| UNIT 422-1: INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY LITERARY THEORIES |
|
| 422.1.4. LITERARY STUDIES: DIFFERENT APPROACHES |
|
| Having given a fairly detailed and representative literary historiography of modern Indian literatures, we may now go back to the discussion of different approaches within the field of literary studies. |
|
| 422.1.4.1. MORAL APPROACH |
|
| Of the various types of criticism practiced today, the moral approach has undoubtedly had the longest history. 'Moral' does not imply adherence to any particular moral code, not even to 'Western values' or the consequences genitum. The theory behind Sartre's 'Saint Genet' is a moral theory; it canonizes such writings or writers who celebrate the lives of thieves, murderers, homosexual and prostitutes; in other words, 'moral' includes immoral, too. Moral theories are those that see literature as a contributory part of total human activity, and value and explain it by reference to this totality. |
|
| For the moral theories there is no realm of the exclusively aesthetic; he speakes of literature as he would speak of any other human activity, and in the same language. Plato speaks of men laughing, weeping, showing resolution or effeminacy. Aristotle needs technical terms, or words used in special senses - cathorsis, peripeteia, etc. Moral theory says that the law of perfection for literature is the same as the law of perfection for life. Literature offers us the same material for moral judgment and it offers us far more material than any one individual life can do. The criticism of the common reader if generally moral criticism, or a disguised form of it. |
|
| 422.1.4.2. PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH |
|
| By the early years of our decade, most writers were acquinted with the ideas of Freud. The attraction of Freudian theory to creative writers is easily explained. Literary Naturalism (especially French) had presented an image of man as a victim of environment and/or biology. Freudian ideas substantiated these insights, offering a 'scientific' terminology by which to interpret man's bondage to his libidinous compulsions, or to the repressions society forced upon him. The Freudian judgment fit neatly with the Naturalist's refusal to condemn a being who was not responsible, but was the dupe of natural and preterhuman forces. Psychology, likewise, seemed to give sanction to the Romantic impulse toward self-expression and the exploitation of the perverse. |
|
| So with the spreading of Freud's theories and a new terminology, writers of both Romantic and Realistic persuasions were enabled and encouraged to probe deeper into their dramatizations of the human situation. Gradually, the impact of psychology upon creative literature was strengthened by the additional influence of Adler's concept of the inferiority complex, and of Jung's theory of collective unconscious. But the earliest force was Freudian. |
|
| The flourishing use of psychology in literary criticism began with Conrad Aiken's Skepticisms. Notes on contemporary Poetry. 1919. Max Eastman and Floyad Dell, as editors of the Masses, despite their inclination to stress sociological values. certainly helped to popularize the psychological approach. |
|
| In general the application of psychological knowledge to art can generate three kinds of illuminations. |
|
|
First, as I.A. Richards has illustrated, the new field provides a more precise
language, with which to discuss the creative processes. |
|
A second application goes back to Idmand Wilson who had pointed out the
importance of literary biographies, to the study of the lives of authors as a means
of understanding their art. |
|
Third, psychology can be used to explain fictitious characters. F.L. Lucas in
'Literature and Psychology', 1951, provides humorous instances form life which
clarify the actions and reactions of created characters who might otherwise be
puzzling or implausible. |
|
|
| Attacks upon the psychological approach have been of two sorts. One charge if oversimplification, such as occurred early when the tools were new and the spirit of the users was uncritical. Another criticism has been more central: that art is significantly different from dream in that the artist is largely, or atleast to some extent, in control of his product, which the dreamer is not. The dream may be compulsive confession, whereas art if composed expression. |
|
