Abstract
Some literary scholars assume that appreciation, if it is to take a central position in literary studies, must be defined as a complement to value-neutral understanding. It is often claimed that positivists are unable to do justice to literary value since their engagement with works of literature is restricted to historical inquiry. They can only do the preparatory work for the proper goal of literary interpretation, i. e. aesthetic appreciation. On this basis, a distinction is introduced between historical scholarship and criticism. The former is supposedly concerned with factual questions, while the latter is concerned with aesthetic qualities. I argue that this picture of literary studies is fundamentally misguided. My central thesis is that positivists, though committed to value-neutrality, can nonetheless recognise the qualities that make a work of literature effective or rewarding. Literary appreciation is a form of understanding that involves evaluative terms. But if these terms are duly relativised to the interests of the historical agents, they can be used to articulate empirically testable statements about the work in question.
In the first section, I set out some principles to define a positivist philosophy of the humanities. I use the term ›positivism‹ to designate an approach exemplified by Otto Neurath, who systematically opposes the reification of meanings and values in the humanities. While some scholars in the analytical tradition call into question positivism by invoking Wittgenstein, I will suggest that his later philosophy is for the most part compatible with Neurath’s mindset. The following sections attempt to spell out a positivist account of literary appreciation. I develop this account by examining the philosophy of criticism proposed by Stein Haugom Olsen and Peter Lamarque, the most prominent advocates of the idea that appreciation goes beyond mere understanding. In discussing their misappropriation of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, it will become apparent that they tend to idealise literary practice and its rules. Their description of the institution of literature mixes factual questions with personal value judgements. Positivists, by contrast, seek to distinguish factual matters from subjective judgements and to limit the study of literature as far as possible to the former. They advise critics to approach works of literature in the spirit of scientific inquiry. This does not mean, however, that there is no place for emotional experience and evaluative behaviour in the framework of positivism. To account for these aspects of literary scholarship, a theory of historical empathy is needed that clarifies the function of evaluative expressions in the explanation of literature. I will argue that value terms are used not solely or primarily to articulate what makes the work under consideration pleasurable for the scholar who uses them; their principal function is to indicate what makes a work satisfying from the perspective of the writer or from the perspectives of the groups the author seeks to impress. Empathy is exhibited in the willingness to use evaluative language to make sense of the writer’s behaviour, regardless of whether one finds the work personally rewarding or not.
References
Achermann, Eric, Was ist Literatur? Peter Lamarque, in: Johannes Müller-Salo (ed.), Analytische Philosophie. Eine Einführung in 16 Fragen und Antworten, Paderborn 2020 (forthcoming).Search in Google Scholar
Anscombe, Gertrude E.M., Intention, Oxford 1958.10.1007/978-1-349-86211-5_2Search in Google Scholar
Ayer, Alfred J., Introduction, in: A.J.A. (ed.), Logical Positivism, New York 1959, 3–28.Search in Google Scholar
Ayer, Alfred J., Language, Truth, and Logic [1936], London 21946.Search in Google Scholar
Barrett, Louise, Enactivism, pragmatism… behaviorism?, Philosophical Studies 176:3 (2019), 807–818.10.1007/s11098-018-01231-7Search in Google Scholar
Bearn, Gordon, Still Looking for Proof. A Critique of Smith’s Relativism, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49:4 (1991), 297–306.10.1111/1540_6245.jaac49.4.0297Search in Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold, Genius. A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds, London 2002.Search in Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold, The Anatomy of Influence. Literature as a Way of Life, New Haven, CT 2011.Search in Google Scholar
Buckridge, Patrick J., Appreciation, in: Roland Greene (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics [1965], Princeton 42012, 62.Search in Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf, The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language [1931], in: Alfred J. Ayer (ed.), Logical Positivism, New York 1959, 60–81.Search in Google Scholar
Collingwood, Robin G., The Idea of History [1946], revised edition with lectures 1926–28, ed. by Jan van der Dussen, Oxford 1993.Search in Google Scholar
Dent, Edward J., The Rise of the Romantic Opera, ed. by Winton Dean, Cambridge 1976.Search in Google Scholar
Dutton, Denis, The Art Instinct. Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution, Oxford 2009.Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Matthew, Ezra Pound’s Fascist Propaganda, 1935–1945, London 2013.10.1057/9781137345516Search in Google Scholar
Griffin, Jasper, Gods and Religion, in: Stephen Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Horace, Cambridge 2007, 181–194.10.1017/CCOL0521830028.014Search in Google Scholar
Griffin, Roger, Fascism, Cambridge 2018.10.4135/9781526416513.n32Search in Google Scholar
Gundolf, Friedrich, Goethe, Berlin 1913.Search in Google Scholar
Haller, Rudolf, Was Wittgenstein a Neopositivist?, in: R.H., Questions on Wittgenstein, London 1988, 27–43.10.4324/9781315775241-10Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter, Wittgenstein and the Autonomy of Humanistic Understanding, in: P.H., Wittgenstein. Connections and Controversies, Oxford 2001, 34–73.10.1093/019924569X.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter, Human Nature. The Categorical Framework, Oxford 2007.10.1002/9780470692165Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter, Wittgenstein’s Anthropological and Ethnological Approach, in: P.H., Wittgenstein. Comparisons and Context, Oxford 2013, 111–127.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674824.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter, The Passions. A Study of Human Nature, Oxford 2018.10.1002/9781118951866Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter, Wittgenstein. Meaning and Mind [1990], Oxford ²2019.10.1002/9781118951781Search in Google Scholar
Hacker, Peter/Gordon Baker, Wittgenstein. Understanding and Meaning. Volume 1 of an Analytical Commentary of the Philosophical Investigations. Part I. Essays [1980], Oxford ²2005.10.1002/9780470753101Search in Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl, Logical Positivism and the Social Sciences [1969], in: James H. Fetzer (ed.), The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Studies in Science, Explanation, and Rationality, Oxford 2001, 253–275 (Hempel 2001a).Search in Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl, Reasons and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation [1963], in: James H. Fetzer (ed.), The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Studies in Science, Explanation, and Rationality, Oxford 2001, 297–310 (Hempel 2001b).Search in Google Scholar
Hirsch, Eric D., Validity in Interpretation, New Haven, CT 1967.10.5040/9781350928510Search in Google Scholar
Hume, David, Dialogues on Natural Religion [1779], ed. by John Gaskin, Oxford 1993.Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Literature, in: Berys Gaut/Dominic Lopes (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, London 2001, 449–461.Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Appreciation and Literary Interpretation, in: Michael Krausz (ed.), Is There a Single Right Interpretation?, University Park, PA 2002, 285–306.10.5325/j.ctv14gp0qq.18Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Aesthetics and Literature. A Problematic Relation?, Philosophical Studies 135:1 (2007), 27–40.10.1007/s11098-007-9090-3Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, The Philosophy of Literature, Oxford 2009.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198236818.003.0015Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, The Uselessness of Art, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68:3 (2010), 205–214.Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Prolegomena to Any Future Philosophy of Literature, Frame 24:1 (2011), 54–64.Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Historical Embeddedness and Aesthetic Autonomy, in: Owen Hulatt (ed.), Aesthetic and Artistic Autonomy, London 2013, 51–63.Search in Google Scholar
Lamarque, Peter, Wittgenstein, Literature and the Idea of Practice, in: P.L., The Opacity of Narrative, London 2014, 105–119.10.1093/aesthj/ayq040Search in Google Scholar
Leavis, Frank R., Reality and Sincerity [1952], in: F.R.L., A Selection from Scrutiny, Vol. 1, Cambridge 1968, 248–257.10.1017/CBO9780511552793.002Search in Google Scholar
Malcolm, Norman, Wittgenstein. A Religious Point of View?, ed. by Peter Winch, London 1993.10.4324/9780203046241Search in Google Scholar
Margolis, Joseph, John Reichert. Making Sense of Literature, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37:1 (1978), 93–96.10.2307/430881Search in Google Scholar
Moyal-Sharrock, Danièle, Wittgenstein’s Razor. The Cutting Edge of Enactivism, American Philosophical Quarterly 50:3 (2013), 263–279.Search in Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto, Foundations of the Social Sciences, Chicago, IL 1944.Search in Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto, Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, ed. by Robert S. Cohen/Marie Neurath, Dordrecht 1983.10.1007/978-94-009-6995-7Search in Google Scholar
Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), Vermischte Bemerkungen/Blüthenstaub, in: Novalis, Werke, Tagebücher und Briefe, Vol. 2: Das philosophisch-theoretische Werk, ed. by Hans Joachim Mähl, München 1978, 225–285.Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, Stein Haugom, The End of Literary Theory, Oxford 1987.10.1017/CBO9780511983498Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, Stein Haugom, Conventions and Rules in Literature, Metaphilosophy 31:1–2 (2000), 25–42.10.1111/1467-9973.00128Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, Stein Haugom/Peter Lamarque, Truth, Fiction, and Literature. A Reply to Keith Campbell, Literature and Aesthetics 5 (1995), 141–143.Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, Stein Haugom/Peter Lamarque, The Philosophy of Literature. Pleasure Restored, in: Peter Kivy (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Oxford 2004, 195–214.10.1111/b.9780631221319.2003.00013.xSearch in Google Scholar
Olsen, Stein Haugom/Peter Lamarque, Literature and Fiction, in: Daphne Patai (ed.), Theory’s Empire. An Anthology of Dissent, New York 2005, 636–651.Search in Google Scholar
Pater, Walter, The Renaissance. Studies in Art and Poetry, London 1902.Search in Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman, Word and Object [1960], ed. by Dagfinn Føllesdal, Cambridge, MA 2013.10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Reichert, John, Making Sense of Literature, Chicago, IL 1977.Search in Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz, Max Weber’s Methodology. The Unification of the Cultural and Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA 1997.Search in Google Scholar
Rundle, Bede, Facts, London 1993.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, Contingencies of Value. Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory, Cambridge, MA 1988.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, The Truth/Value of Judgments, in: Robert F. Goodman/Walter R. Fisher (eds.), Rethinking Knowledge. Reflections Across the Disciplines, Albany, NY 1995, 23–39.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, Doing Without Meaning, in: B.H.S., Belief and Resistance. Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy, Cambridge, MA 1997, 52–72.Search in Google Scholar
Spoerhase, Carlos, Autorschaft und Interpretation. Methodische Grundlagen einer philologischen Hermeneutik, Berlin 2007.10.1515/9783110921649.1Search in Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas, Philosophy of Social Science in Early Logical Positivism. The Case of Radical Physicalism, in: Alan Richardson/T.U. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, Cambridge 2007, 250–277.10.1017/CCOL0521791782.011Search in Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas, Opposition to Verstehen in Orthodox Logical Empiricism, in: Uljana Feest (ed.), Historical Perspectives on Erklären and Verstehen, Dordrecht 2010, 291–309.10.1007/978-90-481-3540-0_15Search in Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas, Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the Bipartite Metatheory Conception, Erkenntnis 78:3 (2013), 523–546.10.1007/s10670-011-9352-5Search in Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas, Neurath on Verstehen, European Journal of Philosophy (2019), (forthcoming).10.1111/ejop.12469Search in Google Scholar
Wellek, René, Literary Theory, Criticism, and History, Sewanee Review 68:1 (1960), 1–19 (Wellek 1960a).Search in Google Scholar
Wellek, René, Reply to Bernard C. Heyl, Sewanee Review 68:2 (1960), 349–350 (Wellek 1960b).Search in Google Scholar
Wellek, René, The Attack on Literature, The American Scholar 42:1 (1973), 27–42.Search in Google Scholar
Wellek, René, Criticism as Evaluation, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119:5 (1975), 397–400.Search in Google Scholar
Wellek, René, The New Criticism. Pro and Contra, Critical Inquiry 4:4 (1978), 611–624.10.1086/447958Search in Google Scholar
Wettstein, Howard, Speaking for Another, in: Allesandro Capone/Ferenc Kiefer/Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Speaking for Another. Indirect Reports and Pragmatics, Cham 2015, 405–435.10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_19Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, in: James Klagge/Alfred Nordmann (eds.), Philosophical Occasions 1912–1951, Indianapolis, IN 1993, 119–155.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Georg Henrik von, Explanation and Understanding, London 1971.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Georg Henrik von, Valuations – or How to Say the Unsayable, Ratio 13:4 (2000), 347–357.10.1111/1467-9337.00160Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
