Where Do You Stand, Essay Example

Formalism is a very appealing method of literary analysis. According to this method, representation is based on formal structure and not content. Formalism is one of the many theoretical approaches used to study literature by understanding the role of the literary artist, the audience and how each of them contributes to the meaning of a literary work.

The main reason why formalism is appealing is that it is less vulnerable to frequent changes in ideology, unlike other theories such as post modernism, feminism and mythological approaches. As Bennett notes, formalism was introduced into the world of literary analysis after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (45). As Erlich notes, when it was started, formalism was more of a school of thought than a movement since it was conceptualized by like-minded colleagues who used to meet frequently in order to discuss the best approach to use in reading and interpretation of texts (627).

Erlich goes on to list the key proponents of formalism as Roman Jakobson, Juri Tiniyanov and Viktor Shlovsky (627). All of these literary analysts were in support of a literary approach to literature that was scientific and formally ordered. They argued that literature should only be approached in its own unique terms, without any form of external influences. Formalists oppose any attempt to encompass personal characteristics, historical conditions or the sociopolitical atmosphere in which the work of literature has been written. In other words, says Erlich, things like a personal history of author or historical events at the time of literary composition are irrelevant details as far as literary analyses are concerned (629).

The name “formalism”, according to Tompkins, was chosen by opponents of the literary movement who considered the approach controversially structured and formal (267). The critics wondered why the author’s sociopolitical positioning was ignored yet it was the main source of insights and motivation during composition. Tompkins also reported that according to the formalists’ argument, formalism was an attractive approach since one could devise a methodology that was applicable across a wide cross-section of literary works, regardless of geographical or historical considerations (287).

Formalism arose out of opposition against Marxist literary theory because it was highly influenced by Marxist political thought, whose preoccupation was on the role of text in society and society in the text. Formalists wanted to move away from other psychoanalytic, historical and sociological theories as much as possible such that a text was allowed to stand alone as a creative piece. Shklovsky observes that towards this end, formalists embarked on the task of proposing a mechanism that would require that literary works be considered as machines whose functions could only be known if the component parts were identified and understood well (166).

Formalists, reports Tompkins, believe that it is not possible to understand words without first understanding the relationship that exists between the object, emotion or experience and the symbol that signifies it (188). Similarly, it is the relationships that exist between words that make different interpretations of a sentence possible. Additionally different sentences make it possible for a text to be interpreted in different ways. At this juncture, it is worth noting that formalists were very interested in paying attention to the poetic attributes of language. They argued that poetic attributes of a language, if well used, could enable the reader perceive a familiar situation in a completely new way, thereby enhancing meaning while at the same time making the text more interesting.

Newton observes that the main reason why formalism remains an attractive theoretical approach to literary analysts, according to is that it manages to destroy all common perceptions that readers always take for granted by automatically replacing them with fresh associations (187). Within the formalist way of thinking, it is possible to make dominant conceptions seem unfamiliar in order to rethink ideologies and historically placed themes in an objective manner. This explains why a reader can understand texts written in a far-away country whose cultural and sociopolitical lifestyles he does not understand.

The term “image” is often used by formalists. Similes and metaphors are images. The image is as important as the word, which is the most basic unit of language at the literary level. In addition to the image and the word, formalists are very much interested with linguistics and semantics. This shows a bias towards form as opposed to content. The tenets of formalism were used thirty years later to form the basis of a slightly different literary theory, known as structuralism. Formalism, notes Dawson, also influenced New Criticism, a literary approach which was based on the separation of the writer from the text as well as emphasis of content as the most authoritative foundation of literary analysis (112)

Formalism is one of the few literary theories that answered questions that were of interest to every literary theorist although in Newton’s view, there are some theorists who do not agree with all arguments and approaches that the theory pursues (74). The impression created by Newton is that if formalism created a lasting impact on literary theory, it was because it questioned some basic assumptions that had been the foundation of literary theory for many centuries (77).

Newton observes that one important area where formalism had a lasting impact was the introduction of the notion that art must be studied for art’s sake (65). This meant that no specifically articulated social, political and cultural goals could be used as the basis of literary analysis. In matters of literary interpretation, formalists were keen on offering a framework of accurately decoding and then understanding all texts only on the basis of the information they contained.

Erlich, in his article entitled “Russian Formalism” which was published in the Journal of the History of Ideas, observes that although it started in Russia, formalist theory has become very popular in the American literary landscape, where it continues to maintain formidable influence (631). The popular approach that emphasizes on a methodical reading of texts is founded on the tenets of formalism. As far as formalists are concerned, Erlich adds, only the formal structure should be used to catalog as well as compare different works of art. This brings to the fore the most attractive provision of formalist theory: the truths (human conditions) are static, enduring and completely applicable to all humanity.

Formalism intended to reject impressionism and moral tones for literature to be perceived as the “language game” that it is.  It is not surprising, then, that formalists are very interested in ambiguity, intention, irony, and images. The scientific approach that is used in formalism has led to the transformation of the theory from a mere methodology to a constantly evolving field of inquiry that analyzes literature as a composition from where a specified series of facts can be identified.

Today, the discussion on whether the formalist approach is credible or it is too general is ongoing. It is interesting that the unresolved issues about the generality of the theory have formed a point of focus for today’s comparative literary theorists. For these reasons, formalism greatly appeals to me.

Works Cited

Bennett, Tony. Formalism and Marxism. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Dawson, Paul. Creative Writing and the New Humanities. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Shklovsky, Viktor. Theory of Prose. Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press, 1991.

Erlich, Victor. “Russian Formalism” Journal of the History of Ideas, 34 (4) 627-638, 1973.

Tompkins, Jane. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 2002.

Newton, K. Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: A Reader, London: Macmillan,1988