What is this thing called literature and why do we still study it?
Literature, as common understanding suggests, is a representative body of texts admired and appreciated for their formal properties as well as their thematic concerns, which most would loosely qualify as artistic or even aesthetic. If asked about the relevance of literature, the answer would be that the study of literature is similar to the appreciation of the arts.
However, in recent decades, the very notion of literature has been challenged by progressive theoretical debates, which in any case have made it impossible to decide what literature is and what it should be. The point that relegates literature to a subordinate position compared to other humanities such as history, is the problematic term of fiction. Today, after the collapse of idealism, what we have in a strange turn of events is the return of the importance of language. Perennial questions such as what is truth and reality arise again, this time in the study of literature. Where philosophy and subsequent science, its successor, have dominated this field of inquiry, literature seems to be this new platform for these very old questions.
The literature of the mid-20th century moved against its detractors by questioning all forms of knowledge, because all discourses inevitably use language as the main vehicle of communication. As a result, all writings, from political theories to psychology, are simply considered as different types of writing and thus fall within the realm of literature. Since literary studies involves analyzing writing itself, the field has broadened to include other forms of writing rather than what is simply considered fiction. Although the core texts of literary studies have remained traditional, ie ‘fictional’ works, the methods and devices used apply to non-fictional texts, eg biographies, journalistic writing, etc.
Another point must be added to the recent response of literature to the skeptics, and that is that, since all writing must belong to a recognizable form of expression, the question then remains, how valid is the truth content of the so-called texts? nonfiction, when governed by pre-existing rules of expression? This discussion is a good example of the fertile ground of modern literary theory, in particular, the relationship between language and experience. Instead of dwelling on these modern themes of how a discourse like literary theory evolved out of the confusion of other disciplines, perhaps I should revive a historical look at literary studies; not in a nostalgic sense, but rather provides a definable way in which the future relevance of literature can be sought.
The study of literature is the study of modes of communication. The texts that are analyzed and discussed are literary texts. It may include any writing of stylistic merit and works that contribute to the body of human knowledge. The goal is to use this research method in other fields. I have just outlined a position in literary studies that seems novel but is actually an older attitude.
The study of literature did not exist in the way we know it today. In a way, it is a very modern discipline, but it can also be said that it is one of the oldest disciplines. If we allow ourselves to include the oral tradition of the ancient world, where poets studied the methods of narrating ‘stories’, we understand that there is a formal method for those ancient works. These poets had ‘formalized’ techniques in the form of rhythms and choruses, which were learned and subsequently performed. The fact that the first poets understood devices and techniques is evidence of literary methods. A modern can still make this association that the study of literature is connected with the act of acting in all its manifestations. In fact, a craftsman must learn the tools of the trade to understand and preserve a tradition, which scholars, in the case of ancient Greece, have attributed to Homer, but in the current context the study of literature has lost that affinity for create artistic products. . Studying literature does not necessarily result in the production of great literature (whatever that may be).
Literature in the ancient world was inextricably linked with social life. We know, for example, that poetry was part of the religious ritual, the rites and the collective history. In other words, literature had a social function in the ancient world whose dominant form was poetry, which communicated various aspects of its tradition and history to the community. But what use is it in our current age, when we can read history from books and learn about the world around us through media? The answer to this question lies in the way we should receive and look at the writings. To explain this I will refer to the academic heritage of literature.
The study of literature was embedded in another related discipline called rhetoric, which in its scope covered a variety of topics that moderns can find shocking. These include philosophy, grammar, history, and literary writing. Although in the contemporary context it has acquired a derisive status for being ’empty’ and persuasive rather than sincere, the ancient and medieval world regarded it as a discipline encompassing a variety of subjects.
The center of rhetoric is the study of language similar to our modern literary studies. If we move into the Renaissance era, rhetorical studies expanded into the area of studying the styles and forms of classical authors, including ideas from Plato to Aristotle in the original Greek. This pivotal moment in Western history is what we define as the Renaissance and the focus is what is called humanism. In the curriculum of the universities in Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we have what is called studia humanitatis, the study of grammar, poetry, moral philosophy, and history. Interestingly, professional rhetoricians considered these areas under the compass of rhetoric. Rhetoricians who specialized in the study of language, whether for use in political or philosophical speech, saw the importance of mastery of style. Here lies a very important point, the rhetoricians saw in language the capacity and potential of knowledge. In other words, knowledge and language are inextricably linked. The world becomes the very words we use to describe it. This may sound very postmodern, but its roots arguably lie in an earlier tradition. Although these scholars believed that they were discovering new things, they were in fact discovering new forms of writing.
The key point here is that literary studies are embedded in areas with which one cannot associate them. Rhetoric was not the study of a very ornate speech, something similar to the accusation against literature. Instead, it covered a broad spectrum of interests. Of course, the rhetoric and the literature are different, but the resemblance is striking. The common denominator between both fields is the analysis of language. This does not imply cataloging types of writing, but goes further in developing ideas from them. The impact of such an effort can be seen in the Renaissance period of the Western world. Language and the world of ideas are interdependent and not mutually exclusive components. When we say ideas, we mean all forms of knowledge, from politics to psychology. In the ancient world, the Stoics, for example, understood the logic of language. Language is thus the basis of knowledge and whose study becomes of capital importance for the development of thought in the respective fields of knowledge.
Then a separate branch evolved from rhetoric, philology. This branch is involved in the study of the use of language and the roots derived from the meanings of words. An important fact here again as rhetoric, is the study of writings on politics, philosophy, scientific treatises, etc. The eclectic selection of texts included in the study of philology produced sometimes amazing people like Friedrich Nietzsche, arguably the most influential philosopher of the 20th century who was a trained philologist. This shows the relationship between the analysis of language and ideas. I am not suggesting that literature is philosophy or politics, but rather I am suggesting that literature informs other disciplines.
Today, in the study of English Literature, the analysis of language is what is studied, applied and investigated. This is something to which contemporary philosophy and theoretical perspectives are committed. Literature then is the study of human experiences as well as the intellectual ideas of a period, civilization and culture. It then becomes clear that literature derives from the older academic disciplines of rhetoric and philology whose traditions are embodied in literature. It is also critical for those studying other disciplines to understand a literary approach, which involves the analysis of language itself. When we compare this with today’s prevailing stereotype of literature as a noble and elegant way of using time, we find a disparity between what the discipline offers and how it is viewed. For those who are still grappling with the importance of literature, it can best be understood as a metadiscipline whose application in other fields I think is indispensable for the progress of human thought and development.
If we summarize the perspectives offered here in this modest article, we find that literature includes any form of writing in its field and is studied for the purpose of evaluating stylistic innovations and accumulating a body of knowledge from the writings. There is a third coordinate that I have not mentioned and it is the way of reading the text. A text is never literary but is made literary by a reader. The study of literature is not a simple accumulation of devices and facts, but rather shapes our way of interpreting the world. Literary methods provide a fresh and creative way of seeing the world that is both imaginative and disciplined. It is this strange marriage of the rational and the irrational that proves to be a challenge for those who begin this journey. Furthermore, what better approach can we be armed with to face the realities of this world than with a paradoxical attitude.