Is Critical Theory Useful?

A question that requires thorough comtemplation, and a
serious debate indeed !


Since I’m a novice, and really in a state of confusion and fear of this complex concept, I’ll be the one who repeats what the author of Critical Theory Today says « Why should we bother and learn about critical theories ? », I’d say also let us enjoy literature, let’s our interpretations be personal, unsullied by theoritical concepts which are most of the time difficult to be understood by students .

As for the definition I’ll let it for the one who believes in the effectiveness of critical theory in our literary analysis.

In the mean time I’ll carry on reading that wonderful book, to be able to argue.

Good morning,

Thank you for your answer, and for the things you made me aware of. I just want to repeat what I said perviously; I'm a novice in the field of critical theories, and I guess that anyone will say all what I said without altering a word if it's the first time she/he reads words such as: Deconstruction, Feminism, Historicism, Reaser-Response and Reception
Theory...etc. The difference is only between the one who says I don't like it, it's USELESS, and the one who says it's complex, I don't understand such and such theoritical concept. The fear from the complexity of the theories doesn't lead to ignore its importance.
I agree with you that critical theory is needed, of course we can't do without it in any literary study.
I admit that I was a lazy student, and I rellied only on the copious notes I take in classroom.
I think you asked about someone to vindicate the antithesis, and if I didn't choose to be that someone, maybe I would never have the chance to be a part of this debate! which is fact not a debate because I agree with what you said!. So lucky me!!!

May Allah reward you immensely.

PS: Our next debate insh'Allah will be on how we use critical theories to get in-depth in a literary work, using some illustrations.

I finished reading the psychoanalysis criticism from Critical Theory Today, did I say before let’s our interpretations be personal unsullied by theoritical concepts !!?. I guess I did, and I must say now that all what I wrote is nonsensical, truly ignorance makes me unaware of the usefulness of critical theory. I’ve changed my mind so it’s better to say: ‘the importance of critical theory is without doubt obvious, it grants us a deep inderstanding of the literary work’, it helps us to better interpret those works, and I think Lois Tyson ( author of Critical Theory Today) explains it perfectly saying ‘Critical theory, I think you will find, provides excellent tools for that endeavor, tools that not only can show us our world and ourselves through new and valuable lenses but also can strengthen our ability to think logically, creatively, and with a good deal of insight’ P 2/3. So, Critical Theory is very beneficial for students, it enriches our readings, it helps us see new ideas we might not have seen so clearly without it. The four questions you stated in your post are answered now I think. So let’s carry on our englishtening discussion, and this time we discuss how we use theories in our literary interpretation and analysis to go deeper in the work . Since I’ve read only the psychoanalytic theory (both Classical psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacanian psychoanalysis of Lacan), let’s discuss them, because I couldn’t understand fully some concepts. You said : ‘For the complexity of it, I would say it's natural’, you’re right !

I-Classical Psychoanalysis Theory : How it is useful in our literary interpretation ?

Freud’s Psychoanalysis grants us many concepts, if we apply them in interpreting a literary work, we’ll be able to explore and understand the text deeply. We’ll be able also to understand the characters’ psychology, to reveal the problems that may affect their behaviour. The first concept developed by Freud, is the unconscious, a place where all our wounds, fears, desires, and also all the disorders (inferiority, complexes, sibling rivalry…etc) are repressed, of course we don’t know about them, but they appear in our dreams as symbols. Knowing about all this interesting issues, we can make a good meaningful psychoanalytic interpretation. It’ll be based on theory, and not just love/hate this literary work. I can for example read A Grain of Wheat psychoanalytically, saying that Mugo’s suffering from an internal remorse for betraying Kihika. He lived a miserable childhood, was orphaned and left lonely to live with his ruthless aunt. Howerver, Kihika is the leader of the movement, he is loved by his family and friends. This may suggest the hatred, the fear and the jalousy which are repressed in his unconscious. These repressed disorders drew him to betray Kihika.

The psychoanalysis theory is long, I’ve chosen to discuss only the unconscious, but I invite my mates to read more about it.


I don’t know if what I’m going to write next is correct or not, but I think I’m going to follow this approach: Don't laugh please!
1- I read the theories, and understand them first.
2-I read the literary work be it a novel, story, peom…
3- Then I interpret. In Critical Theory Today, the author explained to important concepts, one is to read with the grain ,i.e. to interpret the work the way it seems to invite us to interpret it, thus using the psychoanalytic interpretation, I give an example : I’m reading the novel Y, I start asking questions saying what does the author try to say here ?. I read that X ( a character) dreams that he’s killing his son and he’s suffering from this nightmare. Then , I learn that he has problems with his boss. In this case I attach this to Freud’s theory about dreams and dream symbols, and so I say X’s dream is a mere message that reveals his hate to his boss which is repressed in his unconscious. I think this is reading with the grain.
The other concept is reading against the grain, I didn’t undertand it, so I won't use it ! .


To be continued…

Lacanian psychoanalysis...Marxism...

I've understood that very well!, and I wish that everyone can read the post in which you've explained the importance of critical theory. This topic's one of the best topics in the forum. Thanks

Thank you once more for saying:" I'm just too happy to read such a post". There're plenty of mistakes in my post because I wanted to start the discussion again, and I wasn't sure what to write!. You don't need to apologize, I'm so happy to discuss this topic, and happier to read this lovely book. I'm just surprised why literary theory is not used throughout our courses!!. It seems odd that sometimes we do interpretation in class without a clear idea about for e.g. Marxism.
By the way I've found somewhere a title of another book which is very important as well, it's called The Nortan Anthology of Theory and Criticism by V Leitch, I'll try to download later on.


Conserning Lacanian Psychoanalysis, I don't think that I'm going to talk about it. It's a little bit complex. If I choose to discuss it, I'll be repeating the author's words. Besides, I don't have in mind any idea about a work that I can examine it through a Lacanian Psychoanalysis perspective.

I'll try to post something on Marxism and about a novel I read using a Marxist approach sooner. I need just to recall some events!

Salam

Hello, let’s carry on !

Marxist Criticism : A Marxist interpretation of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle

We’ve already discussed the crucial role of theories in our interpretation, we’ve discussed Freud’s Psychoanalysis and its plain usefulness in our literary interpretation. It’s Marxism’s turn now. Before I begin, I shall re-express my gratitude to Hush for the book he shared with us. It’s highly recommended for novices.

Firstly, I’ll try to talk about some Marxist principles , I can’t pretend that I’ve grasped the
whole meaning of Marxism, I can’t also say that it is easy, suffice it to say that it’s wonderful. Then, I’ll move on to discuss ‘The Jungle’using a Marxist perspective.

Marxism is an ideology based on the theories developed by Karl Marx and the other guy whatsisname, I guess Engels. Anyway, one of the important concepts in Marxist thought is the class system and how it’s stuctured. Here it’s important to make the difference between a social class( in the sense of upper, middle and lower class), and an economic class which includes the ‘haves’ and have-nots’, i.e, the Burgeoisie orthe hegemonic class, and the Proletariat orthe working class. The concept of class struggle is developed to refer to the conflict between members of two classes. In other words, between the economically priviledge ones, and the ones who suffer an economic privation. Marx wrote : ‘The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.". Marx believes that the workers, the economically oppressed must rise up revolutions to create a truly free classless society ruled by its people who do the work and gain all the fruit of their toil.


Marx and his friend criticise ideology, namely the undesirable ideologies that promote repressive political agendas. They believe that Maxism is a nonrepressive ideology, because it makes people aware that ideologies like Capitalism blinds them because it serves the dominating power. In other words, it serves the few not the many, it asserts the self-centered individual, while Marxism believes in cooperation. Before extending to other Maxists concepts, I should briefly point at the American dream, and survival for the fittest which are part and parcel of Capitalism. I’ll talk about them it details in interpreting The
Jungle.

According to Marxist critics the American dearm is just a tool to give poor people false hopes , that by hard work they can join in the ‘ get rich quick’ game. This is nonesense for Marxists, because the working class is deprived from every aspect of a comfortable life, simply because all the means of production, and all the resources are privetly owned. Workers, or the poor are forced to do a tiresome labour, deluded that one day they’ll too catch up and gain a financial success. Marxists also believe that in a capitalist society survival is for the fittest,i.e for the few who accumulate capital ; the working class however are struggling to stay alive. They are lucky if they can provide enough food
for them and their children.


I’ll try to talk briefly about The Jungle, one of my favourite novels, that moved deeply because of the vivid descriptions of the harrownig conditions of the working class in America in early 20th century. After reading the theory, I think that The Jungle is more than a naturalistic novel full of extensive detail. It tells facts.(my opinion)

The Jungle can be interpreted using a Marxist perspective. It serves as a good example to illustrate Marxism’s critique of Capitalism, of the evil of industrialism and the impacts of the factory work on people.The emptiness of the American dream. It examines capitalism’s exploitation of the working class, both men, women, and children. Those who suffered immensley to earn their living, to survive in a destructive capitalist society. They are destroyed by a cruel economic and social system for the benefit of the few, i.e, the bourgeoisie. For instance, Jurgis Rudkus (the protagonist) and his family, a well-to-do
Luthanian family that fell into dispair and live in squalor once moving to America. The family has to toil daily under harsh unbelieveable conditions, to be able to survive. I can still remmeber how old Dede Antanas (Jurgis’ father) was forced to work either, and how chemicals gnaw his toes.
The novel also expounds the negative effects of factory work on people, old or young. Alienation is one of the ills of industrialsim, the workers like Jurgis, Ona(his wife), Dede Antanas… become objects, commodities who sold themselves to their bosses. They suffer in factories without even sharing the income of their labour, and without being valued for their contributions. Upton Sinclair criticises the alienated labour , describing how Stanisloves (Jurgis younger brother) works : ‘…and so was decided the place in the universe of little Stanislovas, and his destiny till the end of his days. Hour after Hour, day
after day, year after year, it was fated that he should stand upon a certain square foot of floor…making never a motion and thinking never a thought, sace for the setting of lard cans.’ Chapter 6-89.
Time is valuable for capitalists, and workers are not allowd to chat, or even to think, thus, they become aliens.

Moreover, the novel plainly tends to reinforce the Marxist view of the Amercian dream. The ideology which promises everyone a rise ‘from an extreme poverty to an extreme weath in few years’. However, marxism believes that the American dearm is a mere myth which tends to give people false hopes.
Jurgis and his family, who went ‘to America as full of hope as’ all those who were blinded by
the myth. Sinclair writes : ‘ It was Jonas who suggested that they all go to America, where a friend of his had gotten rich…That was a country where, they said, a man might earn three roubles a day...In that country, rich or poor, a man was free, it was said …he might do as he pleased, and count himself as good as any other man. So America was a place of which lovers and young people dreamed.If one would only manage to get the price of a passage, he could count his troubles at an end’.Chapter 2. 29. However, ‘the family is helpless with dismay. So much they had toiled’ in vain. The writer wants to ask :
Where’s the American dream !?

The end of the novel shows that only Socialism can provide relief, because Capitalism ruins peoples’ lives only ; like Jurgis Rudkus’ family.

Thank you for your compliment! . I'm so happy that I'm a member in this forum, it's one of the best things in my life.
Your not apart I think. We're all busy these days!,may Allah help us. I think I won't carry on this debate now, so we'll let it for another time if you agree of course!. Gotta go now, loads still to do in Bri-civ tasks!

Do you think someone is gonna read all this You have to make it in pills and give it to them through the help of a doctor and they might not be interested

, noooooooooo please read it, because there're other theories we didn't discuss and insh'Allah we will sooner!

Hello mates,
This thread was buried for a long time; it's time to revive it again and raise it back to the surface!

We've been talking about the usefulness of Critical theories in our literary interpretation and we'd chosen both Psychoanalytic criticism and Marxist criticism as illustrations. In the beginning we've had a debate about critical theories, I've changed my perspective towards its usefulness and now I stress its crucial role in our studies of literature. (This introduction is just for the new comers who perhaps couldn't read all what is written in this interesting topic).
Anyway, let's carry on the debate, and this time I've chosen to talk about one of the funniest theories of criticism (my view point); Feminism. Then I'll discuss two literary texts—Danielle Steel's Changes and Katherine Anne Porter's Flowering Judas from a feminist standpoint.

First, let's give a quotation from Critical Theory Today in which the writer said:

To understand the quote let's explain some major feminist claims and issues. It all started with women's movements of liberation and their struggle for equality and rejection of patriarchy. That's to say, by rejecting and challenging patriarchal ideology which stressed men's superiority and domination over women.
Moreover, feminists reject patriarchal or traditional gender roles, an expression which refers to the view that men are rational and strong; however, women are weak, emotional and submissive.

In Critical Theory Today, I read an interesting example about one of the feminist claims. It's the use of the pronoun he to refer to both male and female. Feminists reject the use of 'inclusive he' and believe that it's a patriarchal attitude which renders women a second inferior position. (You may have noticed in my posts that I always write he/she, this doesn't mean I'm a feminist. You'll find my opinion at the end of the post).
Furthermore, feminists reject sexist ideology, which objectifies women, that's to say, treats them like objects without opinions or feelings.
Another issue raised by feminists is the marginalization of women writers. The latter's contribution was underrepresented and not recognized as part of the literary canon. In other words, female writers were marginalized; hence by writing they tried to defy their marginality and assert their individuality and creative ability. One of the female writers who resisted patriarchal ideology is Virginia Woolf in her work: A Room of One's Own.

Let's return to the quotation from which we can understand that a feminist reading requires an interpretation of a given text by scrutinizing the presence of one of the issues discussed above.

Briefly let me talk about the works I mentioned earlier in my post. The first one is Changes by the American female writer Danielle Steel. The novel is a romance in which Steel depicts a man (Peter Hallam), and a woman (Melanie Adams) who after facing great challenges and changes in their lives decided to marry one another. A feminist reading, however, would reveal that the novel is promoting and reinforcing a patriarchal ideology. Let me explain. Steel could depict a couple who succeeded to reunite in a world where changed roles have altered the old 'patriarchal' conventions and norms of love and marriage. Melanie Adams a famous journalist and a TV documentary producer with a glamorous lifestyle, gave up her hugely successful career, her house, and her town (New York) to move with her twin to LA in order to marry Peter. Danielle Steel wants to tell the reader that Melanie seems to have it all; however she needs a man by her side to fulfill themselves and each other.

The second work is Katherine Porter's short story, Flowering Judas. It's a story of Laura who moved from Arizona to Mexico to assist in the revolution there. She met Braggioni –a revolutionist who sings to Laura every night though his performance is bad. The writer says "Nobody dares to smile at him. Braggioni is cruel to everyone, with a kind of specialized insolence".
We can say that the story depicts a patriarchal ideology in order to criticize it. For instance, let's take this sentence "This is nonsense, she knows it now and is ashamed of it. Revolution must have leaders, and leadership is a career for energetic men". A feminist reading of the sentence would reveal the position given to men as superior and women as inferior unable to take leadership. However, the writer carries on saying that Laura is "full of romantic error" which proves that women are considered weak and emotional and their sensitivity is a defect.
In the story there's also a claim that Laura is oppressed by Braggioni, the writer depicts Laura saying" Sometimes she wished to run away, but she stays. Now she longs to fly out of this room…and leave Braggioni singing to himself".
Now let's illustrate with this striking example which plainly seems to reinforce the patriarchal ideology. The writer portrays Braggioni's wife after a month of separation from her husband :" Braggioni enters his own house where for a month his wife has spent many hours every night weeping and tangling her hair upon her pillow", she adds " She is weeping now, an she weeps at the sight of him". A feminist critic would say that women are considered as emotional, hysteric and weak, and they are good only if they accept their feminine role without objection, the writer says about Mrs. Braggioni " She says:' Are you tired my angel? Sit here and I will wash your feet' ".

As I promised I'll give you my opinion, ok, so of course allow me to say that feminism is nonsense. Imagine we are not Muslims, what would happen? Alhamdoulilah Allah sets everything clear in the Qu'ran and says: "الرجال قوامون على النساء بما فضل الله بعضهم على بعض " Surah An-Nisaa, Ayah 33.

I'm really surprised that nobody could stop and leave a comment!
Well this indifference means two things, first either till now you can't see the importance of critical theories, or you're not interested and that's worse!
Second, maybe you agree with me that feminism is nonsense and let me tell you that this is a debate so you can give your opinions, and you can disagree
Anyway, I feel a great pleasure to write in this topic and a kind of nostalgia for the past is coming back to me!
Cheers everyone!

I DO CARE MATES.It's just i don't have much information about this topic i'll try to search.But believe me if you decide to go i'll do it too since the other mates aren't interested.I think Ezinma we are thinking in the same way"we have things to do for our future and wasting time isn't in our benefit!!!!.

I KNOW YOU DO CARE IMY! and I'm waiting for your contribution in this debate! So get ready!
Maybe we can discuss Post-Colonial Theory I know you're interested so much in this field! . What do you think?

Ok,i do EZINMA but we need some time to read it don't you think so? OF COURSE I' M READY TO ANYTHING,although laziness started to penetrate to my daily doings"may be because im still late with one year!!!!!!"