7157813.

docx

School

Kenyatta University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

English

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BailiffBookCrow3

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 1 Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach Name Class Professor School Date

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 2 Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach Introduction The process of reading, comprehending and using the knowledge found in Biblical text that is meaningful to the beliefs, hopes and experiences that Christians encounter throughout their lives. To this end, religious scholars and experts have sought to develop and refine structured means through which the Bible can be read and interpreted. These approaches include narrative criticism, rhetorical criticism, canonical criticism, final form criticism and a variety of other approaches conceived by different writers such as Duvall, Smith, Hays and McKnight. This analysis focuses of the exploration of the reader-response criticism and its usefulness in interpreting the Scripture. This discussion will further include the weaknesses of this hermeneutical approach, and historical precedents for this approach in the history of the church. This discussion will then conclude by analyzing how the reader-response criticism can be used in conjunction with other hermeneutical approaches to aid in readers’ and scholars’ understanding of the Bible. What is the Reader-Response Criticism? The Reader response criticism is a literary theory in modern academics that focuses on the readers’ experience of a text, compared to the bulk of previous theory that majorly focused on the form and content of Biblical text (Browne et al ., 2021). This acknowledgement of the reader’s critical role diverges from earlier text-based views found in brain-based psychological perspectives and New Criticism (Browne et al ., 2021). The reader response criticism was formulated by various literacy scholars such as Louise Rosenblatt, Stanley Fish, David Bleich, Wolfgang Iser and Norman Holland (Browne et al ., 2021). This theory strongly suggests that

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 3 textual meaning is subjective and occurs within the reader’s response to text, and in doing so, recognizes the different factors that potentially affect understanding. This criticism engages with the reader as an active agent of meaning, whose imparting of real existence allows them to interpret the text. The reader response theory therefore identifies the significant role played by a reader in constructing and interpreting textual meanings ( Sadoski & Paivio, 2013 ). The basic assumption of this criticism is that the text and the reader combine to form meaning through the ideas and thoughts that a reader brings to a text, and the experience of reading it is the mechanism of creating meaning. According to Mailloux (2018) , this criticism purports that the text is a reflection of the reader, distinguishing itself from Formalist criticism that strongly argues for the autonomy of a particular text. One of the criticism’s main arguments is that literature ought to be viewed as performance art in which the audience creates their own understanding of the text ( Webb, 2016 ). Another core argument of the reader response criticism is that a text does not have a meaning before it is experienced through reading. For this reason, the reader-response criticism is connected to the emphasis of post-structuralism on readers’ role in being active participants in the text rather than passive consumers. This approach has its origins in the methods of 20 th century philosophers Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s framework of thought (Sadjadi, 2017, p. 2). The approach has suitably been developed in recent decades to accommodate concepts such as Negation, Assimilation, Horizons of Expectation, Gaps, Implied and Actual Reader dichotomy among many other constituents (Sadjadi, 2017, p. 3).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 4 Strengths The reader response criticism allows readers to understand and interpret text in different ways that are subjective to their understanding. This application of subjective experiences enhances understanding through the use of personality traits, past experiences, expectations and memories applied to text. In doing so, this approach allows readers to look past the words of the text, instead searching for deeper meanings that relate to people’s lives. Another advantage of the reader-response criticism allows readers to recognize the existence of other views and perspectives gained by others during reading. From an academic perspective, this criticism is invaluably informative to understanding how different readers interact with Biblical text. Weaknesses Based on the different perspectives held by different individual from different backgrounds, the use of the reader response criticism results in extremely skewed outlooks on different literature such as religious text. Also, the criticism poses the risk of individuals applying personal interpretation to text that is misaligned with the original meaning intended by the author. This is quite evident in the Bible where the interpretation of many of the books wildly varies according to different backgrounds and different religious values. Another disadvantage of the reader response criticism is that the reader’s subjective interpretation has the potential of creating narrow connections to text rather than considering a wider and more general perspective that is more informative. According to Tyson (2014) , another disadvantage of the reader response criticism is that it may focus too much on the importance of the reader and their response, rather than the text and the context within which it was set.

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 5 Objections One of the main objections against reader response criticism in religious studies is that it does not accommodate for the capacity of the text to expand the understanding of readers ( Iser, 2013, p. 11 ). The process of reading often allows individuals to gain new understanding within the text, which adds to their existing ideas and experiences. The reader response criticism focuses on the existing experiences and knowledge, and thus suffers a high risk of excluding new insight that may be valuable. Further objections to this criticism is found in the form of traditional text-oriented theories like Formalism, which describes reader response criticism as anarchic subjectivism ( Botica, 2013, p. 519 ). This stems from the tendency of the reader response criticism to allow readers to interpret text in ways that suit them. These text oriented criticisms are more focused on text being understandable while immune to individual influence, thus remaining objective ( Al-Haba, 2013, p. 84 ). In general, the reader response criticism is challenged owing to its significantly dominant lack of emphasis on biographical and historical contexts. This stems from the criticisms focus on reader’s contexts which wildly vary and can be affected by a range of factors. Historical Precedents of the Reader-Response Criticism According to Bennett & Royle, (2016) , the reader response criticism emerged as a modern literary philosophy between 1960 and the 1980s, pioneered by Wolfgang Iser in Germany and Norman Holland, Stanley Fish and Roland Barthes in the United States. According to Mart (2019) , scholar Louise Rosenblatt pointed out that reading literature is an exploration that allows readers to use their history and emotions to find meaning in the text. This is incredibly relevant to the Scripture which is a source of divine nourishment that is read and

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 6 understood in different ways by different readers and audiences ( Nemes, 2020, p. 73 ). Since the 1930s, Louise M. Rosenblatt strongly denied the notion of text having authority over the audience, because readers and the text are considered partners in the interpretive process. Stemming from Rosenblatt’s work, the branch of transactional response was conceived, with the belief that the reader is an entity that affects and reacts to the environment as a single complete event. How it has been used throughout church history According to Fowler (2008), the reader response criticism offers some utility from the process of engaging readers with the Scripture at a deeply personal and spiritual level. Many scholars also cite that the foundation of reader response theory originates from the conversations between Jesus and those whom he addressed. Jesus always knew the identity of his audience, and always anticipated their reaction to His words. Jesus parable of the seeds can be used to better understand the reader response theory, since the parable dictated that similar seeds were thrown into different ground, each with a different result. This parable can be likened to the spread of the Gospel through the Bible, which is the same text availed to many different people, each of whom read and internalize the content at different rates with different perspectives (Fowler, 2008, p. 50). To gain a better understanding of the theory, one can study literature by Fowler (2008) which the author interacted with the reader-response criticism to better understand the Gospel of Mark. The article considers two core readings as an example to demonstrate reader response criticism, which are Mark Chapter 6 Verses 30 – 44 and Mark Chapter 8 Verses 1 – 10. These verses have extraordinarily similar events depicted in the text, given that Jesus fed five thousand

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 7 in Chapter 6, and then He fed a crowd of four thousand in Chapter 6 (Fowler, 2008, p. 50). The author further rationalizes that the real significance of the two narratives in the same book provide keen insight into the belief of the powers of holy men and women in the past. In doing so, it is clear that to better understand the meaning of Mark, it is important to look beyond the written text. Fowler (2008) further emphasizes that Biblical text does not approach readers while wearing an inherent meaning. The reader response critics therefore argue that meaning found in Biblical text is relative to the reader who is entirely responsible for interpreting the meaning. To this end, there are some key differences that emerge between the original audience of the Gospel of Mark compared to current Christian audiences. According to Fowler (2008), the Gospel of Mark was typically read aloud to a nearby audience, most of whom would have heard bits of the narratives in passing. The original audience, therefore, did not sit down in a quiet corner to read the different passages like the current audience. This means that much of the text was received and understood as religious lessons in public recitations. This reader response criticism is capable of identifying some of the gaps and conflicts that are realized in some of the Biblical text, in a way that would not be possible using other hermeneutical approaches. For instance, Fowler (2008) uses the criticism to identify conflicting events, such as in Mark Chapter 3 Verses 31 -35 where Jesus was teaching inside a house, then in Mark Chapter 4 Verse 1 where He was teaching on the shores of the sea. Using responsive reading, one can relate the events to the book of Mathew Chapter 13 Verse 1 which states that Jesus left the house to go and sit beside the sea where he administered to a nearby audience. Further evidence of this knowledge is found in Mark Chapter 3 Verse 6 which mentions the

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 8 Pharisees’ and Herodians’ plans to kill Jesus. Mark Chapter 3 Verse 7 then mentions that Jesus effectively withdrew to the Sea of Galilee, implying that he had been forewarned of the danger. This gap is suitably filled by Mathew Chapter 12 Verse 15 which states that Jesus knew of the plot and secured his safety. How it can be used with other approaches This approach is intricately linked to various facets of psychology such as experimental psychology and psychoanalytic psychology ( Van Peer, 2021 ). The reader response criticism can be combined with narrative criticism, which entirely focuses on the words, stories and perspectives of writers to help readers consider a more comprehensive understanding of the Scripture. Therefore, narrative criticism is an attempt to interpret Biblical text as part of a greater story that serves a unilaterally coherent ( Emanuel, 2018 ). This criticism actively pursues how the story was aligned by the writer, and the likely response that was sought from the audience. Combining the reader response perspective and the narrative perspective accounts for the two most important viewpoints when reading the Bible. Understanding the reader and the writer provides invaluable information to Biblical text, thus allowing the Scripture to be comprehended both objectively and subjective to develop a coherent understanding. Narrative criticism shares some aspects and considerations with more formal theories such as structuralism, which include literary forms such as poetry, rhetorical criticism and parallelism ( Foss, 2017 ). This is especially relevant to Biblical text given that the form and content was meant to be communicated in different ways to the original audience. Some of the books in the Scripture were meant as letters to particular religious communities, while others were testimonies of experiences and records meant to be read aloud to believers. Applying

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 9 concepts of narrative criticism to Biblical texts adds depth to particular forms such as songs, prayers and forms, enhancing the process of understanding and relating to the text. Conclusion The Reader-Response Criticism is a hermeneutical approach that focuses on a reader as a core instrument in constructing and understanding the meaning of a text. This approach was first formulated in the 1930s by Louise Rosenblatt who argued strongly against criticism theories that were primarily text-oriented and understated the role of a reader in interpreting text. This is an important point to notice in Biblical text, because the Scripture is highly spiritual and therefore relates to individuals on different levels. The approach was further enhanced by other scholars who refined the concept of reader response criticism as a subjective of relating to text on a level based on knowledge, values and experiences of readers. This method of understanding the Scripture has been encountered severally in the history of the church. The Bible has been re- distributed in different languages, which resulted in the translation into several versions for Christians in different regions. Some of these translations have required some words and phrases to be changed from their original translation to better suit the context and purpose of writing the Biblical text in question. Furthermore, reader response criticism has been used to identify some textual conflicts, such as in the Gospel of Mark, which are subsequently satisfied through the experiential reading of the book of Mathew which informs some of the lingering gaps in the narrative. Lastly, the reader response criticism bears some weaknesses such as narrow scope of forms and vague interpretations in some cases. These weaknesses can be resolved by combining the reader response criticism with other hermeneutical approaches such as the rhetoric criticism and the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 10 narrative criticism. The narrative criticism attempts to uncover the core meaning of Biblical text as a single coherent story that was intended to serve a spiritual purpose of nourishing the souls and minds of Christians. In general, the reader response criticism is incredibly useful to understanding Biblical text, since it fosters closer associations with the Scripture on a deeper spiritual level. However, it is worth noticing that the hermeneutical approach is inconclusive when used on its own, and requires the accompanying use of a complementary approach to fully appreciate the meaning found in Biblical texts.

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 11 References Al-Haba, M., 2013. Reader Response Theory in the Phenomenology of Reading with the text and the reader as its focal point. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR- JHSS) , 8 (6), pp.83-86. Bennett, A. and Royle, N., 2016. An introduction to literature, criticism and theory . Routledge. Botica, A., 2013. Intended’and ‘Experienced’Meaning: Reevaluating the Reader-Response Theory. Journal of Educational and Social Research , 3 (7), pp.519-519. Browne, S., Chen, X., Baroudi, F. and Sevinc, E., 2021. Reader Response Theory. Emanuel, S., 2018. Review of Danna Nolan Fewell, The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, New York, Oxford University Press, 2016. The Bible and Critical Theory , 14 (1). Foss, S.K., 2017. Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice . Waveland Press. Fowler, R.M., 2008. Reader-Response Criticism.”. Searching for Meaning: An Introduction to Interpreting the New Testament , pp.127-134. Iser, W., 2013. Reader-response criticism. Biblical Criticism: A Guide for the Perplexed , 264 , p.11. Mailloux, S., 2018. Interpretive conventions . Cornell University Press. Mart, C.T., 2019. Reader-response theory and literature discussions: A Springboard for exploring literary texts. The New Educational Review , 56 (2), pp.78-87.

Analysis of Reader Response Criticism Approach 12 Nemes, S., 2020. On Reading the Bible as Scripture, Encountering the Church. Perichoresis , 18 (5), pp.67-86. Sadoski, M. and Paivio, A., 2013. Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing . Routledge. Tyson, L., 2014. Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide . Routledge. Van Peer, W., 2021. Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding . Routledge. Webb, R., 2016. Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice . Routledge.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7157813.

Related Documents