Use Values

In a comment on this post, Amardeep Singh writes:

My main question for you so far is why you feel the "literary" value of literary texts is separate from the other values those texts contain. Much of what one finds in really good literature has to do with philosophy, history, and yes, politics.

In a separate post on his own blog, Amardeep explains further:

The reason I feel confident teaching literature for its potential social usefulness (again, broadly conceived) is that I think that an overwhelming number of writers, British, American, and non-Western, themselves write with some idea of usefulness in mind. The value of literature is almost never just "literary," even for writers; one also reads (or writes) literature to engage ideas from philosophy (inclusive of ethics and morality), history, and politics. None of these related regimes of thought are by any means required to be obviously present, and some writers might really not be interested in things like politics or history. There aren't many of them, and most who say they aren't interested are lying. Even the great, "literary literary" T.S. Eliot explicitly coupled his taste in literature ("classicist") with a politics ("royalist") and a religion ("Anglo-Catholicism").

I well understand the point Amardeep is making--literature has potential use value in multiple contexts separate from one's purely "literary" experience of poetry or fiction--but quite frankly I do indeed feel that "the 'literary' value of literary texts is separate from the other values those texts contain" because otherwise the word "literary" simply has no meaning. If the literary value of a work of literature can't be separated from the other values Amardeep, or anyone else, finds there, then in what sense is there any such thing as literary value at all? Otherwise isn't the value philosophical, historical, or political? I suppose one could say that finally "literature" itself doesn't exist except as a vehicle for philosophy or politics, but I can't say that and never will.

Similarly, there certainly are many writers who want to engage with philosophical or cultural issues, but to the extent they become preoccupied with these issues it seems to me they are no longer fiction writers or poets per se. They've become philosophers or cultural critics. This is ok by me, but I don't see why I have to consider them as literary artists when clearly their goal is not to create literary art but to "say something." Just say it.

This problem has only become more acute as the goal of academic literary study has drifted away form the study of literature "in, of, and for itself" and toward adopting the practices of all other discpilines in the pursuit of "knowledge." This was probably inevitable, and I am really only responding to my sense of its inevitabilty by suggesting that perhaps literature and the academy have finally proven to be not such a good "fit." If historians or philosophers or sociologists (or literature professors, for that matter) want to use works of literature to illuminate or illustrate non-literary issues in those disciplines I surely have no objection, but I just can't see how such practices could be called part of "literary study" unless, again, the word "literary" is simply an empty expression having something to do with "writing." I have an especially hard time seeing how adopting such practices in courses nominally devoted to "literature" adds much to either the understanding of literature or any of the other "regimes of thought" Amardeep mentions.

"Are there forms of cultural expression that contain "literary value" that are not themselves literature?" I suppose if "literary value" is reduced to something like "storytelling" or "personal expression," then perhaps other, non-literary forms could be said to have it. Surely, however, this is so reductive that almost everyone would finally agree there isn't much point to hanging on any longer to either the concept of "literary value" or the category of works now called "literature." At what point do we say that, as far as the academy is concerned, both literature and "the literary" have become so thoroughly shorn of any values in particular that it's no longer very useful to claim them as subjects at all?

Comments

[Matt]

That should read, "there being"--sorry. I still subscribe to the idea that there is no "outside the text" as such.

[Matt]

"I suppose one could say that finally "literature" itself doesn't exist except as a vehicle for philosophy or politics, but I can't say that and never will."

Isn't it a question of excess, of what literature *is* *beyond* philosophy or politics, not whether it is *pure* of them or not (which it never is, in the sense of their being no "outside the text.")

[Dan Green]

The issue is not really content vs. form. Finally these two things are intertwined in a particular way that creates meaning or provides a reading experience in a specifically "literary" way. Frankly, most current academic critics in English departments just don't want to study literature at all. In my opinion.

[amcorrea]

But what about the study of music? It seems that the current issue re. lit. study may be the elevation of "content" at the expense of "form." Would that be accurate to say?

Just as music majors get inside the "theory" of the construction of notes on a page, can't the lit. major get inside the functions and techniques of the words on a page (form)?

And I agree with Kevin--literature (like music) communicates on deeper levels. Like T.S. Eliot said, "Great art can communicate before it is understood."

[Dan Green]

Literature can indeed do all of those things you mention, Kevin, but I can't see how they can be the basis of, specifically, academic literary study. Courses in history, philosophy, and ethics treat history, philosophy and ethics.

[Kevin Holtsberry]

Dan,

Doesn't Art communicate something more than just "this is art?" Can't literature be great literature (in, of and for itself) but ALSO communicate something deeper about life that touches on history, philosophy, ethics, etc.

In these type of works we don't trample the aesthetics to get to the politics but rather we marvel at how the literary can communicate things in a deeper way than straight non-fiction prose. Does that make sense?

[R. A. Rubin]

A message story, a political message in lit does not have much shelf life. Hemmingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls has acleara political message. Today, the adventure and love story is what the reader cares about. The politics of the Fascists and Leftists seems quaint, a historical footnote. If the author only wrote political narratives, For Whom the bell Tolls would not be remembered.

[amcorrea]

If "usefulness" means "marketable skills," then one could argue that "literary study" isn't much "use"--and then easily co-opted by other (more "popular"?) fields.

But how can literary study in and of itself *not* have value? When I read and/or study a work (the specifically "literary" aspects such as word choice, metaphor, allusion, symbolism, imagery, etc.), I am employing analytical skills that are tied to aspects of myself that are not touched (or "used") in any other way. I am enlarged (if you will) as a human being. Art as experience adds experiences to my life. One may as well say, What good are experiences?

Some also may say that beauty is useless (except for when it's used as a marketing tool). But there is a necessary difference between "survival value" and the ability to lend "value to survival"--which is what literature does. "Use" and "value" shouldn't always be interchangeable terms.