Module 4: SCHOOLS OF LITERARY CRITICISM

Psychoanalytic criticism (1930-present)

1. Freudian Criticism (1930s-present)
The Unconscious, the Desires, and the Defenses
Sigmund Freud began his psychoanalytic work in the 1880s while attempting to treat behavioral
disorders in his Viennese patients. He dubbed the disorders hysteria and began treating them
by listening to his patients talk through their problems. Based on this work, Freud asserted that
people's behavior is affected by their unconscious: "the notion that human beings are
motivated, even driven, by desires, fears, needs, and conflicts of which they are unaware"
(Tyson 14-15).
Freud believed that one’s unconscious was influenced by childhood events. Freud organized
these events into developmental stages involving relationships with parents and drives of
desire and pleasure where children focus "on different parts of the body ... starting with the
mouth ... shifting to the oral, anal, and phallic phases" (Richter 1015). These stages reflect base
levels of desire, but they also involve fear of loss (loss of genitals, loss of affection from parents,
loss of life) and repression: "the expunging from consciousness of these unhappy psychological
events" (Tyson 15).
Tyson reminds us, however, that "repression doesn’t eliminate our painful experiences and
emotions ... We unconsciously behave in ways that will allow us to 'play out' ... our conflicted
feelings about the painful experiences and emotions we repress" (15). To keep all of this
conflict buried in our unconscious, Freud argued that we develop defenses: selective
perception, selective memory, denial, displacement, projection, regression, fear of intimacy,
and fear of death, among others.
Freud maintained that our desires and our unconscious conflicts give rise to three areas of the
mind that wrestle for dominance as we grow from infancy, to childhood, to adulthood:

 Id - "the location of the drives" or libido

 Ego - "one of the major defenses against the power of the drives" and home of the
defenses listed above
 Superego - the area of the unconscious that houses judgment (of self and others) and
"which begins to form during childhood as a result of the Oedipus complex" (Richter
1015-1016)
Oedipus Complex
Freud believed that the Oedipus complex was "one of the most powerfully determinative
elements in the growth of the child" (1016). Essentially, the Oedipus complex involves
children's need for their parents and the conflict that arises as children mature and realize they
are not the absolute focus of their mother's attention: "The Oedipus complex begins in a late
phase of infantile sexuality, between the child's third and sixth year, and it takes a different
form in males than it does in females" (Richter 1016).
Freud argued that both boys and girls wish to possess their mothers, but as they grow older
"they begin to sense that their claim to exclusive attention is thwarted by the mother's
attention to the father" (1016). Children, Freud maintained, connect this conflict of attention to
the intimate relations between mother and father, relations from which the children are
excluded. Freud believed that "the result is a murderous rage against the father ... and a desire
to possess the mother" (1016).
Freud pointed out, however, that "the Oedipus complex differs in boys and girls ... the
functioning of the related castration complex" (1016). In short, Freud thought that "during the
Oedipal rivalry [between boys and their fathers], boys fantasized that punishment for their rage
will take the form of" castration (1016). When boys effectively work through this anxiety, Freud
argued, "the boy learns to identify with the father in the hope of someday possessing a woman
like his mother. In girls, the castration complex does not take the form of anxiety ... the result is
a frustrated rage in which the girl shifts her sexual desire from the mother to the father" (1016).
Freud believed that eventually, the girl's spurned advances toward the father give way to a
desire to possess a man like her father later in life. Freud believed that the impact of the
unconscious, id, ego, superego, the defenses, and the Oedipus complexes was inescapable and
that these elements of the mind influence all our behavior, even our dreams, as adults; of
course, this behavior involves what we write.
Freud and Literature
So, what does all of this psychological business have to do with literature and the study of
literature? Put simply, some critics believe that we can "read psychoanalytically ... to see which
concepts are operating in the text in such a way as to enrich our understanding of the work
and, if we plan to write a paper about it, to yield a meaningful, coherent psychoanalytic
interpretation" (Tyson 29). Tyson provides some insightful and applicable questions to help
guide our understanding of psychoanalytic criticism.

 How do the operations of repression structure or inform the work?

 Are there any Oedipal dynamics - or any other family dynamics - are work here?
 How can characters' behavior, narrative events, and/or images be explained in terms of
psychoanalytic concepts of any kind (e.g. fear or fascination with death, sexuality -
which includes love and romance as well as sexual behavior - as a primary indicator of
psychological identity or the operations of ego, id, superego)?
 What does the work suggest about the psychological being of its author?
 What might a given interpretation of a literary work suggest about the psychological
motives of the reader?
  Are there prominent words in the piece that could have different or hidden meanings?
Could there be a subconscious reason for the author using these "problem words"?

2. Jungian Criticism (1930s-present)

Jungian criticism attempts to explore the connection between literature and what Carl Jung (a
student of Freud) called the “collective unconscious” of the human race: "racial memory,
through which the spirit of the whole human species manifests itself" (Richter 504). Jungian
criticism, closely related to Freudian theory because of its connection to psychoanalysis,
assumes that all stories and symbols are based on mythic models from mankind’s past.
Based on these commonalities, Jung developed archetypal myths, the Syzygy: "a quaternion
composing a whole, the unified self of which people are in search" (505). These archetypes are
the Shadow, the Anima, the Animus, and the Spirit: "beneath [the Shadow] is the Anima, the
feminine side of the male Self, and the Animus, the corresponding masculine side of the female
Self" (505).
The Self is the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation - the
representative of "that wholeness which the introspective philosophy of all times and climes
has characterized with an inexhaustible variety of symbols, names and concepts". It represents
all that is unique within a human being. Although a person is a collection of all the archetypes
and what they learn from the collective unconscious, the self is what makes that person an I.
The self cannot exist without the other archetypes and the other archetypes cannot exist
without the self; Jung makes this very clear. The self is also the part which grows and changes
as a person goes throughout life. The self can be summed up as the ideal form a person wishes
to be.
The Shadow represents the traits which lie deep within ourselves. The traits that are hidden
from day-to-day life and are in some cases the opposite of the self is a simple way to state
these traits. The shadow is a very important trait because for one to truly know themselves,
one must know all their traits, including those which lie beneath the common, i.e., the shadow.
If one chooses to know the shadow there is a chance they give in to its motivation.
The Anima is sometimes seen as the feminine side within a man, but Jung did not fully intend
this to be viewed in this way. The Anima is beyond generalization of society's views and
stereotypes. Anima represents what femininity truly represents it in all its mysteries. It is what
allows a man to be in touch with a woman. The anima is commonly represented within dreams
as a method to communicate with a person. It contains all female encounters with men to help
the relationship between the two improve better.
The Animus is similar to the anima except for the fact that the animus allows a female to
understand and communicate with a man. Just like the anima, it is commonly represented in
dreams of a woman to help them understand themselves and relationships with men It can be
known as part of the collective unconscious' connection with all of the encounters of males
with females, like the anima, to improve relationship with males and females.
The Persona is to Jung a mere "functional complex ... by no means identical to the
individuality", the way we present to the world - a mask which protects the Ego from negative
images, and which by post-Jungians is sometimes considered an "archetype ... as a
dynamic/structural component of the psyche". Some view this as the opposite of the shadow
which is not entirely true, this is just the face that is put on for the world, not our deepest
internal secrets and desires; that is the self.
In literary analysis, a Jungian critic would look for archetypes in creative works: "Jungian
criticism is generally involved with a search for the embodiment of these symbols within
particular works of art." (Richter 505). When dealing with this sort of criticism, it is often useful
to keep a handbook of mythology and a dictionary of symbols on hand.

 What connections can we make between elements of the text and the archetypes?
(Mask, Shadow, Anima, Animus)
 How do the characters in the text mirror the archetypal figures? (Great Mother or
nurturing Mother, Whore, destroying Crone, Lover, Destroying Angel)
 How does the text mirror the archetypal narrative patterns? (Quest, Night-Sea-Journey)
 How symbolic is the imagery in the work?
 How does the protagonist reflect the hero of myth?
 Does the “hero” embark on a journey in either a physical or spiritual sense?
 Is there a journey to an underworld or land of the dead?
 What trials or ordeals does the protagonist face? What is the reward for overcoming
them?

Marxist Criticism (1930s-present)

Based on the theories of Karl Marx (and so influenced by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel), this school concerns itself with class differences, economic and otherwise, as well as the
implications and complications of the capitalist system: "Marxism attempts to reveal the ways
in which our socioeconomic system is the ultimate source of our experience" (Tyson 277).
Theorists working in the Marxist tradition, therefore, are interested in answering the
overarching question: Whom does it [the work, the effort, the policy, the road, etc.] benefit?
The elite? The middle class? And Marxists critics are also interested in how the lower or
working classes are oppressed: in everyday life and in literature.
The Material Dialectic
The Marxist school follows a process of thinking called the material dialectic. This belief system
maintains that "what drives historical change are the material realities of the economic base of
society, rather than the ideological superstructure of politics, law, philosophy, religion, and art
that is built upon that economic base" (Richter 1088).
Marx asserts that "stable societies develop sites of resistance: contradictions build into the
social system that ultimately lead to social revolution and the development of a new society
upon the old" (1088). This cycle of contradiction, tension, and revolution must continue: there
will always be conflict between the upper, middle, and lower (working) classes and this conflict
will be reflected in literature and other forms of expression - art, music, movies, etc.
The Revolution
The continuing conflict between the classes will lead to upheaval and revolution by oppressed
peoples and form the groundwork for a new order of society and economics where capitalism is
abolished. According to Marx, the revolution will be led by the working class (others think
peasants will lead the uprising) under the guidance of intellectuals. Once the elite and middle
class are overthrown, the intellectuals will compose an equal society where everyone owns
everything (socialism - not to be confused with Soviet or Maoist Communism).
Though a staggering number of different nuances exist within this school of literary theory,
Marxist critics generally work in areas covered by the following questions:

 Whom does it benefit if the work or effort is accepted/successful/believed, etc.?

 What is the social class of the author?
 Which class does the work claim to represent?
 What values does it reinforce?
 What values does it subvert?
 What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it
portrays?
 What social classes do the characters represent?

Feminist Criticism: Feminist criticism is concerned with "...the ways in which literature (and
other cultural productions) reinforce or undermine the economic, political, social, and
psychological oppression of women" (Tyson 83). This school of theory looks at how aspects of
our culture are inherently patriarchal (male dominated) and "...this critique strives to expose
the explicit and implicit misogyny in male writing about women" (Richter 1346). This misogyny,
Tyson reminds us, can extend into diverse areas of our culture: "Perhaps the most chilling
example...is found in the world of modern medicine, where drugs prescribed for both sexes
often have been tested on male subjects only" (Tyson 83).
Feminist criticism is also concerned with less obvious forms of marginalization such as the
exclusion of women writers from the traditional literary canon: "...unless the critical or
historical point of view is feminist, there is a tendency to under-represent the contribution of
women writers" (82-83).
Common Space in Feminist Theories
Though a number of different approaches exist in feminist criticism, there exist some areas of
commonality. This list is excerpted from Tyson:
1. Women are oppressed by patriarchy economically, politically, socially, and psychologically;
patriarchal ideology is the primary means by which they are kept so
2. In every domain where patriarchy reigns, woman is other: she is marginalized, defined only
by her difference from male norms and values
3. All of western (Anglo-European) civilization is deeply rooted in patriarchal ideology, for
example, in the biblical portrayal of Eve as the origin of sin and death in the world
4. While biology determines our sex (male or female), culture determines our gender
(masculine or feminine)
5. All feminist activity, including feminist theory and literary criticism, has as its ultimate goal to
change the world by prompting gender equality
6. Gender issues play a part in every aspect of human production and experience, including the
production and experience of literature, whether we are consciously aware of these issues or
not.
Feminist criticism has, in many ways, followed what some theorists call the three waves of
feminism:
1. First Wave Feminism - late 1700s-early 1900's: writers like Mary Wollstonecraft (A
Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792) highlight the inequalities between the sexes.
Activists like Susan B. Anthony and Victoria Woodhull contribute to the women's suffrage
movement, which leads to National Universal Suffrage in 1920 with the passing of the
Nineteenth Amendment
2. Second Wave Feminism - early 1960s-late 1970s: building on more equal working conditions
necessary in America during World War II, movements such as the National Organization for
Women (NOW), formed in 1966, cohere feminist political activism. Writers like Simone de
Beauvoir (Le deuxième sexe, 1972) and Elaine Showalter established the groundwork for the
dissemination of feminist theories dove-tailed with the American Civil Rights movement
3. Third Wave Feminism - early 1990s-present: resisting the perceived essentialist (over
generalized, over simplified) ideologies and a white, heterosexual, middle class focus of second
wave feminism, third wave feminism borrows from post-structural and contemporary gender
and race theories (see below) to expand on marginalized populations' experiences. Writers like
Alice Walker work to "...reconcile it [feminism] with the concerns of the black community...
[and] the survival and wholeness of her people, men and women both, and for the promotion
of dialog and community as well as for the valorization of women and of all the varieties of
work women perform" (Tyson 97).
• How is the relationship between men and women portrayed?
• What are the power relationships between men and women (or characters assuming
male/female roles)?
• How are male and female roles defined?
• What constitutes masculinity and femininity?
• How do characters embody these traits?
• Do characters take on traits from opposite genders? How so? How does this change others’
reactions to them?
• What does the work reveal about the operations (economically, politically, socially, or
psychologically) of patriarchy?
• What does the work imply about the possibilities of sisterhood as a mode of resisting
patriarchy?
• What does the work say about women's creativity?
• What does the history of the work's reception by the public and by the critics tell us about the
operation of patriarchy?
• What role the work plays in terms of women's literary history and literary tradition? (Tyson)
How do characters from different classes interact or conflict?

Reader-Response Criticism (1960s-present)

At its most basic level, reader response criticism considers readers' reactions to literature as
vital to interpreting the meaning of the text. However, reader-response criticism can take a
number of different approaches. A critic deploying reader-response theory can use a
psychoanalytic lens, a feminist lens, or even a structuralist lens. What these different lenses
have in common when using a reader response approach is they maintain "that what a text is
cannot be separated from what it does" (Tyson 154).
Tyson explains that "reader-response critics share two beliefs: that the role of the reader
cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature and that readers do not passively
consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text (rather they actively
make the meaning they find in literature)" (154). In this way, reader-response theory shares
common ground with some of the deconstructionists discussed in the Post-structural area
when they talk about "the death of the author," or her displacement as the authoritarian figure
in the text.

 How does the interaction of text and reader create meaning?

 What does a phrase-by-phrase analysis of a short literary text, or a key portion of a
longer text, tell us about the reading experience that is built into that text?
 Do the sounds/shapes of the words as they appear on the page or how they are spoken
by the reader enhance or change the meaning of the word/work?
 How might we interpret a literary text to show that the reader's response is, or is
analogous to, the topic of the story?
 What does the body of criticism published about a literary text suggest about the critics
who interpreted that text and/or about the reading experience produced by that text?
(191)

Gender Studies and Queer Theory (1970s-present)

Gender studies and queer theory explore issues of sexuality, power, and marginalized
populations (woman as other) in literature and culture. Much of the work in gender studies and
queer theory, while influenced by feminist criticism, emerges from post-structural interest in
fragmented, de-centered knowledge building (Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault), language (the
breakdown of sign-signifier), and psychoanalysis (Lacan).
A primary concern in gender studies and queer theory is the manner in which gender and
sexuality is discussed: "Effective as this work [feminism] was in changing what teachers taught
and what the students read, there was a sense on the part of some feminist critics that … it was
still the old game that was being played, when what it needed was a new game entirely. The
argument posed was that in order to counter patriarchy, it was necessary not merely to think
about new texts, but to think about them in radically new ways" (Richter 1432).
Therefore, a critic working in gender studies and queer theory might even be uncomfortable
with the binary established by many feminist scholars between masculine and feminine:
"Cixous (following Derrida in Of Grammatology) sets up a series of binary oppositions
(active/passive, sun/moon … father/mother, logos/pathos). Each pair can be analyzed as a
hierarchy in which the former term represents the positive and masculine and the latter the
negative and feminine principle" (1433-1434).
In-Betweens
Many critics working with gender and queer theory are interested in the breakdown of binaries
such as male and female, the in-betweens (also following Derrida's interstitial knowledge
building). For example, gender studies and queer theory maintains that cultural definitions of
sexuality and what it means to be male and female are in flux: "The distinction between
masculine and feminine activities and behavior is constantly changing, so that women who
wear baseball caps and fatigues … can be perceived as more piquantly sexy by some
heterosexual men than those women who wear white frocks and gloves and look down
demurely" (1437).
Moreover, Richter reminds us that as we learn more about our genetic structure, the biology of
male/female becomes increasingly complex and murky: "even the physical dualism of sexual
genetic structures and bodily parts breaks down when one considers those instances - XXY
syndromes, natural sexual bimorphisms, as well as surgical transsexuals - that defy attempts at
binary classification" (1437).

 What textual elements can be perceived as being masculine (active, powerful) and
feminine (passive, marginalized); how do characters support these traditional roles?
 What sort of support (if any) is given to elements or characters who question the
masculine/feminine binary? What happens to those elements/characters?
 What elements in the text exist in the middle, between the perceived
masculine/feminine binary? In other words, what elements exhibit traits of both?
 How does the author present the text? Is it a traditional narrative? Is it secure and
forceful? Or is it more hesitant or even collaborative?
 What are the politics (ideological agendas) of specific gay, lesbian, or queer works, and
how are those politics revealed in the work's thematic content or portrayals of its
characters?
 What does the work contribute to our knowledge of queer, gay, or lesbian experience
and history, including literary history?
 How is queer, gay, or lesbian experience coded in texts that are by writers who are
apparently homosexual?
 What does the work reveal about the operations (socially, politically, psychologically)
homophobic?
 How does the literary text illustrate the problematics of sexuality and sexual "identity,"
that is the ways in which human sexuality does not fall neatly into the separate
categories defined by the words homosexual and heterosexual?
Post-Structuralism and Literature (1966-present)
If we are questioning/resisting the methods we use to build knowledge (science, religion,
language), then traditional literary notions are also thrown into free play. These include the
narrative and the author:
Narrative
The narrative is a fiction that locks readers into interpreting text in a single, chronological
manner that does not reflect our experiences. Postmodern texts may not adhere to traditional
notions of narrative. For example, in his seminal work, Naked Lunch, William S. Burroughs
explodes the traditional narrative structure and critiques almost everything Modern: modern
government, modern medicine, modern law-enforcement. Other examples of authors playing
with narrative include John Fowles; in the final sections of The French Lieutenant's Woman,
Fowles steps outside his narrative to speak with the reader directly.
Moreover, grand narratives are resisted. For example, the belief that through science the
human race will improve is questioned. In addition, metaphysics is questioned. Instead,
postmodern knowledge building is local, situated, slippery, and self-critical (i.e. it questions
itself and its role). Because post-structural work is self-critical, post-structural critics even look
for ways texts contradict themselves (see typical questions below).
Author
The author is displaced as absolute author(ity), and the reader plays a role in interpreting the
text and developing meaning (as best as possible) from the text. In “The Death of the Author,”
Roland Barthes argues that the idea of singular authorship is a recent phenomenon. Barthes
explains that the death of the author shatters Modernist notions of authority and knowledge
building (145).
Lastly, he states that once the author is dead and the Modernist idea of singular narrative (and
thus authority) is overturned, texts become plural, and the interpretation of texts becomes a
collaborative process between author and audience: “A text is made of multiple writings, drawn
from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue...but there is one place
where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader” (148). Barthes ends his essay by
empowering the reader: “Classical criticism has never paid any attention to the reader … The
writer is the only person in literature … It is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the
reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (148).

 How is language thrown into free play or questioned in the work? For example, note
how Anthony Burgess plays with language (Russian vs. English) in A Clockwork Orange,
or how Burroughs plays with names and language in Naked Lunch.
 How does the work undermine or contradict generally accepted truths?
 How does the author (or a character) omit, change, or reconstruct memory and
identity?
 How does a work fulfill or move outside the established conventions of its genre?
 How does the work deal with the separation (or lack thereof) between writer, work,
and reader?
 What ideology does the text seem to promote?
 What is left out of the text that, if included, might undermine the goal of the work?
 If we changed the point of view of the text - say from one character to another, or
multiple characters - how would the story change? Whose story is not told in the text?
Who is left out and why might the author have omitted this character's tale?
New Historicism, Cultural Studies (1980s-present)
This school, influenced by structuralist and post-structuralist theories, seeks to reconnect a
work with the time period in which it was produced and identify it with the cultural and political
movements of the time (Michel Foucault's concept of épistème). New Historicism assumes that
every work is a product of the historic moment that created it. Specifically, New Historicism is
"...a practice that has developed out of contemporary theory, particularly the structuralist
realization that all human systems are symbolic and subject to the rules of language, and the
deconstructive realization that there is no way of positioning oneself as an observer outside the
closed circle of textuality" (Richter 1205).
A helpful way of considering New Historical theory, Tyson explains, is to think about the
retelling of history itself: "...questions asked by traditional historians and by new historicists are
quite different...traditional historians ask, 'What happened?' and 'What does the event tell us
about history?' In contrast, new historicists ask, 'How has the event been interpreted?' and
'What do the interpretations tell us about the interpreters?'" (278). So New Historicism resists
the notion that "history is a series of events that have a linear, causal relationship: event A
caused event B; event B caused event C; and so on" (Tyson 278).
New historicists do not believe that we can look at history objectively, but rather that we
interpret events as products of our time and culture and that "we don't have clear access to any
but the most basic facts of history ... Our understanding of what such facts mean [is] strictly a
matter of interpretation, not fact" (279). Moreover, New Historicism holds that we are
hopelessly subjective interpreters of what we observe.

 What language/characters/events present in the work reflect the current events of the
author’s day?
 Are there words in the text that have changed their meaning from the time of the
writing?
 How are such events interpreted and presented?
 How are events' interpretation and presentation a product of the culture of the author?
 Does the work's presentation support or condemn the event?
 Can it be seen to do both?
 How does this portrayal criticize the leading political figures or movements of the day?
 How does the literary text function as part of a continuum with other historical/cultural
texts from the same period?
 How can we use a literary work to "map" the interplay of both traditional and
subversive discourses circulating in the culture in which that work emerged and/or the
cultures in which the work has been interpreted?
 How does the work consider traditionally marginalized populations?
Post-Colonial Criticism (1990s-present)
Post-colonial criticism is similar to cultural studies, but it assumes a unique perspective on
literature and politics that warrants a separate discussion. Specifically, post-colonial critics are
concerned with literature produced by colonial powers and works produced by those who
were/are colonized. Post-colonial theory looks at issues of power, economics, politics, religion,
and culture and how these elements work in relation to colonial hegemony (western colonizers
controlling the colonized).
Therefore, a post-colonial critic might be interested in works such as Daniel Defoe's Robinson
Crusoe where colonial "ideology [is] manifest in Crusoe's colonialist attitude toward the land
upon which he's shipwrecked and toward the black man he 'colonizes' and names Friday"
(Tyson 377). In addition, post-colonial theory might point out that "despite Heart of Darkness's
(Joseph Conrad) obvious anti-colonist agenda, the novel points to the colonized population as
the standard of savagery to which Europeans are contrasted" (375). Post-colonial criticism also
takes the form of literature composed by authors that critique Euro-centric hegemony.
A Unique Perspective on Empire
Seminal post-colonial writers such as Nigerian author Chinua Achebe and Kenyan author Ngugi
wa Thiong'o have written a number of stories recounting the suffering of colonized people. For
example, in Things Fall Apart, Achebe details the strife and devastation that occurred when
British colonists began moving inland from the Nigerian coast.
Rather than glorifying the exploratory nature of European colonists as they expanded their
sphere of influence, Achebe narrates the destructive events that led to the death and
enslavement of thousands of Nigerians when the British imposed their Imperial government. In
turn, Achebe points out the negative effects (and shifting ideas of identity and culture) caused
by the imposition of western religion and economics on Nigerians during colonial rule.
Power, Hegemony, and Literature
Post-colonial criticism also questions the role of the western literary canon and western history
as dominant forms of knowledge making. The terms "first-world," "second world," "third world"
and "fourth world" nations are critiqued by post-colonial critics because they reinforce the
dominant positions of western cultures populating first world status. This critique includes the
literary canon and histories written from the perspective of first-world cultures. So, for
example, a post-colonial critic might question the works included in "the canon" because the
canon does not contain works by authors outside western culture.
Moreover, the authors included in the canon often reinforce colonial hegemonic ideology, such
as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Western critics might consider Heart of Darkness an
effective critique of colonial behavior. But post-colonial theorists and authors might disagree
with this perspective: "As Chinua Achebe observes, the novel's condemnation of European is
based on a definition of Africans as savages: beneath their veneer of civilization, the Europeans
are, the novel tells us, as barbaric as the Africans. And indeed, Achebe notes, the novel portrays
Africans as a pre-historic mass of frenzied, howling, incomprehensible barbarians" (Tyson 374-
375).
  How does the literary text, explicitly or allegorically, represent various aspects of
colonial oppression?
 What does the text reveal about the problematics of post-colonial identity, including the
relationship between personal and cultural identity and such issues as double
consciousness and hybridity?
 What person(s) or groups does the work identify as "other" or stranger? How are such
persons/groups described and treated?
 What does the text reveal about the politics and/or psychology of anti-colonialist
resistance?
 What does the text reveal about the operations of cultural difference - the ways in
which race, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, cultural beliefs, and customs
combine to form individual identity - in shaping our perceptions of ourselves, others,
and the world in which we live?
 How does the text respond to or comment upon the characters, themes, or assumptions
of a canonized (colonialist) work?
 Are there meaningful similarities among the literatures of different post-colonial
populations?
 How does a literary text in the Western canon reinforce or undermine colonialist
ideology through its representation of colonialization and/or its inappropriate silence
about colonized peoples?
Activity
1. Discuss briefly what you have understand in each of the school of literary criticism
discussed in this module.
2. If you were to choose a literary criticism which one would like to choose and why?
3. Answer these two questions and upload your answer in our Facebook group.