I learned that in modern literary theory, literature is about signification, which I understand to mean creating a specific meaning, not just strong emotions.
Longingus says, "The ultimate goal in studying literature is to be done to master a technique," whereas, modern criticism takes meaning to be the object of critical investigation: "unlike the ancients, we equate language not with action but with signification."
I might be wrong, but the old writers and critics seem more profound than the modern critics, even though the modern critics would not think this. They seem to be intellectualizing more than the old critics who believed in action and creating an experience for the audience . An example of the old view could be a group of people gathered around a campfire drinking wine, singing and dancing, whereas the modern critics would sit around a campfire intellectualizing about these people singing their songs, dancing, and their music. In other words, understanding vs doing. I believe "doing" is a more holistic approach to understanding, and thus more profound. The modern view is a more narrow scientific approach. Of course, I could be all wrong about this heavy and sometimes even convoluted reading. However, I enjoyed reading parts of it. It's definitely worth revisiting and intellectually grappling with the ideas.
blogs re: MA language and literacy program-how to teach reading and writing
"to lead the student to the capability of thinking for himself."
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with this idea. I wonder how we're supposed to cultivate that skill when we have these "right on" and "off the mark" interpretations of poetry (as one example). I remember being in that situation with a student. The student had a totally different interpretation of a poem than I (or the rest of the class) did and it caught me completely off guard. I remember thinking that I needed to show him why his interpretation wouldn't work instead of helping to bolster his interpretation. Now that I'm working with 3 and 4 year-olds, I find that I'm ready and grateful to accept almost any ideas that they share with me. I think at some point between the age of 3 and 18 our tolerance for imagination and creativity wanes and we start to expect students to think in a more standardized way (whatever that may mean). I'm not sure it's for the best.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes Kathie, it's sad that schools institutionalize/standardize knowledge. To me, that means students are taught to shut up, sit still, and give the "correct" answers like good little parrots. (I wrote about this in my proposal). Students are not taught to use their souls or imaginations when reading or learning. Even when fiction is taught, historical context is almost always left out. How can readers truly understand works of literature if it can't be placed in its times. The story's essence will be lost. In my opinion, schools need to change, that is, to stimulate the imagination and encourage independant thinking (out of the box). I doubt I will see this in my life time.
ReplyDeleteBut saying that students should be taught historical context, you are advocating for standardization. Adding context to literature wont make students necessarily more creative in their thinking, nor will it teach them to use "their souls or imagination." All it will do is give a potentially more linear direction to go in with the interpretation. That is not to say that teaching historical context is not important--you can't teach the humanities outside of context, particularly when you are trying to find meaning or understand intention.
ReplyDeleteStandardization is not great, I give you that. But what is the model I should be looking at as an alternative?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe shift from the classical perspective was a shift toward the activity for its own sake. The classics did not look at the medium they were using as being an end that one should appreciate and see for its own aesthetical appeal. The text was used, in my understanding, to advance an agenda and the success or failure of that agenda is where you judge the text.
ReplyDeleteThe focus on techniques seems to only touch a layer of what a work can bring to the table. This is not to say that we should not look at that but rather that such an examination is but one of many different ways we should be looking at a text. There is a need to take a modern and a classical perspective and I think that people do that often. When you are trying to learn how to communicate well, you look to a great work for a model. You appreciate that work for what it does but also you can appreciate it for how it is constructed.
In response to your comment about
ReplyDelete