Literary Theory in the High School English Classroom
Like nearly all of you, I was not exposed to literary theory until early in my college literary studies. Considering that I’ve been out of high school for a long time, though, I thought that literary theory was something regularly taught in high school, since so many of my classmates, students who were of traditional college sophomore age, seemed to take to theory quite readily.
The various literary theories were presented in my “Intro to Literary Studies” class as “lenses” through which to view texts (yes, the same metaphor used by Deborah Appleman in Critical Encounters in High School English) in order to make meaning(s) from the text: literal meaning, alternate meanings, and conflicting meanings. My teacher in that class emphasized to us that it is not necessary to learn everything about the historical background of the various theoretical approaches (Marxism, Feminism, New Criticism, Structuralism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Deconstruction, New Historicism, Postcolonialism, etc., etc., etc.), nor is it necessary to become indoctrinated into the various ideologies around which these theoretical approaches are formed. What is important, my teacher told us, is to understand what questions and what kinds of questions each approach asks of a text. I followed my teacher’s advice and developed a basic working knowledge about a good handful of these theories. I’ve found that these “lenses” have colored and enlightened my readings of almost all the literary texts that I have encountered since.
Literary theories would be difficult to teach in the high school English classroom if they were taught in depth. But I think that with some judicial decisions about breadth and scope, the payoff in students’ abilities to make multiple meanings of texts will make the effort worthwhile. I think that the ability to view literary worlds through differing lenses will translate into critically thoughtful citizens who are able to see and appreciate diverse viewpoints.
on September 15th, 2006 at 10:23 am
I couldn’t agree with you more, Jim. As ELA teachers, we are obviously interested in literature studies, and we ask the questions that are typical of those different “lenses.” The next step in the classroom would be to say, “This question is typical of Feminist criticism.” We can certainly introduce some fundamental terms and vocabulary without getting mired down in the historical background and underlying philosopy. I think you’re right on with the idea that knowing the questions associated with each viewpoint is the best approach and foundation we could offer our students.
on September 19th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Jim,
It sounds like you have done a lot of work on developing your “theory’ of literary theory. I feel like my work in that area is just beginning.
You bring up a great point–that is it not necessary, nor even possible, perhaps, to know or to teach everything about literary theory. Rather than get mired down in the impossibility of covering everything and every theory, I’ll have to develop a plan for introducing the basics–the information that may whet a student’s appetite for more (wouldn’t that be an accomplishment?) or simply provide a basis for future coursework and readings.
I look forward to reading more of your entries as we start developing
activities and lessons on literary theory.
Cynthia
on September 19th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Jim, Ms. Scarbary, and Cynthia, all your suggestions are excellent. I too believe that the trick in successful adoption of literary theory in the classroom lies in the ability to focus more on the key questions that different perspectives (literary theories) offer to the reader, just to enable him/her to examine texts more critically, than on terminology itself. Once students feel more comfortable about the concepts various theories imply through these questions, the teacher may choose to introduce select terms to name some of those concepts. So what are then the key questions for theories such as Reader Response, Feminism, Marxism, Deconstruction, and so forth? Can someone get us started with such a list?
on September 20th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Jim-
I think you are right that some of the literary theories mentioned can be boiled down to a single perspective or group of concerns, but it is more difficult to do this with others. Marxism and feminism, for example, focus on issues that most of us are familiar with in one way or another. Some of the theories, such as structuralism and deconstruction, are much more difficult to simplify or tie to ordinary concerns. Part of the reason is that these theories presume so much background knowledge. I am going to be presenting on deconstruction later this semester and fully expect that this will be a challenge given the time constraints.
on September 27th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
[…] Ms. Scarbary reflects on the ways to help students make connections between Shakespearean and contemporary discourses in her post, The Everyday Language of Shakespeare. Ellen thinks that one way to accomplish this goal is through a careful analysis of complex yet vibrant characters in Shakespearean works. I think that such an analysis can be easily applied to our students’ lives and the interesting people and peers they regularly interact with. Additionally, in his response to Doborah Appleman’s discussion of literary theories (2000), Jim noted that exploring Shakespeare’s works through multiple literary theory lenses would help students to grow as “critically thoughtful citizens who are able to see and appreciate diverse viewpoints.” I consider this task as one of the core responsibilities for the English teacher community at large. Jim, thank you for bringing it forth in this discussion. […]