Introduction
In the study of social and literary philosophy, the context of the era within which a particular phenomenon is being studied is paramount. One of the most prominent examples of the influence of the effects of time and social thought on the analysis results is the role model of women. Centuries ago, a woman was expected to behave exclusively as a loving wife and caring mother, and any deviation from such behavior was considered deviant. Deviant women engaged in self-education, careers, or science were not encouraged by society but rather were viewed with derision and contempt. As is evident, for modern society, this attitude toward women is no longer acceptable, unethical, or socially discouraged: people are used to seeing women as scientists, career women, mothers, doctors, teachers, and any other roles, and thus the stigma toward this gender has gradually ceased to be relevant.
In fact, the example discussed above is only a fraction of how public attitudes change over time. In order to study these metamorphoses qualitatively and in an effort to build on theoretical foundations, the principles of the critical theory were developed at the right time. In a general sense, the critical theory allows society to be criticized and evaluated on the basis of an analysis of the underlying relationship between the individual and the structures of power. In this case, ideology (“a woman is a mother”) is regarded purely as a construct that prevents the liberation of the individual from the oppression of social pressure. It is very important to say that, in the context of literary analysis, the use of theories of criticism is not aimed at creating hypotheses or assumptions, but rather, it creates holistic, framed conclusions based on a particular paradigm. This essay engages in an in-depth, meaningful, and critical discussion of the most significant theories of public criticism. It is true that a modern academic course identifies more than ten theories in the classification, and discussing them in depth would take up a large number of pages. Instead, the essay parallels the theoretical contexts of different critical paradigms on specific issues.
How Critiques Are Formed
It is true that by now, a whole host of critical theories have been developed, each examining a societal slice through a particular paradigm. As a rule, the focus of a theory is clearly described by its name: thus, a critique of feminism, queer criticism, or Marxism requires no further explanation to understand which paradigm they are using. It is true to recognize that criticisms of literary theory do not arise by chance but instead are shaped by public sentiment. Thus, feminist criticism was hardly spoken of during the epic literature of ancient Greece since the role of women in society was not a priority at all at that time. In other words, each of the theories is reflected in the era. It is fair to emphasize that many of the theories are also not born by themselves but become extensions of other, more fundamental paradigms. This is true of progressive views on literary theory, which have their origins in the context of the class conflicts described by Karl Marx (Tyson 8). It is for this reason that literary criticism, such as queer theories, African American theories, new history theories, and postcolonial contexts have become active by now. Thus, in answering the question about the formation of specific theories, it should be argued that the reason for their origin always lies in the evolution of social thought. For this reason, examining any of the theories of modernity in relation to older texts may be exciting but ineffective.
The Relationship between Projects of Critical Theory
Given the formation of dozens of different theories, or projects, of general critical theory, it is fair to say that the contemporary researcher always has a choice of which of them to use. The most critical authors try to look at the same textual object from different angles. For example, the study of films or texts of fiction allows us to create a more general view of the work, which gives an idea of the complexity and depth of the meanings embedded by the authors. In doing so, each of the critiques allows us to place the work within a specific theoretical framework and to answer the question of whether the context of the text satisfies that framework. In this sense, it is proper to continue that a kind of competition is created between the projects, with each school striving to examine most effectively and correctly the underside of the social ideologies reflected in literature. While there can be no competition between theories as such, since they are only tools for the researcher, the authors themselves may be inclined to resort only to the particular theories that they feel most appealingly reflect the agenda of the text. This type of relationship is entirely unsurprising, given the evolutionary origins of the theories: in this sense, the analogy of the eternal conflict between fathers and children is appropriate, as is the one between new and old projects of critical theory. Thus, theories of literary criticism are related and try to dominate each other, but the most constructive approach for the study of social ideologies is based on the parallel use of many projects at once.
Critical Differences Between Theories of Criticism
One of the key differences between all of the existing projects of literary criticism is their origin story since each of the theories is known to have a unique chronological, geographical, and moral origin. However, discussing their histories is not of academic interest for the current essay; but instead, it seems attractive to examine the different contexts that are presented through the paradigms of criticism. For example, formalist movements, whether New Criticism, Modernism, or Russian Formalism, have never studied texts purely through their form, whether through the details of the author’s biography, the creation history of the work, or the historical context within which the text was created. In this context, it was recognized that the structure of absolutely any work represents a central meaning that can be conveyed in other words, that is, in other forms. At the same time, every text has a texture that is the unique and autonomous essence of the work, not allowing a film, book, or poem to be “translated” into another symbolic language. Formalists did not recognize emotion but saw texts primarily as knowledge, the opposite of scientific knowledge.
Formalism as one of the mainstreams of literary criticism is often contrasted with structuralism. Structuralism, it is worth noting, sees no point in emphasizing only the form of one particular work, but rather, it seeks to expand the scope and use all possible fields and structures to give a final assessment of the work. Similar discourses are noticeable for the progressive ideas of contemporary literary criticism, be they queer critics or feminist theory projects. For the strands described, the text is not seen as a central focus but rather as an object placed in different environments for study. This means that while new criticism will construe the concrete poetic forms of William Shakespeare to analyze its meanings, feminists will place Juliet in a system of patriarchal relations on the part of the medieval abusive family.
To put it differently, at the heart of the difference between all literary criticism projects is a perceived difference in what the paradigms focus on. Marxism aims to explore positions of social inequality, whereas feminism tries to assess the role of the woman in the text, or rather the equality of her rights with other characters. From this perspective, queer criticism seeks to place the lyrical characters of texts in a homoerotic context in order to evaluate their inclinations toward different sexual orientations, while African American criticism — critique of race — uses sensitive questions of racism, genocide, and racial rights infringement to examine texts. Moreover, the new historicism aims to examine the context in which the text is studied because it relies on the relativity and finite unknowability of all knowledge. Somewhat opposed to the new historicism is Freud’s psychoanalytic critique, which points to unconsciousness and hidden desires as forms of studying the world (Tyson 12). From this paradigm, any action of the individual or society finds its answer through the study of the unconscious. In reality, there are more theories, and it could even be said that each of the new theories tries to respond to specific social requests. Thus, one sees the emergence of such views as ecocriticism and the critique of disability studies.
Similarities in Projects
It would be a mistake to think that all theories of general literary criticism turn out to be different and dissimilar. On the contrary, given the evolutionary origins of many of them, it is correct to conclude that the projects have similar, parallel views of the same phenomena. For example, there is a common foundation between progressive theories in general, which seeks to find problems of recognition of minorities, whether gendered, sexual, or disabled, among the texts under study. It is entirely appropriate to point out that such critics seem to use a provocative gaze through which to study the characters and processes of the text. On the other hand, there is also a connection between feminism and Marxism, since each project seeks to explore social inequalities, with a difference in who precisely is being evaluated: the working class and power or women, respectively.
One approach that can be said to be familiar to many of the critics of literary theory is relativity. Particularly highlighted in New Historicism theory as a property of the unknowability of the objectivity of the world, relativity is also noticed in other projects, whether postcolonial or gender critique. For example, postcolonial, while recognizing the disadvantages of economically enslaved territories, recognizes that the positive impact of pressure from powers cannot be overlooked. At the same time, gender theories describe the binary profiles of women and men as dynamic and changing over time. One of the admissions here, which, however, is also noticeable for the ideas of new historicism, is that the other society moves in the study of the genetic mechanisms of gender, the more complex and confusing the overall perspective becomes. In relation to the relatively, it is impossible to notice an obvious connection with the critique of the “reader’s response” as well. From this perspective, any given text is evaluated by individuals for its meanings, unique from the experience of the other reader. Thus, even two students from the same class who have studied the same assignment will interact with it differently. Relativity, then, is a property that is far from accurate formalism but is true of many literary criticism projects.
Conclusion
To summarize, the main conclusions mentioned in this essay should be emphasized once again. First, literary texts are always studied in a particular time and place, which means that the global influence of these determinants of analysis cannot be avoided. Second, each era makes its own significant contribution to the emergent theories of literary criticism, which translates into the creation of new ones. Each of the new projects of criticism responds to quite dimensions of social demand. Third, a large number of new theories are not created from scratch but instead have evolutionary origins. As a consequence of this, many of the theories reveal similarities between themselves, as was shown in the essay. Fourth, each theory has a unique formative history and the iconic individuals who contributed to its development. Finally, while there may be similarities between the theories, there are meaningfully more differences between them. This allows the critical researcher to operate on different versions of the projects to create the most general, expansive impression of each of the texts under study.
Work Cited
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. Routledge, 2014.