Alfred Romero
11/29/2022
Professor Frank
Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism
Final Assignment / Theory into Practice
My definition of literature would be that of art through writing. Art is what defines humanity. When emotions that represent the raw humanity behind human inflicted acts are brought out to perfection, that’s when I perceive that action to be art. So, how does one critique art when it’s placed in such a broad spectrum? With literature, this can be answered through literary theory. Critical theory enhances the way I read literature and other aesthetic forms by diving into deeper insight about the work and broadening up to bigger picture concepts. The importance of how certain lines are structured and how words are delivered can be connected to open concepts about what makes us human. So, when tying back towards the course’s claim of being “able to explain how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of theory”, I am able to agree. The first step to approaching this claim would be to lay out some critical theories. The ones discussed in class were obtained from Robert Dale Parker, the Frank Hodgins Professor of English at the University of Illinois. These theories were collected in his book “How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies”.
From the six major critical theories we’ve discussed, race studies and feminism resonated with me the most. These two theories resonate with me the most because of their broad application. I’ve always had the two concepts in the back of my mind when analyzing any piece of literature, but I’d often forget about one when focusing on the other. Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw came to call this concept intersectionality, found in Parker’s feminism chapter. Intersectionality “argues that people working against antiblack racism tend to think of blacks as men and overlook black women” (Parker 183). This could be applied the other way around too, where “people working against sexism tend to think of women as white” (Parker 183). Despite one possibly being forgotten by any reader, it’s undeniable that both play a factor in creating the identity of a person. While feminist theory does resonate with me, it doesn’t appeal to me in the same way as race theory does. This may be due to the fact that I’ve struggled with racial issues while not struggling with those involved with feminism. What really stuck with me from race theory was the concept of racialization, where humans “often see racialized people through the lens of preconceptions and cultural patterns about race” (Parker 337). This is an inescapable fact. Humans will always have a race because it’s a fundamental aspect of what makes a human identity. Even if characters are of a different species outside of being humans, any preconceptions or cultural patterns involving that character can still be used against them through assumption. Because gender and race are so crucial to identity, it’s practically impossible for any piece of literary work to escape an analysis from either, even if it means tracing back to the author. If a text somehow avoided any ties with concepts that trace back to humanity, such as the two mentioned above or queer studies or marxism, then the text itself has structure so it wouldn’t be able to escape any theories of structuralism. While I do find structuralism useful, it doesn’t appeal to me in the same way. This is because it’s not centered around identifying factors of humanity. With literature being, for me, the art of words, it’s hard to appreciate any artistic merit coming from words without tracing it back to our race. Humanity is what gives literature its artistic beauty and this really shows when words can be traced back to parts of our identity. This is why theories, like feminism and race studies, resonate with me more than a theory like structuralism would. But in order to have a better understanding of how these theories could be applied, sources would need to be analyzed from their perspectives.
One example of a primary work we discussed in class that both feminist and race theory could be applied for would be that of “The Venus Hottentot” by American Poet Elizabeth Alexander. From a perspective of feminist theory, it’s made clear how Sara Baartman becomes sexually objectified by not only the French men around her, but also by the French women. With French citizens asking if it’s “muscle? bone? or fat?”, Baartman’s body becomes a spectacle for French men to gaze at and for French women to judge while her humanity becomes discarded during the process (Alexander Part 2, stanza 4, line 5). These reactions can even further be visualized from illustrations of Baartman during her time in France, as seen in Les Curieux en extase; ou, Les Cordons des souliers by Louis Francois Charon and Aaron Martinet. In this, French men are depicted quoting lines such as “Damn! What a roast beef!” and “Ah! Isn’t nature amusing!” while one French woman even says “From something bad a good thing happens” when looking through Bartman’s legs to see one of the French men’s erections (Mitchell 72). Quotes like these can be traced back to a specific component of feminist theory “called the masculinization of spectators” (Parker 173). British filmmaker Laura Mulvey labels this lens that Baartman’s seen through as the male gaze, where Baartman’s portrayed as a standstill image while the characters around her are free to rotate around her while they spectate her physical features. But it’s not just the gender aspect of Baartman being objectified, her race is also a factor to consider when discussing the discrimination towards her. While Baartman shares the identity of being a woman with at least one other person in the illustration, she remains the only African in the scenery. This reinforces the idea of every spectator around her ignoring her individuality and grouping her identity of being an African American with being a spectacle. So with Baartman being objectified as a woman and being discriminated against as an African, her story can be analyzed from both a feminist and race theory perspective. Similar to this would come a story pulled from religious context, specifically “Adam and Eve” from “Genesis”. As the story refers to how Eve was made to be “a helper” for Adam and how she “was taken out of man”, this perspective can support the idea from feminist theory in how women seem to be portrayed as this standstill object whose purpose is to fit the needs of a man (Genesis 2 lines 18 and 23). As Adam and Eve were the same race and traditionally identified as white, the concept of whiteness and its racial domination could be traced back to the idea of them being the origin of humanity. From two different primary sources, comes a similarity that ties both of them together through critical theory.
These two theories each contain fundamental aspects of identity, sex and race. As every human character, fiction or nonfiction, contains these two, it would be impossible to escape critical theory analysis. Whatever form of entertainment it may be, which is what the majority of people view outside of their work, the concept of sex and race will always remain. The same way the male gaze was applied to “The Hottentot Venus” can be found in the camera work of how certain movies are directed. The idea of racialization can be applied to any character as assumptions made about any character’s race become unavoidable. Additionally, queer studies can be applied to a variety of outside examples as sexuality is an inescapable factor of identity. While it’s not exactly tied to human identity, Marxism can be applied as economic status can always be applied to any character. And even when these elements described above aren’t directly mentioned in a piece of work, there always exists the possibility of them being imagined in the background. This is all simply due to these concepts being unavoidable and the human mind will naturally analyze these factors and how they apply to any content it’s viewing.
Because of the universal application of these concepts, I would have to agree with the course’s claim of how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of criticism. Identity can always be analyzed and it’s natural for the human mind to point out identity connections with work. Every identity aspect of a person in a work can be analyzed because there will always be someone who can relate to that aspect in a certain way. Indirectly, a viewer can also relate to this concept if the work isn’t as direct about it via assumption. This defines the inescapability of critical theory. At first, I did have a reservation. Suppose a one-word work consisting of the word “what”. While there are no identifying aspects of the work itself, its place has intent and meaning. And from this intent and meaning, can a tie be made tracing back to any context around the word, such as the identifying aspects of that who wrote it.
Works Cited:
Parker, Robert. How To Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies.
Oxford University Press, 2008.
Alexander, Elizabeth. “The Venus Hottentot”. Graywolf Press. 2004.
Mitchell, Robin. Venus Noire: Black Women and Colonial Fantasies in Nineteenth-Century
France. University of Georgia Press. 2020.
“Bible Gateway Passage: Genesis 2:4-3:24 – New International Version.” Bible Gateway,
NIV.
