subject-object dichotomy of scientific empiricism, Graff). I.A. Richards in particular lent support dehumanizing the experience of reading, as the to New Criticism which attempted to propose a phenomenological viewpoint holds, exemplified by scientifically vigorous approach that could Richard Palmer. New Criticism, however, held an "consistently illuminate a text" (p. 792). But "impersonal" approach to literature to avoid the New Criticism failed in establishing an inter- "ruthless technological will-to-power," and also pretive practice that was "cognitively convincing" condemned a scientific view that brutally utilized since it celebrated ambiguity in texts, and incon- abstraction. New critics1 ldeas of impersonality sistencies marked its practical application. E.D. and objectivity were conceived to refute "hedonis- Hirsch, in Validity Interpretation, attempts to tic impressionists," who ignored the seriousness avoid such inconsistencies with his proposition of meaning, moralists or Marxists, who tended that "the end of literary interpretation is to to recuce a work to a form of propaganda, and the propogate 'knowledge' of the meaning of a text," positivists, who saw little more in literature and this objective knowledge is the meaning that than an emotive display. The idea of objectivity the author intended "in his full consciousness and became ambiguous, however, since these critics unconsciousness" (see Hirsch). Hirsch presents ahd to maintain a position against the "heresy the criterion of intentionality to give criticism of paraphrase" as well as the assumption that a systematic approach in determining a "valid" literature is not referential. And as E.D. Hirsch interpretation of a work. But Hancher argues indicates, New Criticism tends toward subjectivity, that an interpretation that is invalid by Hirsch's as does phenomenology, because of their presup- standards may be "valuable" for a "better" reading of a particular text ; an "artistic" interpretation SCE REPORTS SCE REPORTS

disregarding authorial intention can present a If, however, the attempt were made to make "better poem" than a valid reading, and this interpretation completely circular, the degree of interpretation is "better" according to "whatever formalization necessary to create an adequate one's particular criteria of value happen to theory would be unattainable. The "'rules of be" (p. 707). Thus criticism should accomodate correspondence' assigning empirical content [of scientific interpretations that seek "valid" texts] to theoretical terms" would be impossible readings, and artistic interpretations that to construe. Barthes, however, proposes three posit "valuable" readings since this is a rules that can provide validity in interpretation: "duality that already exists" (p. 802). "it must be complete. . ., it must be coherent, Wallace Martin, in "The Hermeneutic Circle rigorously observing the proposed laws of inter- and the Art of Interpretation," Comparative pretation; and it must transform the language of Literature, 24, No. 2 (1972). 97-117, contends the work into a language of equivalent symbolic that the opinion that literary criticism is status" (p. 110). Inherent in these proposals inextricably bound up in the "hemeneutical circle", are the following concepts: (1) a literary work that '.'what the critic ultimately sees and what he is a model of rich structures, not specific would reveal as existing is in fact implicit in meanings; and (2) criticism cannot be objective, his assumptions," makes all interpretations valid but must be "anamorphic" in relation to a literary and literary theory supererogatory. Martin work, thus in "itself a form of literature" argues that such assumptions about interpretive (p. 111). Barthes ' concepts counter arguments circularity, especially those put forth by for hermeneutical circularity in demonstrating Spitzer and Starobinski, can be refuted, and that that: (1) interpretation by necessity yields "2 interpretation is currently conceived with er- structure of work, not the structure: (p. 113); roneous conceptions about literature and literary (2) interpretation, although it cannot be totally meaning. The proposal that the wbole and parts "objective," can be "coherent and complete" (p. of a text are mutually determinate is misleading 113); and (3) interpretation produces a model, since there are external interpretive "rules" not a deductive system. that are "conventions in making meaning possible" Martin differs from Barthee in his view of (p. 101). Also, the concept of circularity that criticism's focus: "in discussing it [literary occurs when analysis attempts to "prove" the meaning] we emphasize what we udnerstand validity of an intuition about a work is incomplete, rather than how that understanding came about" for as Staiger shows, there is interaction between (p. 117). He points out that."Bdrthes' attempt a critic's "feelings" and the results of analyzing to create a purely objective 'science of literature' a text so that these assumptions are changed. As . . .has little to do with the meaning of literature" conceived by Heidegger, the circularity that does (p. 117). exist is more fundamental, affecting human existence See also Charles Altieri'e article, "The Her- and understanding; and understanding, as a part of meneutics of Literary Indeterminacy: A Dissent interpretation. "is the consciousness that dis- from the New Orthodoxy," %H, 10, No. 1 (Autumn, closes being to itself" (see Magliola). The 1978), 71-99, for a cogent rebuttal of accepted purpose should not be to escape the circle but theories of textual indeterminacy, and his proposal to "'come into it in the right way"' (p. 103). for criticism that describes verbal conventions -SCE REPORTS

and "actions" in a text. Postseripf: Of potential interest to this topic are Stanley Fish's article "How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Interpretation: A Reply to John Reichert," and John Reichert's "But That Was Another Ball Park: A Reply to Stanley Fisht'--both to appear in the forthcoming Critical Inquiry issue (Vol. 6, No. 1; Autumn, 1979).