Alfred Romero
11/29/2022
Professor Frank
Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism
Final Assignment / Theory into Practice
What is literature? How does one critique literature? To me, my definition of literature would be that of art through writing. Art is what defines humanity. Any human being can commit actions, but when emotions that represent the raw humanity behind the human inflicting their acts are brought out to perfection, that’s when I perceive that action to be art. Muhammed Ali makes boxing into an art, just as Micheal Jackson makes dancing into an art. So with this definition, how does one critique art when it’s placed in such a broad spectrum? There’s no real answer sheet, so how does one do it? With literature, this can be answered through the concept of literary theory. Criticism stemming from literary theory opens up literary work. It enhances the way I read literature and even other aesthetic forms, such as music videos or paintings, by simultaneously diving into deeper insight about the work and broadening up to bigger picture concepts. The importance of how certain lines are structured, what words are being used, and how these words are being delivered, can be connected to more open concepts about what makes us human, like race, gender, or economic status. That is why, when tying back towards the end of the syllabus where we are expected to “be able to explain how and why no reading or writing can ever be free of theory”, I am able to answer to that, for the most part anyway. The first step to approaching this claim would be to lay out some critical theories. The ones that were discussed in class were obtained from Robert Dale Parker, the Frank Hodgins Professor of English at the University of Illinois. Specifically, these theories were collected in his book titled “How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies”.
Throughout this course we’ve been introduced to a variety of different critical theories, with each one corresponding to an applications assignment I believe. From the six major critical theories we’ve discussed (structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, queer studies, Marxism, and postcolonial/race studies), I’d say race studies and feminism resonated with me the most. Race and gender are fundamental aspects of what makes a human being. No matter the writing behind any work, these concepts would always be applied to any character present in the mix as they’re inevitable from escape. 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 aspect when focusing on the other. Legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw came to call this concept intersectionality, found in Parker’s section of feminism. The concept of intersectionality “argues that people working against antiblack racism tend to think of blacks as men and overlook black women” (Parker 183). This concept could be applied the other way around as well, where “people working against sexism tend to think of women as white” (Parker 183). Despite one of the two possibly being forgotten by any reader, there’s no denying 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 issues involving race while not struggling with those involved with feminism, as I’m not a woman. What really stuck out to me from race theory was the concept of racialization, meaning that humans “often see racialized people through the lens of preconceptions and cultural patterns about race” (Parker 337). Whether these be stereotypes or not, this is an inescapable fact. No matter the context, humans, fiction or nonfiction, will always have a race associated with them because it’s a fundamental aspect of what makes a human identity. Even if these 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 any act of assumption. Because gender and race are so crucial to the concept of identity, as many historical conflicts were centered around either of the two, 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 of the piece. 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 just like any of the other theories discussed in the class, it doesn’t really appeal to me in the same way. This is because it’s not as centered around identifying factors of humanity as some of the other theories are. With literature being, at least 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 to me, 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 standing behind feminist theory, it’s made pretty clear how Sara Baartman becomes sexually objectified by not only the French men around her, but by the French women as well. With French citizens asking if it’s “muscle? bone? or fat?”, Baartman’s body becomes a main 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 tragic time in France, as seen in the illustration Les Curieux en extase; ou, Les Cordons des souliers by Louis Francois Charon and Aaron Martinet. In this illustration, French men are depicted quoting objectifying 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 such as 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 and revolve 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. 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 tragic story can be analyzed from both a feminist and race theory perspective. Similar to this piece 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).
