The major schools of thought among literary critics in the 20th and 21st centuries may be summed up as follows:
The Historicists were the first to interpret literature with regard to history and society (Stevens, p. 173). The Formalists came in second, first in Anglo-America when Stalin took control in Russia. Formalists preferred an empirical approach to literature over Philology's reliance on author interpretations or history. T.S. Elliot, a Formalist novelist, said in 1919: "Critics should focus on the poem rather than the poet." These gave rise to two groups of literary theorists: the New Critics in Southern Universities, who were swiftly followed by the New Formalists, also known as Neo-Aristotelians, in the North.
The branches of literary criticism, however, who sought to mold literature to fit their ideas while disregarding what was happening in history and society, were only serving to demonstrate how theory cannot be separated from reality. Communists who "increasingly wanted to monitor literature and scholarship to make sure it adhered to Marxist principles" (p. 135) were known as formalists in Russia. The New Critics advocated "a method of literary analysis that prioritizes questions of literary form over issues of history, intention, politics, or psychology." It was intended that writings be analyzed apart from their sociological and cultural surroundings. Looking back, we can see that these schools of thought were more a response to what was going on in society at the time than they were a reflection of unbiased viewpoints.
Stevens (2021) writes, "Today you're much more likely to find formalism combined with historical, political, or psychological concerns." Modern literary critics depict social systems as a gestalt, or as a totality, rather than separating them from literature. However, partisanship is still very much alive and strong today since politicians have always chosen sides in the debate over how to study literature. For instance, a list of "30 Banned Books You Should Probably Read Right Now" was published by beloved Reader's Digest, a magazine that has been publishing all genres of literature since 1922 (I remember reading them when I visited my grandparents) (Beabout, 2023). According to the report, censorship—the practice of banning books—has become more common in libraries and classrooms. The author asserts that "Parents, school board members, and activists have all been responsible for removing some of the best books of all time from bookshelves." There are still a lot of organizations that want to regulate what is read in schools and public libraries, some of which have political or religious motivations. Censorship has always existed and reached its book-burning peak under the rule of Hitler in the First World War. The reading of books has increased as a result of teen-organized anti-book banning organizations that promote the books, according to Reader's Digest, who also points out that efforts to prohibit books have resulted in reprisal.
According to the ACLU, it is unlawful for the government to censor literature: "...when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against retailers who sell magazines, they find objectionable, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, even though they can occasionally turn violent. During the McCarthy era, private pressure organizations, not the government, published and upheld the infamous Hollywood blacklists. However, organizations and people speaking out and banding together in support of the endangered expression are best able to fight these private censoring initiatives (2023).
Literary critics, political parties, and religious organizations have long wanted to dictate how literature is perceived and whether or not particular texts should even be read. They believe that certain books include too delicate of subject matter (like slavery) or are unsuitable for both pupils and the general public (like LTBTQ novels). It has long been debatable whether individuals have the right to impose their beliefs—which are frequently grounded in religion—on public institutions like libraries and schools that are supported by taxes paid by the general public. Why shouldn't we and our kids be free to go into a library or bookshop and select any book, rather than having an arbitrary religious or political party choose it for us, since our taxes pay for schools and libraries?
The Guardian says that conservative organizations in the US are cracking down on books that deal with racism, LGBTQ issues, and other minority groups in a story from 2021 headlined "US Conservatives linked to rich donors wage campaign to ban books from schools" (2021). Schools in Texas, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming have previously banned literature. Teachers and librarians caution that the habit is growing. In 2021, The Guardian. Not so fast, claims Newsweek, which noted in 2023 that liberal political organizations had been engaged in a war against book restrictions as well. According to Newsweek, "the Left launches its own battle against authors, publishers, and schools. When It Comes to Banning Books, Both Right and Left Are Guilty. We the People is the Left-wing counterpart to Moms for Liberty.
In a 2021 article entitled, “US Conservatives linked to rich donors wage campaign to ban books from schools” (2021) The Guardian reports that conservative groups in the US are cracking down on books that address race, LGBTQ, and other minority groups. “Literature has already been removed from schools in Texas, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Librarians and teachers warn the trend is on the increase…” (The Guardian, 2021). Not so fast, says Newsweek, who reported in 2023 that liberal political groups have also been busy waging book bans. According to Newsweek, "the Left launches its own battle against authors, publishers, and schools.
I think we should look to global history and the literary theorists for guidance on what is correct in regard to how to interpret literature and which books may be read by the general public, regardless of whatever political party now supports censorship. I guess that makes me a contemporary historicist. Because, as the adage goes, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" (Santayana, as quoted by Clairmont, 2023).
A. H. Stevens. Literary Theory and Criticism: An
Introduction, Second Edition. 2021.
American Civil Liberties Union. What Is
Censorship? ACLU. 2023.
What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union
(aclu.org)
L. Beabout. 30 Banned Books You Should Probably
Read Right Now. Reader’s Digest. 2023.
30
Banned Books Everyone Needs to Read in 2022 | Banned Books List (rd.com)
N. Clairmont. Those Who Do Not Learn History Are
Doomed to Repeat It. Really? 2013.
"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed to Repeat
It." Really? - Big Think
The Guardian. US Conservatives Linked to Rich
Donors Wage Campaign to ban Books from Schools. 2023.
A. Szetela. When It Comes to Banning
Books, Both Right and Left Are Guilty. Newsweek. 2022
When It Comes to Banning Books, Both
Right and Left Are Guilty | Opinion (newsweek.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment