1. Part 5
Modern Schools of Interpretation
Objectives:
By the end of this part, you will be able to:
1. To list the main modern schools of interpretations.
2. To identify the historical setting of each school.
3. To describe the main characteristics of each school.
4. To differentiate between the strategies of interpretations used
in the schools.
5. To discuss some ideas in these schools.
Activities:
Online Activities for this part:
1. DF-4 Psychoanalytic Criticism
2. DF-5 Formalism
3. Quiz-6 Modern Schools of Interpretation
4. Quiz-7 Structuralism & Deconstruction
5. Assign-3 Modern Criticism
MLM Page 100
100
2. Part (5):
Modern Schools of Interpretation
1. Schools of interpretation that are classified as textual analysis
1) Russian Formalism (1915–1929)
2) Cambridge School (1920s–1930s)
3) Chicago School (1950s)
4) New Criticism (1930s–1960s)
5) Structuralism (1950s–1960s)
6) Post-structuralism (1960s–1970s)
7) Deconstruction (1967–present)
2. Schools of interpretation that are classified as psychological analysis
1) Psychoanalytic criticism
2) Freudian criticism (c. 1900–present
3) Jungian criticism (1920s–present).
4) Lacanian criticism (c. 1977–present)
3. Schools of interpretation that are classified as social and political analysis
1) Feminist criticism (1960s–present)
2) Marxist criticism
3) New Historicism (1980s–present)
4) Queer theory (1980s–present)
MLM Page 101
101
3. Schools of textual
analysis
Russian Formalism
Cambridge School
Chicago School
New Criticism
Structuralism
Post-structuralism
Deconstruction
Schools of
psychological analysis
Psychoanalytic
criticism
Freudian criticism
Jungian criticism
Lacanian criticism
Schools of political
analysis
Feminist criticism
Marxist criticism
New Historicism
Queer theory
MLM Page 102
102
6. 3. New Criticism (1930s–1960s): Coined in John Crowe Ransom’s The New
Criticism (1941), this approach discourages the use of history and biography in
interpreting a literary work. Instead, it encourages readers to discover the meaning
of a work through a detailed analysis of the text itself. This approach was popular
in the middle of the 20th century, especially in the United States, but has since
fallen out of favor.
4. Freudian criticism (c. 1900–present): The view of art as the imagined fulfillment
of wishes that reality denies. According to Freud, artists sublimate their desires and
translate their imagined wishes into art. We, as an audience, respond to the
sublimated wishes that we share with the artist. Working from this view, an artist’s
biography becomes a useful tool in interpreting his or her work. “Freudian
criticism” is also used as a term to describe the analysis of Freudian images within
a work of art.
5. Jungian criticism (1920s–present): A school of criticism that draws on Carl Jung’s
theory of the collective unconscious, a reservoir of common thoughts and
experiences that all cultures share. Jung holds that literature is an expression of the
main themes of the collective unconscious, and critics often invoke his work in
discussions of literary archetypes.
6. Lacanian criticism (c. 1977–present): Criticism based on Jacques Lacan’s view
that the unconscious, and our perception of ourselves, is shaped in the “symbolic”
order of language rather than in the “imaginary” order of prelinguistic thought.
Lacan is famous in literary circles for his influential reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s
“The Purloined Letter.”
7. Queer theory (1980s–present): A “constructivist” (as opposed to “essentialist”)
approach to gender and sexuality that asserts that gender roles and sexual
identity are social constructions rather than an essential, inescapable part of our
nature. Queer theory consequently studies literary texts with an eye to the ways in
which different authors in different eras construct sexual and gender identity.
Queer theory draws on certain branches of feminist criticism and traces its roots to
the first volume of Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality (1976).
MLM Page 105
105