Monireh Razavi 1 What Is Literature? Imagine that you are going to introduce yourself as a student of English Language and Literature in a non-English speaking country. Various groups of people might react differently to the field. As a result of focusing on the word Language in the title, majority of them might think of the disciplinary as an academic program for acquiring general knowledge of English (EGP). They might even tell you “Dude, Don’t worry! You’ll learn the letter ‘Z’ soon” to ironically refer to English language learning as a task as easy as learning A B C. A number of well-read persons would ask you about canonical works of English Literature, as it might be expected, mostly about Shakespeare and his prominent dramas. And a few people who approach literature through a comparative lens might ask you to compare English Literature with their own national literature. These reactions, or ones like them, are probably the most frequently responses you would receive. Based on my personal experience, you would rarely be questioned about the meaning of the word Literature as if the general population of nonstudents, regardless of their age or educational status, could answer “What Is Literature?” more simply than Plato did. You might conclude that continuous debates over the problematic definition of the controversial word, Literature, seem nonsense among the group of people without literary specialty. On the other side, look at the history of literary studies and criticism to find that— contradictory enough—from Plato to Derrida, from East to West, from Philosophy to Sociology, and from Poetics to Literary Studies, numerous attempts were made to address the rhetorical question of “What Is Literature?” in order to define the word Literature. This contradiction raises the question of why educated scholars need to define and identify Literature whereas the general public share a common sense of what literature is as a given idea. Monireh Razavi 2 First chapter of Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism, entitled “Literature”, discusses the above-mentioned common sense of Literature shared by the populace as “literary competence”, defined as the idea of writers and readers, within every culture, of which is and is not literary text. The author, Roger Fowler, suggests that such an idea is acquired “through experience of modes of discourse within ‘literary’ institutional settings” (12). Thus, Literature is a cultural, social, and relative category realized differently within various cultural boundaries. Concentrating on different cultural contexts results in different identifications of literature. In fact, Literature is also “ideologically impregnated by its social positioning” (6). The given meaning(s) of major literary works–a canon of normative set of texts–of any language and culture that embody certain system of values, is (are) “constructed” by the discourses of teachers, readers, and critics with particular contextual standpoints. “Depending on their interests, critics emphasize different characteristics in the text they study, and these emphases are reflected in the characteristic terms of critical discourse” (12). Moreover, by noting that different theories construct different literatures, Fowler refers to the relative nature of Literature and associates its relativity to more developments in critical literary studies. Accordingly, Literature is not a pre-existing concept, object, or essence waiting to be defined. Instead, it would be “a different entity depending on what theory constructs the concept” (4). Charles E. Bressler starts his Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with defining criticism, theory, and Literature. To define Literature, he cites the example of those people who answer the question of “What Is Literature?” etymologically. They argue that since the word literature is derived from the Latin “Littera” which means “letter”, it refers primarily to written texts, therefore, literature is simply anything that is written. This definition not only eliminates oral traditions including Iliad and Beowulf, but also Monireh Razavi 3 categorizes a city telephone directory or a road atlas with Hamlet into the same group of works called Literature. Bressler refers to another group of critics who narrow the definition by equating Literature to imaginative and/or creative works of art (written or oral), thus eliminate a road atlas or a cookbook from literary works. The question is, how about some clothes catalogues that are imaginative? Should they be considered works of literature? Other critics add the “test of time” criterion to the major components of literature, regarding those works of art that withstand the passage of time and are still being read as worthy to be called Literature. The above-mentioned groups argue that “a text must have certain peculiar qualities before it can be dubbed ‘literature’” (13). By contrast, the author claims that written works valued by people are declared as Literature regardless of the prescribed criteria of defining it. In fact, such works contain appealing aesthetic qualities (simply defined as elements of beauty) that directly contribute to telling a story which is the chief purpose of literature. Consequently, Bressler defines literature as a work that “concretizes an array of human values, emotions, actions, and ideas in story form” (14). “Any belief that the study of literature is the study of a stable, well-definable entity,” Terry Eagleton declares, “can be abandoned as a chimera” (9). In his Literary Theory: An Introduction, Eagleton opposes reducing Literature to a “set of works of assured and unalterable value, distinguished by certain shared inherent properties” (Ibid.). He argues that all literary works are “rewritten” by their readers. Given the fact that every reading of a work is a “re-writing” of it, literary works are not valuable in themselves. Hence, what anyone might have valued or come to value as literature, according to particular criteria and in the light of given purposes, may in the future retain its value. Across the centuries, different societies with invisible networks of value-categories which are historically variable and have a close relation to social ideologies, interpret literary works in the light of their own concerns and “this is one Monireh Razavi 4 reason why what counts as literature is a notably unstable affair” (11). In conclusion, “literature does not exist in the sense that insects do” (14). Instead, it is constituted by impermanent, unstable value-judgments as a changing concept. To sum up what was discussed above, one can define Literature as “the subjectivity of a society in permanent revolution” (Sartre 139). Literature is “constructed”, “concretized”, and “constituted” by the context in which it is about to be defined. It is not a fixed entity and the subjectivity of its definers creates its definitions. The era of idealists who attempted objective phenomena purged of all worldly connections is past. Literary texts, authors, and Literature as a whole, emerge from broader discourses or “bodies of thought and writing that made certain texts possible and gave authors their ideas and ways of writing” (Ryan 77). As a result, Literature could be considered a concept that appears in our mind, (pay attention to our mind) when we perceive it in the world. Monireh Sadat Razavi Ganji M.A. Student of English Language and Literature Shahid Madani University of Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran. Monireh Razavi 5 Works Cited Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. 5th ed. USA: Pearson, 2011. Print. Coyle, Martin, et al. Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism. UK: Taylor & Francis, 2003. Web. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. USA: Blackwell, 1996. BookFi. Web. Ryan, Michael. An Introduction to Criticism: Literature, Film, Culture. UK: Blackwell, 2012. Print. Sartre, Jean Paul. "What is literature?" and Other Essays. USA: Harvard UP, 1988. BookFi. Web.
